How matters more than why

We’ve all heard about the Green New Deal being proposed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Based on a study done by the former head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this proposal (which is all it is at the moment) could wind up costing this country upwards of 93 trillion dollars over a ten-year period. It may cost more, it may cost significantly less, no one knows yet. The one thing that this proposal leaves out is HOW we transition into this brave new world. I ‘d like to address the more technical aspects of things since this will have a huge impact on how we go about our daily lives.

Let’s start with the electrical grid because that’s going to be the primary driver in all of this. If AOC was serious about this proposal, then the first thing that would need to be addressed is the amount of electrical power currently being generated by fossil fueled and nuke plants nationwide. How many megawatt hours do each of these plants put out on a daily basis? What sort of power generating capacity does a single wind turbine have? How many of them would be required to replace a non-renewable source/plant? The same could be said about solar. How many acres of panels would be needed? The other thing to consider is what capacity are our current plants running at on a daily basis? What sort of surge capacity is available to these plants during peak demand periods or at times when power generating assets need to be taken offline for maintenance, repair, or upgrades?

The aforementioned requirements ONLY address a one-for-one swap at our current demand level for electricity. The push to go green will necessitate an even larger investment in electrical infrastructure for various reasons, among these will be:

1.       Replacing fossil fuel burning vehicles with electric powered vehicles or vehicles running on some other power source. The only other one that comes to mind would be hydrogen fuel cells, but that technology isn’t widely available yet. So, concentrating on electrically powered vehicles to replace the gas guzzling ones we currently have would mean an increase in charging station infrastructure at the residential and commercial levels. This, of course, would put an even bigger strain on the power generating capacity we now have.

2.       Replacing air travel with high-speed inter-city rail systems. With the exception of the Acela corridor (Washington D.C. to Boston) and a few major metropolitan areas, not much of our current rail networks are electrified. The desire to replace our existing air travel networks with rail-based ones will require a build-out of our current systems, as well as their electrification. Will these high-speed transit systems run on existing railbeds, or will they need dedicated high-speed rail technology like we see in Europe or parts of Asia? Then there’s the elephant in the room, our rail-based freight system. The vast bulk of rail mileage in this country exists for the movement of freight from point A to point B. All of this will need to be electrified. Furthermore, all of the freight locomotives that currently conduct most of the long-haul operations, as well as any switching engines not already electrically powered, will need to be replaced with electrically powered ones. Again, our current electrical infrastructure is not capable of supporting this.

Speaking of air travel, how does one travel to another country if commercial aircraft are going to be done away with? Mexico and Canada are no-brainers since they share common borders with the United States, but what about destinations further afield? It might be easy for someone in Seattle or El Paso to drive across the border and catch a commercial flight/s to their destination, but what about those of us in the heartland where such a thing isn’t possible?

Do we go back to the days of ocean travel by ship? If so, what ports would be on the list of those approved by the government to travel out of? Remember, cruise ships are powered vessels that rely on the burning of fossil fuels for their means of propulsion, as well as a host of ship’s services such as electricity, hot water, sewage, and heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Another sticking point would be the huge number of freighters that ply the waters of this planet. As the world’s number one consumer market, we buy an awful lot of the goods that are delivered by these vessels. What happens to them (and our goods) if they aren’t allowed free access to our ports?

Travel beyond the confines of our borders, as stated earlier would be a difficult proposition at best, that is, unless we make certain assumptions/exceptions. Let’s start with the premise that foreign air carriers would still be allowed to fly into international gateway cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fran, Seattle, etc. This would at least allow travel to global destinations for Americans and allow foreigners the ability to visit here as well. Of course, U.S. carriers wouldn’t take that sitting down. They would lobby for an exemption to the air travel ban in order to stay competitive with their foreign counterparts. Given the concentration of available choices of transportation at these nodes, they would become de-facto centers of commerce, industry, and I daresay, wealth. Not exactly what AOC and her counterparts had in mind.

Speaking of commerce, we live in an incredibly connected world where we have the ability to go online, order something and have it delivered the same day or within the next two. That “need it right now” desire would definitely have to be curbed since we wouldn’t have access to the sort of transportation infrastructure that we currently have and take for granted. That overnight trip for the item we just ordered 15 minutes ago would turn into at least a two-day ordeal, since Amazon, Wal-Mart, and others would no longer have the luxury of being able to plunk it on a cargo plane and have it at our doorsteps the next day. A lot of industries and businesses that have based their supply chains around the just in time inventory delivery model would be sent back to the bad ole days where they had to again concern themselves with supply stockpiling, warehousing and the like. Their overhead would incur additional costs due to this extra burden. And who do you think is going to pay for these added costs? The consumer, of course.

I’m sure that AOC and the coauthors of this document meant well when they put it together, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s not about what you’re trying to do, but how you go about accomplishing it. Without proper planning, timely execution and continual follow-up, even the most noble-minded intentions will come to naught. My two cents, for what it’s worth.

Heads-I win, Tails-You Lose

Got off the phone yesterday with my chief pilot here in Chicago. I was proposing feeding our local airport TSA workers, but found out that there were other station departments that had already beaten me to the punch (a couple of times over, no less). Anyhow, my sympathies go out to those federal workers who are having to muddle through this partial shutdown, whether they be furloughed, or coming into work without a paycheck.

The one thing that continues to rattle around in my brain casing is how unnecessary this whole thing has been. You can point fingers at either side, but that doesn’t solve one of the underlying problems here, i.e. why the Federal Government does not have a fully funded budget this far into the fiscal year. In fact, the last time the government was funded prior to the start of a fiscal year was FY 2009, or just prior to the 2008 general election. The President could have picked his battles a little more carefully, but then again, almost no one has been paying particular attention to what’s brewing in a federal courthouse in the Southern District of Texas.

Back in 2015, Texas and twenty-five other states sued the Obama Administration over a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans or DAPA. Basically, it was a program that allowed illegal/undocumented immigrant parents of children born here to stay on U.S. soil. The government argued that the states didn’t have standing to bring the suit, but the judge hearing the case disagreed and let the case go forward. One of the arguments at the heart of the suit was the administration’s failure to adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Per the law, any federal agency that sets up a program or promulgates rules that have the effect of law, is required to open up the proposed program or rules to public comment (think scrutiny). The court sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction against the program.

The administration appealed the ruling to the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Not only did the appeals court side with the lower court’s ruling, but further found that since only Congress gets to decide on how immigration law is administered, the executive branch had overstepped its authority by not getting congressional buy in for this program, meaning it was in violation of the Immigration and Nationalities Act (INA). The case made a brief appearance at the Supreme Court in 2016, but due to the death of Justice Scalia, the court deadlocked 4-4. It was then sent back to the lower court as having been settled with no chance of a rehearing. Rather than unwinding the program, the Obama Administration decided to leave it to the next administration to handle since this was an election year. Of course, no one could have predicted that the Trump Administration would be the recipient of this decision.

Shortly after the new administration had taken the reins, Texas and a handful of the states involved in the first suit threatened to sue the government over another program, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) or the so-called Dreamers. Being wary of another protracted court battle that the government would probably lose, the Trump Administration decided to go ahead and unwind DACA and DAPA. Supporters of DACA went before a liberal judge in the Northern District of California (comfortably ensconced in the back yard of the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals) to get an injunction to keep it from being dismantled. Seeing how this was going to play out, Texas et al. decided to go ahead with the second suit, knowing that the only way to kill the beast outright, was to drive a stake through its heart. It only stood to reason that since DAPA was the younger sibling of DACA and they were built on similar firmament, similar arguments could be made as to why the program could not stand.  I believed that as well. That is, until I read the dissenting opinion in the 5^th Circuit Court ruling.

The dissenting judge made a convincing argument that DAPA did not fall under the purview of the APA, since it did not confer any rights or benefits to any class of individual who was not here legally per the INA. Instead, it was a program based on enforcement actions that were well within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its prosecutorial discretion.  What this means is that the agency could keep the program as is, change any portion of it, or dismantle it altogether. If the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, DACA is dead and gone since it would be in violation of federal laws. If the argument that the agency has broad prosecutorial powers is upheld, then DHS could go ahead and unwind DACA without further legal challenge. The Trump Administration is about to be handed a victory it hadn’t seen coming, while the Democrats, the Dreamers, and supporters of unfettered immigration are about to get blindsided by a 300-pound defensive lineman. The only choice the Democrats will have (if they want to survive politically) will be to come back to the bargaining table and deal in good faith with the President and Republicans on real immigration reform. And yes, that will include a wall or barrier of some kind.  Heads-I win, tails- you lose.

It’s going to be very interesting to see what comes of all this.