Related to the story of Europe’s power collapse posted below

/

Who expected this? An objective news article on “renewable” energy. Its author, Tux Terkel, tips his hat to the goals of the greenies (it wouldn’t surprise me if he were one himself) but then delves into the actual reasons behind Maine’s difficulties — reasons that are applicable to many other states, in fact.

Maine’s electricity prices grew at the third fastest rate in the country, analysis shows

Between 2014 and 2024, the average retail price for electricity in Maine increased by the third highest rate in the country, according to an analysis by The Maine Monitor, surpassed only by California and Massachusetts.

The average retail price of electricity in Maine during the 10-year period rose from 12.65 cents/kWh to 19.62 cents, according to data collected by the federal Energy Information Administration. That’s an increase of 55 percent. 

At the same time, the average retail price of electricity in the United States rose from 10.44 cents/kWh to 12.99, or 24 percent.

Maine’s rate of increase, then, was more than twice the national average. But it was considerably less than California, which saw its average price grow from 15.15 cents/kWh to 27 cents, a 78 percent jump.

In New England, Maine was followed by Massachusetts, which climbed from 15.35 cents to 23.98 cents, or 56 percent. Rhode Island grew at more than 54 percent, going from 15.41 cents in 2014, to 23.85 cents last year.

As electricity demand grows, affordable power is critical to a viable energy policy. But Maine’s energy policy is under fire: in Washington, the Trump administration is moving to withdraw most federal financial support for clean electricity in favor of boosting oil, coal and natural gas. It also has begun to challenge state efforts aimed at slowing global warming.

…. Against that backdrop, why did Maine’s electricity prices grow so fast, and what might it mean for the quest to make electricity more affordable in the future?

Promoted by Gov. Janet Mills, Maine has set a goal of getting 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2040. This aggressive target aims to blunt the impacts of a warming climate, largely by cutting the harmful emissions from burning oil and natural gas. But this goal is juxtaposed against another primary objective of the state’s updated energy plan: “Deliver affordable energy for Maine people and businesses.” 

A key way to achieve both objectives, state energy planners say, is to shift the way we fuel our cars and heat our buildings to efficient, electric-powered technologies powered by renewable energy sources. This strategy is called “beneficial electrification.” Measures include heat pumps for air and water, battery-powered vehicles, solar and wind generation and energy storage. 

But a corollary to beneficial electrification is that electricity has to be affordable. Otherwise, residents and businesses have little incentive to switch. 

Here’s the dilemma. At the same time Maine’s cost of electricity has been rising steeply, some of the proposed pathways to an all-electric future are facing unexpected challenges, both in terms of cost and availability. Examples include offshore wind, electric vehicles, heat pumps and new transmission lines. 

RELATED STORY:   Maine’s clean electricity goals face unpredictable costs, availability

Blaming natural gas, but it’s complicated

First, why did Maine’s electricity prices rise at such a fast pace?

Harwood and other energy experts blame three main factors — natural gas availability and price, a too-generous solar incentive program and recovery costs from recent violent storms.

Natural gas is the leading cause, but the reasons are more complicated than they may appear. 

More than half of New England’s generating capacity comes from gas-fired power plants. This status dates back 25 years, as the region sought to phase out expensive and polluting oil generation.

Public opposition to more nuclear plants eliminated that carbon-free option. But new gas supplies in Canada and the Marcellus shale fields in Pennsylvania during the 1990s led policy makers and investors to back generators that promised cleaner air and lower prices. They were also quick to build. Several new gas power plants went up, including ones in Westbrook, Rumford, Veazie and Bucksport that benefited from two new gas pipelines from Canada.

But because these power plants respond daily to changing electricity demand, they aren’t able to secure the lowest gas prices through long-term contracts. As more businesses and homes converted to gas, the region’s pipeline system didn’t have enough capacity on frigid winter days. In response, developers sought to build new lines, including one through western Massachusetts. 

A plan for Maine electric customers to help pay for some of the new capacity was championed by Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican. But new pipelines drew stiff opposition from local residents and some Democratic politicians.

Environmental groups also said new gas capacity would lock in the region’s dependence on fossil fuels for decades. Following legal actions, the projects were largely abandoned, including the $3 billion Northeast Energy Direct in 2016 that would have added to Maine’s supply. 

Maine pays more for natural gas

This left New England electric customers at a disadvantage, according to Rich Silkman, an economist and former head of the Competitive Energy consulting firm in Portland. Pipelines carrying gas into the region from Pennsylvania face a pipeline constraint beyond the Hudson River, causing wholesale prices to rise significantly on the coldest days. This, in turn, caused electricity prices to soar.

Maine suffers the greatest impact, Silkman said. Gas from the Marcellus region must head first into the Boston area, before being delivered north into Maine and Atlantic Canada. This adds to the wholesale cost of gas for generators here, meaning that they run only at costly times to meet peak demand. On top of that, Burgess pointed out, the region depends on expensive, overseas shipments of liquefied natural gas in the winter to supplement domestic supply.

Over the 10-year period, electricity supply has been the single biggest share of a home’s monthly power bill. It has ranged from roughly 6 cents/kWh for Central Maine Power and Versant Power/Bangor Hydro customers in 2015, to more than 16 cents in 2023, following the spike in global energy markets tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These supply costs made up between 45 percent and 59 percent of a total bill.

It’s easy to blame natural gas price volatility for higher electricity costs. But Silkman said natural gas opponents also should acknowledge that Maine’s higher than average electric rates are partly self-imposed, through public opposition and public policy.

“Maine tried to get a gas pipeline built,” he said, “but it had to go through Massachusetts. We could have easily expanded the gas pipeline and that would have solved our winter pricing problems.”

….. “The bogeyman here in New England is that, except for a couple of volatile years, natural gas is the fuel of choice for generation,” [Barbara Alexander, a consumer energy consultant] said. “So either make gas cheaper or replace it. Neither of those things has happened.”

…. But one element that colors the debate over how solar policy contributes to high electric bills is, literally, perspective.

By law, the PUC must annually study the costs and benefits of net energy billing. The latest analysis featured three “perspectives,” on the value of the program — for society in general, for Maine specifically and for electric ratepayers. The study’s primary focus is on the general society perspective.

By that measure, the 2024 program costs were $202 million and the societal benefits were $194 million. This calculation included $53 million of benefits for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, the ratepayer benefits were only $80 million. A bottom-line perspective: Reducing climate change emissions is good for the planet, but so far, has done little to lower your electric bill.

Interesting timing — I was just about to post two articles on why Maine's "renewable energy" policies are doubling the price of electricity while making its power supply riskier

/

Sold in Old Greenwich

/

37 Lincoln Avenue, $4.550 million. A complete rehab/expansion, the 2,000 sq. ft. original 1939 cape (below) was listed January 1 @$1.9 million, sold to this contractor for $2.225 million. Actual closing didn’t occur until May, presumably to allow the builder to get the necessary permits approved, because he obviously hit the ground running when title finally passed. It’s now 4,700 sq. ft., a two-car garage has replaced the single one, and everything inside is new.

This never made it to the MLS so there are no pictures up on the usual real estate sites, but here are a few from the MLS:

As it was

I thought this stunt was a little over the top, even for Trump, when I first read about it but then ....

/

Advertising on the White House lawn? Tacky. However, the media insists on playing weepy stories featuring “Maryland Man”, “Grandmother” (neglecting to add, “grandmother and fentanyl dealer”, and “child shipped alone to Honduras”, and so on; that pleases its base, but not the rest of the country, so why not remind that majority of voters which side the Democrats and their monkey are on, while boasting about the success in closing the border?

Besides, this is pure, wicked genius — Oooh, the embarrassment! :

“The placards were strategically placed where news outlets film live shots in a bid to make sure they’re caught on camera, an official told Axios, who was first to report on the posters.”

Richmond Hill: not yet out of the grave, but this pending sale indicates that it may at least have one foot outside it

/

85 Richmond Hill Road is reported as pending after just 32 days on the market at $6.795 million. That has to come as encouraging news to other homeowners on this benighted street that saw a mini-boom of mansion construction in 2003-2006 and a subsequent collapse of prices in the two decades that followed. This home’s sales history offers a good illustration of that tale of woe.

  • Built in 2004-2005, it sold for $7.1 million in 2006 — $11.427 in current dollars

  • Placed back on the market in 2007 at $8.9 million. it lingered for 1,027 days before finally selling for $4.825 in 2013.

  • Once again put up for sale in 2016 at $5.250 million, it took four years for these current owners to appear, and they were only willing to pay $3.550.

It’s nice to see that someone is finally making money on this street way out in nowhere.

Modern Journalism: Monkey See, Monkey Do

/

(Yes, I know that baboons aren’t technically monkeys, but I decided that they made for a more dramatic picture — deal with it)

PJ Media’s Scott Pinsker offers a spot-on précis of how, and the why, of the media’s coverage of news events:

SHAMEFUL: Media Attacks Republican Women as Ugly — and Why It’s About to Get So Much Worse

…. Divining the mainstream media’s tea leaves is about 25% understanding human nature, and 75% knowing how the media works. The media might be monstrous, vain, and partisan, but they’re still comprised of flesh-and-blood human beings. They’re members of a very specific tribe, and within that tribe, there’s groupthink, social expectations, a code of conduct, and shared values. 

More often than not, the real story isn’t what they published — but why they published it. Once you figure that part out, it’s easy to stay ahead of ‘em.

I’ll show you how it works:

The first telltale sign is when the media outlets at the top of the hierarchy all begin publishing the same stories.

The media industry is a top-down ecosystem; the minnows take their cues from the whales. Even today, you’d be surprised how many small market news directors will religiously tear through The New York Times before assigning any stories.

Why?

Because that’s how they were trained. 

As a practical matter, it empowers the larger media outlets to set the national agenda, because this ecosystem gives their stories legs: First The New York Times will report on it; then the mid-tier and low-tier ones echo it; then The Times will circle back with a follow-up story about how this is a huge deal in the heartland — citing those mid- and low-tier outlets’ stories a few days later.

It’s incestuous, self-serving, and won’t work indefinitely, but it guarantees a story will stay in circulation for at least a week — and with just a little luck, much longer than that. 

Either way, in today’s 24/7 media culture, a week is an eternity. You can do a lot of damage in a week.

The second sign is when the same stories all echo the same themes.

When a mainstream media thought leader, like The New York Times, NBC News, or The Atlantic gives a story their “seal of approval,” it’s kind of like the phenomenon with the ugly dude and the hot girlfriend: That editorial “spin” has already won the support of their industry’s A-Listers.

If you’re a low-rung journalist with ambition, it’s awfully tempting to hop aboard that bandwagon and cry “One of us!” — and so, lots of ‘em do. (Hey, they wanna work at The New York Times one day, too.)

When three or more A-Listers in the mainstream media release the same story with the same theme, it means you’ll be hearing about it for no less than a week. If the story fails, it’ll go away.

But conservatives don’t get to decide if a story fails! 

That takes us to the third sign: Stories that animate liberals will always be elevated.

This usually means that liberal causes, politicians, and policies will be promoted and conservative ones trashed, but not always. Sometimes, liberals like to read about doom-and-gloom — that “The End Is Nigh!” (They’re pessimistic by nature and enjoy doom-scrolling.)

But no matter what, the stories and spin will always reflect a VERY leftwing worldview.

Why?

Because the media is VERY liberal and they’re primarily concerned with impressing each other. 

Between 95% and 97% of all journalists’ donations go to Democrats. If you’re a journalist, your next job will be in a liberal office. Whoever hires you will be liberal; your new colleagues will be liberal. Your professional success (mostly) depends on being well-liked by liberal gatekeepers.

In this ecosystem, conservatives just don’t matter. (And, when you read their work, it certainly shows.)

I’ll give you a quick example: Yesterday, three mainstream media heavyweights — The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Independent — all released stories with the exact same theme: The Trump administration is filled with virtue-signaling, cosplaying, unmanly and/or wrongly-gendered phonies who are ugly-looking.

Pinsker proceeds to show this process by citing three articles on exactly the same theme: “Republican women are ugly and fake” by the NYT. the Atlantic, and the Independent, all published within 24 hours of each other, and he predicts that Jimmy Kimmel and other late night “comics” will have picked it up and run with it by tonight. That, in turn, will spur more coverage by more “journalists”, and it will be the hot theme; until the monkeys are steered to a new one by their betters.

Oh, the HORROR! (Updated)

/

Trump should raze HUD headquarters to drain DC swamp

Gross negligence has always been HUD’s standard operating procedure

Jim Bovard, Fox News

The Trump administration just announced plans to sell the headquarters of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a brutalist architectural monstrosity. Secretary Scott Turner admits that HUD headquarters is "known as the ugliest building in D.C." 

The Trump administration is also seeking to terminate half of HUD’s staff and defund programs that have vexed America since the launch of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.  

  • Andrew Cuomo, former New York governor and Bill Clinton’s last HUD secretary, admitted in 1998 that HUD had been "the poster child for failed government." In 1976, Detroit City Council president (and future U.S. senator) Carl Levin denounced the agency as "Hurricane HUD" for ravaging the Motor City with reckless subsidized mortgages with stratospheric default rates. 

  • Vice President Al Gore denounced HUD-financed public housing projects in 1996: "These crime-infested monuments to a failed policy are killing the neighborhoods around them." In 2006, the leftist Village Voice labeled HUD as America’s worst landlord. 

Gross negligence has always been HUD’s standard operating procedure. In 2011, the Washington Post compiled hundreds of satellite images to prove that HUD’s largest homebuilding program was a "dysfunctional system that delivers billions of dollars to local housing agencies with few rules, safeguards or even a reliable way to track projects." 

HUD claimed to have no idea that billions of dollars of its grants had been misused or plundered and ignored a barrage of complaints from individuals whose neighborhoods were ravaged. HUD left a "trail of failed developments in every corner of the country. Fields where apartment complexes were promised are empty and neglected," the Post noted. 

  • Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton’s last HUD secretary, admitted in 1998 that HUD had been "the poster child for failed government."

During the 1990s, I spent many days at HUD headquarters investigating boondoggles. HUD was overstocked with the most depressed employees you would ever meet outside of a group therapy session in a city jail. After I wrote a Wall Street Journal piece headlined "Clinton’s Wrecking Ball for Suburbs," HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros denounced me for "unfortunate stereotyping of assisted-housing residents."

But not nearly as unfortunate as subsequent HUD-financed violent crime waves across the nation. In the first half of 2016, at least 30 people were killed at Section 8 residences in Chicago - along with 7,000 other reported crimes. 

In Houston, male Section 8 recipients are twice as likely to commit violent crimes as people with similar backgrounds and incomes who did not receive housing vouchers, according to a Texas A&M University study. A HUD-financed study found that Section 8 relocations "tripled the rate of arrests for property crimes" among boys who moved to new locales.

  • Vice President Al Gore denounced HUD-financed public housing projects in 1996: "These crime-infested monuments to a failed policy are killing the neighborhoods around them." (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

…. When Congress created HUD in 1965, it was supposed to bring social justice to American cities. But Sandra Thompson, Biden’s Federal Housing Finance Agency chief, testified to Congress in 2022 that the racial homeownership gap "is higher today than when the Fair Housing Act [of 1968] was passed." 

The Biden administration sought to "fix" that problem with a new mandate to punish mortgage borrowers with good credit ratings by forcing them to subsidize borrowers with shaky records of paying their bills. But "No Deadbeats Left Behind" is a poor maxim for mortgage policies. 

Secretary Turner is ready to abandon HUD headquarters, declaring that that agency’s focus is on "creating a workplace that reflects the values of efficiency, accountability and purpose." That 12-story building needs a half billion dollars in "deferred maintenance and modernization" expenses and costs more than $50 million a year to operate – despite being perennially half empty even before Trump’s mass firings. The maintenance and modernization costs far exceed the original cost of the building in inflation-adjusted dollars. 

UP DATE

A reader supplies an insider’s perspective:

On HUD, when I was a Counsel to the Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee, Cisneros testified before us. I told my boss (Jim Sensenbrener) to ask Cisneros if families that included convicted drug dealers and other felons were being evicted from HUD housing. Cisneros twice evaded the question, and then admitted that, no, they weren't being evicted bcs it would be unfair to the drug dealer's, murderer's, whatever's, other family members. 

Also, NYCHA was actually quite good and also proud of how it maintained public housing, that is, until Federal regs forced them to allow unsavory elements to remain.

Finally, Fannie and Freddie weren't really responsible for the GFC. Much more responsible were the Basel III banking regs which allowed banks to determine -- on their own -- what counted as Tier 1 capital.  They decided to count Fannie and Freddie debt as the equivalent of cash. My brother had been the Chief Compliance Officer at Bear Stearns. He told me that a five bps (0.05bps) decline in the value of Freddie and Fannie bonds would put every Wall St institution out of business.

He was right.

And I’ll add this: Back in the 80s and 90s, the Greenwich Housing Authority was incredible strict about drug dealers in our housing projects, and would evict entire families, including grandparents, if any member was dealing drugs. I was in Norwalk Housing Court on another matter one day, waiting for my own case to be called, and saw exactly such an eviction in process: a grandmother had let her grandson live with her in Armstrong Court, and he used her apartment to stash the drugs he was dealing. That bad move led to another move that was even worse: she was kicked out.

That was the, but the reader says that HUD regs put an end to such evictions in New York, and I assume that means Greenwich is also barred from carrying them out. Which, of course, harms the other, law-abiding tenants in these projects, who now have to live with criminals in their midst.