Trump’s energy secretary orders a Washington state coal plant to remain open
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Nope. Looks like that's going to backfire on them.
If the 2026 election rolls anything like* the various interim special elections - it's going to be a Texas Dummymander for the Republicans. They set it up to lose a LOT more house seats, because the margins are thin and they thought Latinos who warmed up to Trump before the last election were going to stick around.
A little while back, Beto came within 3% of beating an incumbent Ted Cruz (admittedly, everyone hates Ted.) There's a real shot at taking Cornyn's Senate seat this time around, especially if our slimeball AG manages to primary him.
For the first time in a LONG time, Texas Democrats have a candidate on the ballot for every single Federal and State race.
*Democrats in the same district outperforming the Trump/Harris race by >10%, higher among Latinos.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
You've just cited a decision that said that something could be regulated because it had an effect on inter-state commerce, proving my point.
Here is a case where the Serpent Court struck down a law because it did not establish a link to inter-state commerce:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
Upvote
5
(8
/
-3)
Well, I am in the Pac NW and contributed 21.5 Kw of my solar to the grid in January. I have not had a power bill since March as a result......
There is also a new 40 Megawatt solar project about to come on line about 15 miles from me that has plans to expand to 60 Mw.
They are right about slow - that project was initially proposed 10 years ago.....
There is also a new 40 Megawatt solar project about to come on line about 15 miles from me that has plans to expand to 60 Mw.
They are right about slow - that project was initially proposed 10 years ago.....
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
You really should not be doing that! It is only a matter of time before the administration declares another energy emergency and orders you to start burning coal instead...
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
This plant is part of the grid, specifically the Western Interconnect. It's not just interstate, it's international since WECC extends into both Canada and Mexico. Map below is at least somewhat outdated, it still shows Lubbock in SPP, not ERCOT. The transition was approved in 2018 and completed in 2023.
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Holy fuck, I thought ERCOT (~90% of Texas power) was slow.
2025 ERCOT additions (through November)
1.5 GW of wind
6.2 GW of solar
0.2 GW of gas
4.9 GW of battery
0.4 GW of fuel oil (this appears to be associated with military bases)
I wouldn't be surprised by another GW+ added in December.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
This plant is part of the grid, specifically the Western Interconnect. It's not just interstate, it's international since WECC extends into both Canada and Mexico. Map below is at least somewhat outdated, it still shows Lubbock in SPP, not ERCOT. The transition was approved in 2018 and completed in 2023.
Fair enough, and I appreciate the map! However, my original point stands that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the right to regulate any and all commerce, as had originally been claimed.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Correct. Residential solar is only a guess, since it can’t be directly tracked.
It’s small, but I am putting 600w online do solar and 2kwh of battery (Delta 2 + extra battery). My first wee move. I am hoping I have the time and money to get about another 2kw of solar, a 6000w inverter and 5kwh of battery.
The 600w is going on an eco worthy ground mount. The 2kw I am planning on mounts over garden beds.
I plan on 3kw on a large woodshed I plan to build. I am in a lot of woods, and I just don’t get much sun because of shading in the winter. But my plan is to be 100% off grid April till October and cover at least a third of my electrical needs even in December. Probably going to take 3-4 years to get there.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Rules for thee but not for me. I guess all that talk about state rights and no government interference is out the window, just like he said he would drain the swamp but we have never had so many billionaires in positions of power like this regime.
He’s making sure his investments/corruption in crypto and AI don’t get interrupted.
He’s making sure his investments/corruption in crypto and AI don’t get interrupted.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I want to be 100 percent capable of operating year round without the grid. I have the space, the insolation and the money. My issue is my wife. She is deathly afraid to spend money from our 401 K and retirement investments. I keep working on her. But we missed the incentives that got cancelled by the morons. A friend that also has nice south facing slope installed one and after 1 year of data he said that assuming grid power stays at its current rate he would have payed it off in 6 or 7 years. Without the incentives it will be more like 10. Still, to me, with a 15 year life expectancy and the peace of mind of energy independence it is well worth it. I will keep nagging her about it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They figure they make stuff up just like they do. It’s how they run their businesses (into the ground). Why would anyone else do anything different?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Efficient upgrades to my house will help me get close. I won’t get there though. Right now I get about 2hrs of insolation average per day in December because of shading. No trees would be 2.6.
I’d have to cut down an acre plus of my 3.4 to get another 10-15% sunlight. I’d have to get my neighbors to cut down a couple of acres to get close to that 2.6.
I get 5.5 in the summer even with the shade. It would be 6.5 without the trees. With a 2.5:1 factor and I can’t grid tie to sell back (MD will only credit me, plus my county makes it really hard to permit solar. So it won’t be, so I can’t tie into the utility, full stop. So net metering isn’t an option).
I can get 8-10kw at those figures. The next 8-10 is going to get about 75% of those insolation figures in winter and 90% in the summer. The next 20 is going to be about 40% of those winter figures and 75% of the summer. It gets worse from there.
So the cost efficiency isn’t there for more than about 10 or so KW.
I am using around 1300kwh a month in the summer, 600-700 in the bumper seasons and 1900-2300 a month in the winter. To cover my winter production I’d be over producing in the summer by a factor of about 4.
My 1981 house needs a lot of efficiency work. The basement is uninsulated, attic needs work, etc. I think I can cut winter energy use by 30% or so. Summer by 20%. But if I am getting around 1200kwh in the summer, that’s 500, maybe, in the winter. Storage is just as bad. I probably need 30kwh to cover a cloudy hot day. I need 75kwh to cover a cloudy winter windy cold day.
Next house is like to be completely off grid. But this one I am estimating $20k will save me 70% of my electric bill. It’ll take $40k to cover 90% of my electric bill. $60-70k to actually be off grid.
The $20k figure is maybe a 10 year payback. To cover the next 20% ends up being like a 40-50 year payback of just those extra costs.
So I’ll go for that 100% (well, 98%) summer coverage. And that gives me decent power in the event the grid goes down. Electric rates here are going up 10+% per year now in Maryland. Yes, projected to exceed a 50% increase by 2030
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
How about WA state just "ignore" that Drumpf administration rule. Because they don't like to follow orders, and just do what they want. So, just switch to gas, stop burning coal, and what exactly will donnie-2-dolls do? Because that's how they rolled so far this year- do the thing, even if illegal, and no one could undo it. So switchover the plant. Actions > talk.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Trump and his minions have figured out that an emergency is anything they say it is. This allows them to evade the clear intent and meaning of the law. Welcome to the age of billionaires and bloviators.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
We still have our Seattle house but our son is living in it now and we're across the mountains. I've got enough land here that I've toyed with putting in a 9kW ground system so I get power plus a place to grow plants that need some shade.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Wickard held that anything which involved items that could have been commerced was commerce. Lopez narrowed that holding to require some actual commerce.
Since any power generation involves actual commerce, that's not a restriction on which aspects of it Congress may regulate.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Wrong. Congress is only authorized by the Constitution to regulate inter-state commerce. It has nothing to do with whether something is "actual" commerce or not.
To the extent that commerce is entirely intra-state, or an activity has no effect on inter-state commerce at all, then Congress has no power to regulate it.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
The cases that struck down laws based on the commerce clause had no commercial activity at all. Selling electricity is very definitely commercial activity. Allowing women to sue their sexual abusers in federal court, not so much.
SCOTUS has essentially decided that if there’s commercial activity of any kind, then there is inter-state commerce to be regulated. Even when nothing actually crossed borders, local commerce affects inter-state commerce, is the argument.
Not that any of this matters one bit for the current U.S. SCOTUS, which has decided that precedent is irrelevant.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Really important to understand that the billionaires who are behind this action are the same "libertarians" who order the supreme court to strike down environmental regulation and cover it with the 'limited government' rationalization.
It's never been about ideology and if you are supporting the right ideologically you're a useful idiot.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Not for nothing but if you're citing precedent against this Supreme Court you're a sucker, lol. They're just straight up making shit up as they go along.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I think it is both clearer and more accurate to say that the Supreme Court is willing to accept Congress having dominion over any activity that substantially affects or relates to inter-state commerce, regardless of what kind of activity it is. Saying that a particular activity "is inter-state commerce even if it is not actually inter-state commerce or even commerce of any kind" overly complicates and confuses the matter.
Lopez is notable because Congress did not make the required token effort to do this so the Supreme Court sent the law back to the drawing board; once it added a section on how the activity had an effect on inter-state commerce the law was upheld.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Coal power plants are closing because coal isn't a cost-effective way to produce electricity, this just doesn't make sense.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
SCOTUS was guided by precedent but no one has any clue what the current fascist fucks would decide, no doubt their is some common law thing from Roman times they can dig up to justify the position they want before ever analyzing the merits of the case based on actual laws and precedents.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Yeah, but have any of those special elections been in Texas?
"Blue Texas" is a scam to divert donation money away from winnable races. I've seen it predicted for over a decade now and the state always just moves further right.
I'm pretty sure if they ever get a hint of any leftward movement they'll just ramp up the voter suppression. They would sooner burn the state to the ground than ever let it go blue.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
This is about a 90 day extension, not a moratorium on keeping the plant running permanently on coal.
But yeah, building new powerlines is a massive problem everywhere in the world, lots of NIMBY mentality combined with insane bureaucracy.
but looking at parts of California's power distribution, perhaps the administration is not entirely wrong
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
As John Oliver pointed out "Fuck you - make me!" Seems to be the only response they'll understand
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
It's interesting that Texas has much more renewable energy deployed than California.
It's also interesting that Texas has more than twice as much total electricity capacity than California.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This administration and Republicans didn't lift a finger when energy companies shut down nuclear plants on it's watch. DEMOCRATS saved many of them. But Trump wants to take credit for the 'resurgence' of nuclear despite he being part of the reason we need so much power now.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
"The year-end emergency that does exist in Washington state has been caused by record-setting rainfall and widespread flooding"
The irony.
The irony.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Leak sealing is usually very high ROI, especially if you DIY. A few tubes of caulk, a variety of weather stripping, some aluminum tape (for HVAC ducts) and a couple cans of foam can make a huge difference in both air leakage and sound leakage.
Blowing cellulose insulation into an attic or even into walls between the studs is pretty darn DIY friendly as well.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Your last actually was a thought that twigged for me just over the weekend. The nature of my property is that I have little sunlight this time of the year that isn't shaded. The best spot is the north end of the clearing my house is situated in. I mean, I could easily fit 80+KW on my front lawn, but it would shade each other, be covered in shadow from the house most of the day, trees the rest, etc.
Anyway, I have to take down a few trees, mostly smaller ones and a couple of big dead trees, but my zone is still only about 80ft long and maybe 20ft deep. And it'll be the best spot for a garden also. Dang it!
Then it occurred to me, lots of stuff I'd want to grow, would grow just fine under bifacial solar panels. The shading will actually help in the middle of the day for stuff I want to grow, like peppers and spinach here in Maryland. So I just need to build mounts to put the panels above raised garden beds. And that is a two fer, as the higher the panels, the less shade they will be in. Putting them up 6-8ft high will help a lot actually. I figure I can probably do around 1000-1200w per garden bed, for 4x8-10ft long beds, maybe 3 garden beds, at least to start with.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Apparently they are now 'suspending' off-shore wind farm development because, and I swear I'm not making this up, they cause 'radar interference'.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Yeah, I've done lots of construction work over the years. So I have all bases covered on the work. Just lots of it.
I added 2" EPS foil faced foam board to the vaulted ceiling "wall" for my master bedroom last night. Cut back a bit of plywood blocking the peak of that wall in the attic space and insulated it with R19, overlapping, so about R38. there was very little insulation there, and some exposed drywall showing even...
I have a ceiling fan to install for the bedroom ceiling on the flat ceiling and two can lights and some wiring for the vaulted ceiling section of the bedroom. Then I need to run fiberglass on the sides of the vaulted ceiling, cover with radiant barrier, run some fiberglass behind duct work in the attic that is near the soffit, and then blow in cellulose from that duct work up to the wall of the vaulted ceiling. It is about a 350sq-ft attic space for the flat ceiling. So even getting 8-10" of cellulose on it should be very cheap.
I've finally figured out how I am going to do the knee walls in the finished/unfinished attic living space. I can run that 2" EPS foil faced foamboard on the back side of the knee walls, insulate with R-15 then in the wall cavities. The sides of the knee wall it isn't going to be possible to cover with foam board, because I have to be able to exit from behind the knee walls...
I realized I can staple the radiant barrier in place from the inside of the room still, it'll just be "loose" and not flash with the back of the studs. But that'll actually leave some space to put R-19 into the 2x4. Less effective because it'll be sticking out the back of the wall, but the radiant barrier will still help out a ton keeping the heat transfer down in the hot attic space.
In the diagonal section of the ceiling, I can just staple in radiant barrier leaving a 2" gap for air flow along the roof deck and up to the roof ridge vent from the soffits. Then fill with R-23 insulation to maximize the value there. In the flat ceiling I'll reuse the existing R-30 insulation on top and put in new R-30 insulation below in the truss cavities. I won't bother with radiant barrier there with R-60 total...
A proper sealed door into the master bedroom attic space from the finished attic space. (rather than just "pull the insulation out of the way to climb through). I also need to pull up some of the plywood subfloor to make sure it is properly insulated to the outside, since the attic space also overhangs some of the outside. Seal the joist cavities at the wall header with a piece of plywood. And fill with insulation (R-30). I know there is no blocking in the floor joists where the attic overhangs the outside of the house. I THINK there might be insulation in there, but I am pretty sure it isn't FILLED with insulation or installed well.
The basement is getting 1" R-5 XPS around most of the outside, 1/2" R-3 along the backside wall that has the sunken family room along most of it. Then 2x4" with R-15 in the wall cavities. Crawl space is getting 10mm foam core radiant barrier sheeting stapled around it and then it is getting closed up from the rest of the basement with a 1" XPS foam core plywood door/hatch (it is a 24" tall x 32" wide entry into the crawl space from the basement, 6 feet off the ground). The crawl space and basement have fiberglass insulation in the ceiling/floor above it. I just need to keep the crawl space warm enough to not freeze the kitchen pipes. That shouldn't be a problem with some thin insulation and the ground below to keep it above freezing. But I don't want to assume NO insulation in the crawl space walls will accomplish that.
That and keeping some more moisture out of the crawl space would be good (the dirt floor has thick plastic vapor barrier covering it already.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Back when the Iowa Republican Party cared about our state the then governor started an initiative to make wind power 40% of the production by 2020.that goal was surpassed in 2019. Last year it accounted for 65%. Whether or not the orange one likes it or not coal powered power plants are going the way of the dodo.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The petrochemical industry is huge in Texas and uses electricity from wellhead to refinery to plastics plant or LNG liquefaction train. Shitloads of electricity - last I heard, a modern frac well pump uses (on average) 10x the electricity of the older "nodding donkey" style pumpjacks.
California has also worked very hard at energy efficiency for decades. Texas has not.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
TX climate is more humid and hot in the summer, while it is colder and more humid in the winter than CA. It Most of the CA population is near the coast where the weather is a lot nicer than the valley or mountains. In Houston, there is maybe 20 days of actually nice weather of about 60° low in the morning and 75° high in the afternoon. The rest of the time? Sucks. Our lows in the summer are basically 78, 79, 80° for 3 months straight.
There is a component of industrial usage such as oil refineries, data centers, etc, but it's not like CA doesn't have a bunch of energy intensive industry either. Also, CA has some offshore wind potential, but they are probably waiting on the floating off-shore wind tech to mature? Don't know why CA doesn't have a lot of wind energy.
The table is about 5 years old. In 2025, solar energy in ERCOT will surpass coal, about 68 TWH to 65 TWH. Coal in ERCOT hasn't hit 85 TWH in the recent past. So the accounting from EIA must be including El Paso and the most eastern part of east Texas.
There's no point in keeping the coal plants in ERCOT up and running. TX should shut them down. Convert them to nuclear if it has to be a steam plant. Else-wise, make it solar+storage or sell the land.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)