March, 09 2020, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lee Ziesche, lee@SaneEnergyProject.org, +1 (954) 415-6228
Robert Wood, rjacksonwood@gmail.com, +1 (585) 261-2795
Lindsay Meiman, lindsay@350.org, +1 (347) 460-9082
New Whitepaper from Energy Futures Group Questions Findings of National Grid Gas Capacity Report, Need for Williams NESE Pipeline
Ahead of tonight's first public info session, report shows National Grid’s demand projections likely inflated; most of pipeline’s peak-day capacity could be met by renewable alternatives, 95% pipeline capacity must be avoided for state climate goals.
New York, NY
Energy Futures Group today released a new whitepaper that starkly calls into question the findings of National Grid's Natural Gas Long-Term Capacity Report, which continues the utility's push for the Williams NESE fracked gas pipeline in New York Harbor. The paper shows that, contrary to National Grid's assertions, the overwhelming majority of the pipeline's capacity could be offset by renewable, non-pipeline solutions and adjusted demand projections. The paper comes just ahead of National Grid's public info sessions, set to begin tonight in Hicksville and continue elsewhere throughout the month.
The Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition issued the following statement:
In a fraction of the pages it takes National Grid to make yet another tortured, error-filled argument for the Williams NESE pipeline, this new whitepaper presents a practical, data-backed vision of a pipeline-free future that could be ours with the merest political will. It is up to Governor Cuomo. He will either be the leader that we know he can be by believing in the possible and stopping this pipeline for good, or he will side with corporate interests and approve the pipeline, becoming a climate denier and destroying any chance of upholding his own climate law. There is no third way.
The paper finds that when National Grid's demand projections are adjusted to the more reasonable figures established by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), National Grid's future energy needs are reduced by nearly 85 percent. In addition, the paper shows that a comprehensive, aggressive plan incorporating energy efficiency, demand response, flexible load management, strategic electrification and other non-pipeline solutions could meet as much as 88% percent of the Williams NESE pipeline's peak day capacity. It also shows that if state climate goals are to be achieved, 95 percent of the NESE pipeline's gas would need to be avoided.
National Grid's report reaches its pro-pipeline conclusions, the paper finds, largely by omitting or skewing data. Along with the utility's demand projections being far greater than those of the EIA, the projections also defy the company's own historical data, which shows that gas demand slowed considerably over the past six years. There is also no mention of whether savings could be achieved by renewable innovations in the power sector, which account for roughly 30% of National Grid's gas sales.
Regarding pipeline emissions, National Grid continues to claim that the NESE pipeline could achieve significant GHG savings by preventing customers from using dirtier fuels. Yet many of these assumptions have already been refuted, and National Grid's conversion and growth projections are suspect and lack citations that would allow further scrutiny.
National Grid also continues to base its emissions data on a much maligned report by MJ Bradley, which drew its conclusions from the Department of Energy's discredited data on methane leakage rates and on methane's 100-year warming potential, not the more relevant 20-year time frame. National Grid cites the more accurate Environmental Defense Fund methane data and the more relevant warming window, but buries all of this information in an appendix.
In 2018, the EDF found that methane leakage rates were 60% higher than rates reported by the federal government. It is also widely known that, as a greenhouse gas, methane is 86 times more powerful than C02 over the first 20 years of its life, which is the relevant time frame for policy decisions given the IPCC's requirement that emissions be halved in 10 years.
National Grid issued its report as part of a settlement with Governor Cuomo and the Public Service Commission that ended the utility's self-imposed gas moratorium last fall. As part of that agreement, National Grid was required to produce a report on long-term energy solutions for the Downstate area and hold public meetings at which the public could deliberate the findings. (The PSC was only going to allow written comments until the Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition demanded that the meetings include a transparent public forum, which the PSC has since granted). Those meetings begin tonight in Hicksville and continue throughout the month in Jamaica, Downtown Brooklyn, Brighton Beach, Brentwood and Riverhead.
The Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition will be holding press conferences and rallies beginning at 5pm before the meetings in Hicksville, Jamaica, and Downtown Brooklyn, where it will urge Governor Cuomo and the Public Service Commission to listen to state climate law, not a discredited and disgraced corporate utility, in determining New York's energy future.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Why Can't We Fund Universal Public Goods? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire Nepo Babies
"In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta," reads a new report.
Dec 13, 2024
The children of the richest families in the U.S. are well-known for spending their vast wealth on frivolous luxuries—constructing a replica of a medieval church on their acres of property, in the case of banking heir Timothy Mellon, or starting a brand of T-shirts described by one critic as "terrible beyond your wildest imagination," as Wyatt Koch, nephew of Republican megadonors Charles and David, did.
But a report released by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) on Thursday shows how "billionaire nepo babies" don't just waste their families' fortunes. They also benefit from "a rigged system" that allows them to "pass that wealth down over generations without being properly taxed–often without being taxed at all."
In addition, the heirs of the country's biggest fortunes spend vast sums "to elect politicians who protect their unearned wealth and manipulate the country's economy in their favor," said ATF.
Along with Mellon and Koch, the report profiles Samuel Logan of the Scripps media dynasty; Nicola Peltz-Beckham, daughter of billionaire investor Nelson Peltz; Gabrielle Rubenstein, whose family has made its fortune in private equity; and President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump.
The nepo babies are part of a small group of billionaire families in the U.S. who benefit from tax loopholes that ensure little of their immense wealth ever goes to benefit the public good.
At least 90 billionaires have passed away over the last decade, leaving their beneficiaries $455 billion in collective wealth.
But according to ATF, "$255 billion (56%) of that amount was likely entirely exempt from the capital gains tax because of a special break called 'stepped up basis.'"
"Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations."
Without loopholes included the stepped up basis tax cut, the current estate tax on billionaires and centimillionaires would yield enough revenue to fund universal childcare, preschool, and paid family leave for U.S. workers, with hundreds of billions of dollars left over, according to ATF's report.
The wealthy heirs profiled in the report and their families are some of the Republican Party's top donors—contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates including Trump in the hopes of securing even more tax cuts.
Mellon, for example, is Trump's "biggest supporter, giving $140 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 alone," reads the report.
A previous analysis by ATF found that as of late October, just 150 billionaire families had spent $1.9 billion on the 2024 elections.
As the Center for American Progress found earlier this year, Trump's plan to extend the tax cuts that he pushed through in 2017 would cost $4 trillion over the next decade.
"The vast wealth inherited by centuries-old billionaire families is staggering. While these heirs and their billions go undertaxed, enormous sums are squandered on lavish mansions, private jets, and vanity projects instead of funding crucial public investments," said ATF executive director David Kass. "In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta. Now, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations—all while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
The report calls for Congress to pass "proven, pragmatic proposals to unrig the tax system that enjoy high levels of popular support," such as the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act that was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) this year. The bill would tax fortunes between $50 million and $1 billion at 2% and wealth above $1 billion at $1 billion.
The small tax on enormous wealth would generate "a whopping $3 trillion over 10 years," said ATF.
The estate tax could also be "restored so that it can play a meaningful role in promoting fairness and equal opportunities" through the passage of the For the 99.5% Act, which was introduced in 2023 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).
Under the bill, the estate tax exemption would be lowered to $7 million per couple and the current 40% flat rate would be replaced with a sliding scale that would charge higher rates as a family's wealth grows.
"None of these tax reforms would impoverish the ultra wealthy, nor even inconvenience them in any meaningful way–but they would reduce the concentration of wealth that is so corrosive to society," reads the report. "At the same time, they would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to reduce inequality and improve the lives of families that can only dream of the kind of security and opportunity enjoyed by the nation’s richest clans."
"And if rich families ever did need to tighten their belts a bit to pay their taxes," the report continues, "the economizing might begin by reducing the flow of money funding the extravagant lifestyles of America's Billionaire Nepo Babies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Next Recession Starts Here': Trump Team Weighs Abolishing Bank Regulators
The president-elect's advisers are reportedly discussing plans to shrink or eliminate key bank watchdogs, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dec 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers are reportedly considering plans to weaken—or abolish altogether—top bank regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that members of Trump's transition team and the new Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency have asked nominees under consideration to head the FDIC and OCC if the bank watchdogs could be eliminated and have their functions absorbed by the Treasury Department, which is set to be run by a billionaire hedge fund manager and crypto enthusiast.
"Bank executives are optimistic President-elect Donald Trump will ease a host of regulations on capital cushions and consumer protections, as well as scrutiny of consolidation in the industry," the Journal reported. "But FDIC deposit insurance is considered near sacred. Any move that threatened to undermine even the perception of deposit insurance could quickly ripple through banks and in a crisis might compound customer fears."
The Trump team's internal and fluid discussions about the fate of the key bank regulators broadly aligns with Project 2025's proposal to "merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve's non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions."
The FDIC, which is primarily funded by bank insurance premiums, was established during the Great Depression to restore public trust in the nation's banking system, and the agency played a central role in navigating the 2023 bank failures that threatened a systemic crisis.
Observers warned that gutting the FDIC and OCC could catalyze another economic meltdown.
"The next recession starts here," tech journalist Jacob Silverman warned in response to the Journal's reporting.
Eric Rauchway, a historian of the New Deal, wrote that "even Milton Friedman appreciated the FDIC," underscoring the extreme nature of the incoming Trump administration's deregulatory ambitions.
Musk, the world's wealthiest man, is also pushing for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The Journal noted Thursday that "Rep. Andy Barr, a Republican from Kentucky and Trump ally on the House Financial Services Committee, has backed the plan to eliminate or drastically alter the CFPB and said he wants to get rid of what he calls 'one-size-fits-all' regulation for banks."
Barr has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the financial sector and "introduced many pieces of pro-industry legislation, including significant rollbacks of protections stemming from the 2008 financial crisis," according to the watchdog group Accountable.US.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Chief Warns of Israel's Syria Invasion and Land Seizures
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the "urgent need" for Israel to "de-escalate violence on all fronts."
Dec 12, 2024
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Thursday that he is "deeply concerned" by Israel's "recent and extensive violations of Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity," including a ground invasion and airstrikes carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in the war-torn Mideastern nation.
Guterres "is particularly concerned over the hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on several locations in Syria" and has stressed the "urgent need to de-escalate violence on all fronts throughout the country," said U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric.
Israel claims its invasion and bombardment of Syria—which come as the United States and Turkey have also violated Syrian sovereignty with air and ground attacks—are meant to create a security buffer along the countries' shared border in the wake of last week's fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and amid the IDF's ongoing assault on Gaza, which has killed or wounded more than 162,000 Palestinians and is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case.
While Israel argues that its invasion of Syria does not violate a 1974 armistice agreement between the two countries because the Assad dynasty no longer rules the neighboring nation, Dujarric said Guterres maintains that Israel must uphold its obligations under the deal, "including by ending all unauthorized presence in the area of separation and refraining from any action that would undermine the cease-fire and stability in Golan."
Israel conquered the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights in 1967 and has illegally occupied it ever since, annexing the seized lands in 1981.
Other countries including France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have criticized Israel's invasion, while the United States defended the move.
"The Syrian army abandoned its positions in the area... which potentially creates a vacuum that could have been filled by terrorist organizations," U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at a press briefing earlier this week. "Israel has said that these actions are temporary to defend its borders. These are not permanent actions... We support all sides upholding the 1974 disengagement agreement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular