Biden War Against Domestic LNG (gas-by-rail)

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — March 9, 2022

“PHMSA admits the purpose of the Proposed Rule is not really about safe transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce. Rather, it is intended to indirectly regulate the extraction, production, and ultimately consumption of natural gas….”

“It is high time the Biden Administration put America first. Biden’s environmental virtue-signaling is burdening American families and jeopardizing the safety and security of our homeland.”

President Biden, or at least his puppeteers, supports liquefied natural gas (LNG) for Europe during their energy crisis. But when it comes to the home front, Biden does not.

Recently, officials from 25 states petitioned the Biden administration to not reverse a Trump rule allowing natural gas (LNG) transport by rail. The letter by Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry et al., was addressed to Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Acting Administrator Tristan Brown (emphasis added; agency views yellowed).

The content of the letter speaks for itself: this subagency is acting capriciously to help enforce an anti-natural gas agenda.

RE: Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0058 (HM–264A) – Hazardous Materials: Suspension of HMR Amendments Authorizing Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail [Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0058 (HM–264A)]

Dear Acting Administrator Brown:

The undersigned Attorneys General, as the chief legal officers of our States, write to express our concerns with the Biden Administration’s proposed rule, published Nov. 8, 2021, (the “Proposed Rule”) to suspend authorization to transport liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) by rail tank cars pursuant to a final rule, which had become final August 24, 2020, (the “2020 Rule”).

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (“PHMSA”) decision to reverse course on this amendment … creates regulatory uncertainty, chilling potential capital investment in the DOT–113C120W9 specification tank car, a tank car specifically designed to transport LNG.

Moreover, the general concern that transporting LNG by rail might result in an increase in production of natural gas which might result in an increase in greenhouse gases is an attenuated and speculative concern untethered to the scope of PHMSA’s regulatory purpose.

Finally, PHMSA’s reasoning does not adequately explain or justify the suspension of a rule that was subject to extensive notice and comment and thorough review of alternatives by the agency. Current geopolitical events involving Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine show with painful clarity the need for the United States to maintain its energy independence through multiple distribution points throughout our country. The agency should not move forward with suspension of a rule that serves that important objective.


Natural gas is the primary energy source for electricity generation in the United States. Presently, 41% of the country’s electricity is generated from natural gas. Meanwhile, U.S. Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions have decreased by 11.65 percent and GHG emissions from electricity generation have decreased by 33.08 percent within same timeframe.

The growth in U.S. gas production is a geopolitical and economic asset, contributing to our national and global energy security. And as of 2020, it appeared that PHMSA agreed, stating, “[t]he United States leverages domestic technology improvements to transform American life through increased natural gas production and energy independence.”

For certain areas of the country, however, access to supply is limited. To
address the problem of getting supply to demand, American private industry stepped in with a solution. The Association of American Railroads (“AAR”) petitioned PHMSA for rulemaking to expand nationwide access to natural gas using rail.

AAR’s position is that “[f]or more than 80 years, freight railroads have safely transported cryogenic liquids similar to LNG.” PHMSA acknowledged that there was significant interest in transporting LNG by rail. Specifically, in the 2020 Rule, PHMSA states “[t]he recent expansion in U.S. natural gas production has increased interest in a programmatic approach to using appropriately the nation’s rail infrastructure to facilitate efficient transportation of LNG.”

The Proposed Rule is a response to Executive Order 13990, which directs agencies to review Trump Administration era rules to identify “candidates for suspension, modification, or rescission because of inconsistency with [Biden] Administration policies to . . . prioritize environmental justice and reduce GHG.” The Proposed Rule states: “Suspension would allow consideration of additional public comment, particularly on issue such as public and worker safety, environmental risks, and environmental justice.” Additionally, the Proposed Rule’s proposed temporary suspension “guarantees no transportation [of LNG in rail tank cars] will occur before its companion rulemaking has concluded or no later than June 30, 2024.

Indeed, suspending the 2020 rule does guarantee no transportation of LNG by rail can occur, which appears to be the overall objective of the suspension and final action. But a change in administrations is not an adequate basis upon which to suspend or repeal a rule that was subjected to thorough notice and comment procedures.

PHMSA is required to provide a “detailed justification” of new facts that contradict facts underling its prior policy. Here, PHMSA must give a more “reasoned explanation” to justify suspension of a regulation. Furthermore, PHMSA must “display awareness that it is changing position,” “must show that there are good reasons for the new policy,” and “that the new policy is permissible under the statute.” This requirement applies regardless of whether PHMSA’s stance has changed because of “the inauguration of a new President and the confirmation of a new [agency] Administrator.

Moreover, “Without showing that the old policy is unreasonable, for [an agency] to say that no policy is better than the old policy solely because a new policy might be put into place in the indefinite future is as silly as it sounds.”

Nevertheless, when suspending or repealing a regulation based on a new policy the agency must “provide a more detailed justification . . . when, for example, its new policy rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy; or when its prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.” PHMSA has not provided any such detailed explanations. Providing more time for notice and comment is not an adequate basis to suspend a final rule.


PHMSA states that: Uncertainties in the underlying economic dynamics driving the potential benefits and public safety and environmental risks considered in the LNG by Rail final rule have increased (e.g., the quantity of LNG that will be moved by rail, the routes involved, and whether new transportation capacity would induce more natural gas extraction). PHMSA believes these increased uncertainties cast doubt on the continued validity of the balance between potential benefits and public safety and environmental risks underpinning the LNG by Rail final rule.

PHMSA vaguely identifies unsubstantiated and generalized concerns about safety and environmental risks as the reason for economic uncertainty, but this was the subject of prior notice and comment. Its rationale further indicates the driving factor is the change in policy views regarding use of fossil fuels and a hypothetical fear of “induc[ing] more natural gas extraction.”

Setting aside the question whether it is within the proper scope of PHMSA’s authority to regulate national demand for natural gas, the proposed rule itself is the cause of the regulatory uncertainty of which it complains. By unilaterally suspending a rule that has undergone considerable evaluation and keeping industry operators in a special permitting regime, it discourages companies from making any capital investment in LNG by rail, specifically, the DOT–113C120W9 specification tank cars that the 2020 Rule authorized. Moreover, concerns about the safety of the tank car appear overblown.

The DOT-113C120W tank car was authorized by special permit prior to the 2020 Rule, which suggests that PHMSA’s newly-discovered concern about the same tank car’s safety is pretextual. PHMSA’s true concern, fear of causing “more natural gas extraction,” undercuts its narrative about concern for “public safety and environmental risks due to transport of LNG by rail” Both are overstated and illustrate an irrational reversal in PHSMA’s position in just over one-year’s time.


When it comes to risks, multiple sources conclude that it is safe to transport
LNG by rail. According to the AAR, “99.999% of all hazmat railcars reach their destinations without an incident that releases product; in 2016, the number of train accidents with a hazmat product release was 0.69 for every 100,000 hazmat carloads.”

The Railway Supply Institute (“RSI”) “agrees with and supports PHMSA’s prior analysis that transport by rail improves safety and fuel efficiency, and decreases emissions associated with transporting LNG when compared to transportation by truck.”

According to Fortis BC, a leading LNG producer, “LNG is not flammable or explosive in its liquid form which means converting natural gas to LNG is one of the safest ways to transport energy.” Furthermore, RSI notes that
“DOT-113 tank cars are specifically designed for the safe transportation of cryogenic material like LNG and have a strong safety record in their more than (5) decades of service.”

And the most robust of the cryogenic tank cars and capable of transporting various cryogenic liquids” is the DOT-113C120W9, which the 2020 Rule greenlit. Thus, it does not follow that a little over a year after a considered evaluation of this very issue, PHMSA’s prior conclusions are now wrong and transporting LNG poses “unreasonable risks.”

Moreover, in the Proposed Rule, PHMSA credits as justification for the suspension that “additional further data and knowledge (for example regarding potential benefits as well as safety and environmental risk) could make appropriate further mitigations for shipping LNG by rail tank car.”

This, however, is the same thing PHMSA stated in 2020 Rule. Furthermore, an agency could always make changes to regulations should new information justify the change, but the possibility that new data might surface always exists and does not justify suspending a final rule. Even the Transportation Research Board (“TRB”) has stated, “[e]nsuring the safety of LNG by rail, like all hazardous materials shipments, is an ongoing process that will require continued monitoring and adjustment of practice and regulations.”

Thus PHMSA would continue to have that responsibility and the capacity to act should new facts actually justify a change. Ultimately, when reconciling PHMSA’s complete reversal on transportation of LNG by rail, the facts about safety are the same.


On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, then-candidate Biden promised, “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels.” President Biden took action with Executive Order 14008, which provides that “the Secretary of the Interior shall pause new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters.”

These leases, however, arise from programs authorized by Congress under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (“GOMESA”), and the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”). The same day the Executive Order was signed, the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management published a document stating “HITTING PAUSE ON NEW OIL AND GAS LEASING.” As a result of the pause, Leases 257 and 258 were rescinded to comply with Executive Order 14008.

Importantly, these actions were taken without any notice or consultation with States, even though freezing new leasing and drilling permits on federal lands and in the Gulf of Mexico deprives Louisiana and other states of revenues from initial lease payments, royalties, and rentals. In fact, the cancellation of Lease 257 caused an immediate loss of millions of dollars earmarked for coastal recovery and restoration used to protect against tropical storms and hurricanes. Therefore, President Biden’s actions to tackle climate change ironically make Louisiana and its coast more susceptible to the dangers of extreme weather events.

The loss of revenue also deprives the federal government of funds used for environmental projects and deprives States like Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado of revenue these states depend on for a wide scope of programs.

In addition, the proposed rule ignores findings that transporting LNG by rail can have positive effects on the environment. According to National Gas Intelligence, the 2020 Rule “would allow the bulk transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in specialized rail tank cars in what could prove a boon for small-scale projects across the United States.” The same source also indicates that “[m]oving the fuel by rail could also help projects in certain parts of the country like those in the Permian Basin, where producers have flared off natural gas at record rates in recent years.”

Thus, not suspending the 2020 Rule would allow for efficient distribution of natural gas through multiple means and can offset otherwise flared natural gas that leads to increased GHGs and wasting the resource entirely.


The PHMSA, while exhibiting concern about climate change, does not address the continuing need to supply the energy needs of this country, especially during winter months when demand is high. Rather, as a means of regulating production or consumption, the proposed rule appears to adopt a less efficient approach that discourages investment in newer tank cars (special permitting) in place of a considered transportation rule.

Notably, since President Biden took office LNG spot prices have increased
61%. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in January 2022, colder weather led to increased demand for natural gas used for space heating and power generation, thus causing upward pressure on prices.

Ultimately, “the average American household paid about $1,000 in higher energy costs in 2021 compared to 2020,” and “households that use natural gas spent an extra $300.” Suspending the 2020 Rule only constricts the means by which demand can be satisfied – which may be the actual point of this proposed rule – but it does not change the need for fuel to heat American homes in winter.

Rather, it burdens hard-working Americans with higher costs to do so, even putting people in danger when they cannot afford to pay their increasingly expensive bill. That problem appears to be getting worse not better due to Russia’s unprecedented incursion into Ukraine. Indeed, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is expected to have far-reaching implications for energy markets given Moscow’s role as the world’s second-largest producer of natural gas and one of the world’s largest oil-producing nations.


Though the United States is the leading natural gas producer globally, Russia is second with 18 percent global share.45 Nonetheless, Russia is looking to expand its influence though construction of the NORD STREAM 2 pipeline. This pipeline is intended to meet Europe’s growing need for natural gas and complement existing pipelines through Belarus and Ukraine. Even as Russia’s actions are increasing geopolitical tension, it continues to grow its global energy profile through this expansion. As Russia accrues economic power, the United States is ceding it globally
with irrational energy policies that have already resulted in increased reliance on foreign suppliers for the energy needs of our country.

The Proposed Rule, will only result in more homes in the United States being heated by Russian natural gas rather than supplied with domestic products. In fact, it has already happened. In 2018, “officials in Massachusetts and New Hampshire blocked financing for the $3 billion Access Northeast Pipeline, which would have reliably provided fuel to three New England states.” And yet while blocking this pipeline, Massachusetts is offloading natural gas from Russia. This is alarming and is nowhere addressed by PHMSA as s potential consequence of the Proposed Rule.


PHMSA contends, without any specific support for this change in its prior position, that “any lost business opportunities could be offset by avoided safety and environmental risks if the suspension reduces the transportation of LNG (i.e., if it prevents transportation or production of LNG that would otherwise occur).”

PHMSA admits the purpose of the Proposed Rule is not really about safe
transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce. Rather, it is intended to indirectly regulate the extraction, production, and ultimately consumption of natural gas, which is a purpose that exceeds PHMSA’s mandate under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).

Importantly in Utility Air Regulatory Group (“UARG”) v. EPA, the Supreme Court stated: When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy,” we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast “economic and political significance.

In short, if Congress intended the PHMSA to regulate natural gas extraction,
production, or consumption, it has to clearly and expressly say so. Instead, it was directed to regulate transportation. Thus, these broader energy policy objectives exceed its statutory authority.


For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Attorney Generals submit that
PHMSA should not proceed with a final rule to suspend or withdraw the 2020 Rule, which established an efficient and safe mechanism for transporting LNG by rail. .

5 11 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 10, 2022 2:06 pm

This is a gross abuse of process.
The other issue is that the Jones Act should be repealed, to allow for the transport of LNG by ship domestically.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 12, 2022 1:19 am

Won’t Warren be pissed? Cancels the pipeline then his expensive rail alternative gets cancelled too?

Bill Treuren
March 10, 2022 2:15 pm

Was it the pipeline industry or what that achieve this ridiculous constraint on shipping Tom

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Bill Treuren
March 10, 2022 2:37 pm

If (note the use of the conditional) it turns out that the pipeline industry favors restrictions on the rail transport of gas, it would only be one of many examples where the government co-opts the support of one or more market competitors to crush the activity of another. Take for example, ‘clean burning’ gas’ campaign against coal or ‘zero emission’ nuclear’s campaign against both coal and gas. The point is, the only entities who love regulation more than the federal government are those companies that seek to use it against their competitors.

Jeff Corbin
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 11, 2022 6:19 am

The massive noise of pandemics and climate change propaganda and the swamp land leverage of regulation continues to drown out the facts of US NG industry and it’s potential to empower our local communities, our national economy and our global security. It’s not just the climate change narrative nor regulation levering competition over competing US hydrocarbon markets that has limited US NG market impact, it’s the fact that Russia has laid claim via it’s NG infrastructure over the vast emerging NG market of Europe and most of Asia from the Pacific, to the Atlantic, Arctic and Indian oceans. Most of the world’s 28 million CNG cars are in countries with massive NG deals with Russia, (in central Asia: India, Iran, Pakistan etc.) Our NG industry was hedged out of those markets. The big question is how did that happen? Climate change impairment is the easy answer. Globalized collusion and marketeering is the more complex question. The other question is why is the electorate almost completely oblivious to the massive supply of NG in the USA and the complex myriad of forces that are impairing it? There is hardly a whimper of NG in the popular media as if were a big secret. I read the MIT study on Marcellus NG in 2008, I was amazed at the massive reserves. The early expansion of the NG industry in 2010 and 2011 help propel Wall street out of the post 2008 doldrums but since 2014…it’s been all Russia. Neither Putin or anyone that has cut deals with Gazprom had any concerns about climate change …. in principle….but how much of their money went to support the climate change misinformation/propaganda campaign? Us energy companies have to make money…. might as well join them than go head to head with them.

Reply to  Jeff Corbin
March 11, 2022 7:38 am

If I remember correctly, it was Cuomo as governor of NY that blocked a pipeline that would transport NG to Mass.

Much like Washington State and Oregon blocked coal from being shipped out of “their” ports, I would think this would be subject of the “Interstate Commerce” clause of the US constitution.

NY is denying the natural gas producing states from interstate commerce with Mass. via a pipeline that was stopped for political purposes.

Reply to  Bill Treuren
March 10, 2022 3:12 pm

The state of MA is critically short of NG. For years the state pursued a program of shuttering coal plants and replacing them with NG. (OK, not wise, but whatever.)
Next up, huge sections of the state’s housing stock is NG heated.
(Tell me if you can see trouble brewing.)
The state launches a Jihad against new LNG terminals, anywhere in the state. (Uh-oh.)
The state has a loud and obnoxious Anti-Pipeline activist movement, active since at least 2012. They have fought every new pipeline proposal to death since then.
Of course, the state’s political ruling class will gleefully do the bidding of anything the “environmental” groups come up with. No matter how corrupt, no matter how brain-dead. Cowards all.
I spoke with a anti-pipeline activist once out on the line as they were marching through my town. It was a female, ~50 yrs. old. It was absolutely convinced that renewables would fill the need.
Something strange happened. When I engaged it directly, it’s eyes glazed over and it started mouthing words over and over like a mantra. At that point, if I had possessed a firearm, I would have felt obliged to shoot it in the head. By then, we had all seen the TV shows, and we all knew what an undead zombie looks like. And we were all fully aware of how dangerous it can be to leave them standing.
That winter, the state of MA ran out of NG. Then an amazing thing happened.
The state, for the first time *ever* bought a tanker of Russian LNG. AND. The state of MA set a New World Record for the price paid for a LNG shipment. And the record was not by a little, it was by a *LOT*. Even though there was tons of cheap NG in Pennsylvania, there was no way to get it into MA.

Does anybody here think the brain dead zombies who marched against the pipeline ever though back to reconsider the results of their actions?

Today, many of us feel that day was a missed opportunity. A few teams of Zombie Hunters riding around it the backs of some pick-up trucks could have eliminated the zombie threat in half an hour. Then we would have been done with it forever.

{Remember: If you never act like a zombie, you will never be mistaken for a zombie.}

Reply to  TonyL
March 11, 2022 12:01 pm

Does anybody here think the brain dead zombies who marched against the pipeline ever though back to reconsider the results of their actions? – TonyL

Tony, if they are braindead zombies, they are of the species that never ever “think” there are consequences for any of the stupid things they demand. They need to go a full 18 months, from summer into winter into the following winter with no heat, no electricity and no modern resources available.They might possibly see the errors of their ideas, but they’d have to go through it at least twice for it to sink in.

Steve Case
March 10, 2022 2:26 pm

On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, then-candidate Biden promised, “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels.” 

Notably, since President Biden took office LNG spot prices have increased

Ultimately, “the average American household paid about $1,000 in higher energy costs in 2021 compared to 2020,” and “households that use natural gas spent an extra $300.”

There was a famous book written by the leader of Germany ~1934-1945 and just like then, we ought to believe what today’s “leaders” say or write now.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Steve Case
March 10, 2022 3:39 pm

I’ve seen a couple of Brandon campaign clips on line where he outright ‘promises’ to eliminate fossil fuels. Q: Why aren’t these being played 24/7 on fossil fuel friendly media? A: There is no fossil fuel friendly media.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 10, 2022 5:47 pm


Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 10, 2022 6:15 pm

Yep, if you want media coverage you have to pay.

Reply to  Derg
March 11, 2022 7:42 am

And OIL companies should be paying to run these adds on all the left wing news shows so that the lies CNN, MSNBC, etc. tell during their Democrat talking points segments (all segments) can be seen as the lies they are.

william Johnston
March 10, 2022 2:30 pm

Trump signed the bill. Ergo, it must be reversed. And besides, it violates the GND rules.

Reply to  william Johnston
March 10, 2022 3:52 pm

Distancing the Biden administration from all Trump policies supersedes not only the safety and prosperity of the American people, but civilization itself. That is the conclusion of the Ivey League educated theoreticians who pull the puppet’s strings. Raised in front of game consoles, they apparently believe that if too many (ie. a number which makes re-election difficult) Americans die as a result of their policies, they can simply hit the “Restart” button and begin the game again.

Cool Tolerance
March 10, 2022 2:36 pm

At this point of unilateral MSM coverage of the story, OMG, people are taken over by emotions and fury – domestic and foreign – but few see the connecting dots.

The GREEN and CLIMATE story started at the same time as overblown Covid ended. So, they need a new distraction from the catastrophic inflation on all sides. These oligarchs that rule over us are crushing us to win their One World Order scenario.

We can’t explain it to our simple-minded friends, the interconnecting issues are so complex, including the importance of fertilizer and how to transport it, and the role of petroleum. Plain basic story, the digitalized new world.

Reply to  Cool Tolerance
March 10, 2022 4:22 pm

In this new world, Claus Schwab wants everyone to be happy campers who own nothing.

Camping: no longer just for Uyghurs.

Reply to  Scissor
March 12, 2022 1:23 am

Utopia always ends in camps.

March 10, 2022 2:42 pm

You would think that the courts would have a field day machine gunning these regulatory overreaches out of the sky. That would put a stop to this crap.
The reality seems quite different. Every single time, just getting a stay against the latest ploy is like pulling teeth. And so the beat goes on.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  TonyL
March 10, 2022 4:53 pm

One of the disadvantages of not having a law degree is that one would logically expect a favorable ruling pursuant to reading, say, the plain language of the Constitution. Unfortunately, one needs a law degree to make ‘sense’ of the convoluted reasoning that is US case law.

Rud Istvan
March 10, 2022 2:54 pm

Other than the ‘IF Trump did it reverse it—with disastrous consequences’ ridicule angle, I personally am not to bent out of shape by this kerfuffle. The states most affected by rail LNG reversal would be those that have also refused to allow new natgas pipeline construction, like New York and Massachusetts. So if this workaround is stopped, they are the blue states most hurt by their own foolishness and Trump’s well intentioned effort to save them from themselves. I’m good with that.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 10, 2022 3:39 pm

The region where I live in the US Northwest will be losing the major portion of its coal-fired generation capacity over the next two decades.

That capacity is being lost with no credible plan to replace it. Moreover, the Biden administration is expanding the EPA’s environmental rule making with the explicit intention of accelerating the closure of the region’s coal-fired capacity.

It has been my opinion for some time that when serious shortages of electricity begin to appear later in the decade, gas-fired aero-derivative turbine gensets such as those sold by GE and by Rolls Royce will begin to be deployed wherever they are needed to alleviate the shortage.

If no pipelines are available for a given inland location, and if LNG is the preferred fuel for these quickly-deployable gas turbine gensets, then the easiest way to deliver the fuel is by railcar.

Among the other reasons for reversing the Trump rule-making for LNG railcars, it appears to me that the Biden administration is deliberately closing off the option of using quickly-deployable LNG-fired gas turbines for relieving shortages of electricity in areas where gas pipelines either don’t have enough capacity or else no pipelines are available in those areas at all.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
March 10, 2022 5:43 pm

Some dimwit places, California and part of Australia come to mind, are quietly installing medium output diesel powered electricity generating systems to keep their grids from total disaster. Perhaps there is a deal with the diesel sellers to not allow competition from LNG.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  AndyHce
March 10, 2022 7:40 pm

One benefit of medium output diesel powered gensets is that the fuel is widely available and can be delivered by tank truck. With an ever-increasing number of blackouts in our future, these gensets are also useful in assisting the black start of a grid. We should expect to see substantial growth in the market for these systems over the next decade.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
March 10, 2022 10:01 pm

I’ve recently come to believe that there is no such thing as a wind farm. In reality there are gas-fired power plants, with wind turbines scattered about to occasionally make trivial contributions.

Reply to  roaddog
March 11, 2022 12:54 pm

What actually exists are wind subsidy farms. Production of power is only done to the extent necessary to elicit maximal subsidies. The effect is, as you correctly observe, that gas turbine plants have to run in less efficient modes so the wind farms can disrupt the grid without totally crashing it.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 10, 2022 3:44 pm

It’s even more interesting when these states then try to wheel power down from Quebec via transmission lines through other states – they get NIMBYed.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 10, 2022 3:54 pm

Usually, I can understand the cynical, “let them eat cake attitude”. But now, I really wonder how much of all this the MA voters really voted for.
Let’s set the clock back about a decade, I do not remember exactly, close enough.
The Ballot:
Senator Scott Brown vs. challenger Elizabeth Warren.Of interest to me are the ballot initiative questions.
12 in all, they cover the usual range of topics.
Big Government.
Big spending.
Pro RGGI, the Regional Greenhous Gas Initiative, garuanteed to drive electic prices through the roof.
A Big Wet Kiss of Taxpayer moneys to the public school teachers union.
And on like this, 12 in all, total.

The ballot questions were of interest to me, so I made up my vote card, and off to the polls.
So how did we do that year?
Scott Brown was blasted out of office. Elizabeth Warren won *very* handily. Even on election day she was already known as a false affirmative action puppy. The Faux Cherokee.Lieawatha. Advertised heself as a “woman of the people”. Got paid for 9 million dollars for teaching 1 (count them, 1) course at Harvard U. Thats a real “woman of the people” move right there.
Brown had the advantage of incumbency, no small thing in MA. Lieawatha blew through that like it was not even there.

OK, so how did I do down ballot?
All 12 voter questions went the opposite way I voted.
I went 0 for 12.
I had to wonder. Is voting in MA so tightly regulated that even the ballot initiave questions come out the way the powers that be want. Do the voters make any difference whatsoever? Probably not. I think during the 2020 election, a lot of us got our answer, particularly for left-wing controlled areas.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  TonyL
March 10, 2022 4:40 pm

Just wondering, we’re you able to see the results by county, or by whatever political subdivisions they use in MA? That would let you know whether the ‘fix’ was in or if the results truly represented the electorate’s wishes.

Peter W
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 10, 2022 5:32 pm

I used to live near MA. Bunch of political idiots.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 10, 2022 5:47 pm

No, I never saw any breakdowns on the ballot questions.
{Take a moment, get a map of MA handy, I will wait.}
OK, a breakdown of the state:
The Connecticut River valey, cuts the state in ~half. From Greenfield in the north, down to Amherst (Home of UMass), down to Springfield and the CT border. From Boston, the whole state west of the river is sneeringly referred to as “upstate NY”. Nice, huh?
Way east, the I-495 beltway encompasses “MetroWest”, and the mostly suburban part of the state. The whole of central MA can be said to lie between I-495 and The CT river, out to Amherst. That is one big chunk, with a lot of people. Politically centrist. Boston also sneers at it as “Western MA”.
Keep going east from I-495 and you find the famous/notorious Rt. 128. Everything inside (East) of Rt 128 is the Greater Boston and Suburbs area.
If you control this area, you own the state. Done, done and done.
Urban, hard core liberal and left wing, NPCs abound, Easy, easy, and done.

Now you know why I was questioning the veracity of the ballot initiative counts.
Big Govt. – Passed Easy.
Big Spending – Passed Easy.
Big Wet Kiss of taxpayer money to the public teachers union, for no reason anybody could discern. – Passed easily.
The Anti-Pipeline Question – Passed easily.
RGGI, The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, guaranteed to drive up electric rates *at least* 4X in the first 10 years. – Passed easily. NOT EVEN!!!!!
73% for, 27% against. It was 3:1 FOR! That was the Unbelievable part. Either the voters had totally lost their minds *or* the final tally really, really was *not* believable. That is when I first tumbled to the notion that the voters had been *had*.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  TonyL
March 10, 2022 9:37 pm

Very interesting / informative. I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t mention Martha’s Vineyard – surely there must be a significant ‘limited government’ movement there…

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 10, 2022 5:39 pm

The problem with your schadenfreude, Mr. Istvan, is that we do not live in hermetically sealed states. When one state commits economic suicide, all the others are affected. Equally true is that when one or many nations adopt self-destructive policies, the whole world suffers.

The global warming hysteria is global. We all get shafted, even preppers such as myself. Every battle matters.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 10, 2022 9:56 pm

I feel the same way about the “defund the police” initiatives. Those who suffer most will be the deluded progressives who first remove their best protection from bad actors, and second serve as victims of the very same.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 11, 2022 8:31 am

I live in CT. I want, more than anything, to get out of this state. But I have ~10 years till retirement. I also don’t have the courage to abandon my meager salary job for a better life but lower paying job.

John the Econ
March 10, 2022 3:30 pm

Just where would our economy be today if it were left up to a federal regulatory bureaucracy to have the final say on what was economically viable for every business plan?

You’d be using your Apple IVe on a 256K ISDN line and we’d probably look enviously at the standard of living in the Soviet Union.

Reply to  John the Econ
March 10, 2022 4:51 pm

Borscht, got to love it.

March 10, 2022 4:07 pm

Biden is at war with the entire fossil fuel industry because the Progressive Marxists who are controlling the Democratic party are idiots who have been suckered into a green wet dream. One of the consequences has been giving Putin enough leverage to think he could get away with invading Ukraine. It’s also no coincidence that the most significant buildup of Russian troops started days after the Afghanistan debacle. Of course it all started with Hillary’s fake Russian collusion hoax which prevented any constructive dialog with Russia during the Trump administration and that started the isolation of Putin and Russia that seems to have burned out Putin’s brain turning him into an evil monster.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 10, 2022 4:17 pm

I talked to my ex in Tula Russia today. She met with friends and she told me and they are very worried and of course suffering greatly because of Putin’s actions. They still buy into Russian state media news however which is completely reverse of what we see in the US.

Alexander Mentes
March 10, 2022 4:16 pm

The NatGas industry has to hire Hunter…problem solved.

Reply to  Alexander Mentes
March 10, 2022 4:27 pm

Damn, I would never have thought of that.
Modern problems require modern solutions.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  TonyL
March 10, 2022 5:33 pm

10% for the Big Guy used to work great. Now, not so much.

March 10, 2022 4:31 pm

The Great Reset is being silently forced on us whether we want it or not. For the last half a century the Marxists have been putting people in strategic positions to make it all happen. AGW is just one of the vehicles they’re using to undermine Capitalism and Democracy. Our complacency allowed them to get this far.

Reply to  markl
March 10, 2022 5:01 pm

If not for the first and second amendments, it would already be over. I know young people who will fight for our true republic. Though they are in the minority, they are strong. They see through the clown show, so I’m not totally dispirited.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Scissor
March 10, 2022 5:45 pm

Every time the opportunity presents, I smile and say, “warmer is better”. And everyone smiles back and says they agree: young people, old people, everyone. I have yet to meet a naysayer. People are less stupid than the Elite think they are.

March 10, 2022 5:20 pm

And people wonder why their heating bills this winter are so high.

The reason all boils down to one thing: You elected Joe Biden as president.

Elections have consequences. Your wallet is of no consequence to democrats as anyone who pays energy bills can plainly see. My natural gas heating bill rose 43% in January compared to last year, and there is no shortage of natural gas. The only shortage noted is in the brains of these regulators who claim to be saving the earth.

glenn holdcroft
March 10, 2022 5:27 pm

Democracies are not flawless , just look at who they vote in to rule them .
Too easily influenced by social media and msm , no time or ability to absorb real facts .
Just vote for whoever promises them the most individual benefits whether possible or improbable .

James F. Evans
March 10, 2022 7:16 pm

We have an administration that hurts America to fulfill their ideological agenda.

Reply to  James F. Evans
March 12, 2022 1:20 am

AKA Leftards.

March 11, 2022 12:32 am

This has nothing to do with “virtue” in any way.

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 11, 2022 12:38 am

Typical winter temperatures (C) in the US.comment image

March 11, 2022 11:55 am

Well, Spring is but a few days away, and warmer weather will prevail. It does not mean that I will stop cooking with gas, nor does it mean that I will stop needing hot water (gas powered water heated) for washing dishes and taking showers. it just means that if I don’t have these things available, nothing will stop me from making loud angry noises about it.

If these numbskulls had their heat and hot water and cooking gas shut off on a whim, they’d jump to the “quickest transport system” line in a heartbeat.

Verified by MonsterInsights