DOE Efficiency Standards: Consumer Time?

From MasterResource

By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton

“The Deep State is cancer-like in nature. Like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.”

“It’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving.  And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.”

Our March 2017 post, DOE’s EERE: Reform Ideas for Secretary Perry, stated that while “a trace of consumer focus still exists,” the department’s heavy bias was towards society-wide electrification under the guise of “Net Zero”.

Whatever trace of consumer focus may be remaining within DOE is not worth salvaging. In fact, eliminating the pipe dream of an all-electric society would likely save US citizens $18 to 29 trillion in capital costs alone. Other analysts have estimated far higher cost inflation, while others conclude that total electrification cannot be accomplished at any cost.

While there was some initial lip service about DOE reform from a few politicians (which we documented in the above article), little actual reform took place. Congress slow-walked appointments, while DOE ‘s so-called “career professional” staff resorted to traditional tactics of placating eventual appointees. And what reforms did occur under then Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) Daniel Simmons (not sworn in until January 16, 2019) were quickly jettisoned by the Biden (mis)Administration.

We tried again to make our case on October 24, 2019, in EERE Reform: Brouillette’s Turn (‘deep decarbonization’ threat still alive). Little if anything meaningful occurred under Dan Brouillette either. In fact, he moved to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and was soon fired.

Brouillette has also been mentioned as possibly resuming being at DOE as Secretary. If so, since EEI stands to gain immensely through vehicle and building electrification, Brouillette at least has some major explaining to “we the people” for differentiating himself from the swamp.

Real Reform Opportunity

The incoming Administration can and should do far more than just trim back the overgrown greenery; it should serve the legitimate interests of the American citizenry and American prosperity.  However. details in our previous recommendations (cited above), are worth reviewing by the incoming Trump Administration if for no other reason than to document historical mistakes and avoid them going forward. Regardless, our old recommendations are no longer sufficiently ambitious in terms of best serving the American public and drastically reducing the National Debt’s deadly inflation.

But how should we move forward for “deep reform” versus the meager results from before? After all, the incoming Trump 2.0 Administration much better understands the depth and breadth of the Deep State and its joined-at-the-hip “Uniparty” cohorts. The options range from modest “reform” to scrapping DOE and parting out its truly vital missions to other Federal agencies or private sector competition.

In essence, it’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving.  And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.

Given we the people hold the House, and lead the Senate, this is a unique opportunity that must be exploited to the full extent feasible. After all, the world has fundamentally changed since DOE was formed to address certain issues: low supplies and scarcity, coupled with cartel behavior by foreign actors. Today we have robust supplies that mainly just need regulatory relief.

“With money we will get men”

A little Thomas Jefferson and Karl von Clausewitz guidance may provide instruction to get us started.  Thomas Jefferson cited  those  words “With money we will get men” in Volume 4 of  Notes on Virginia. In full context:

Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.

Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered. 

Moving on to Clausewitz:

• The statesman who, seeing war inevitable, hesitates to strike first is guilty of a crime against his country.
• The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature.
• Many assume that half efforts can be effective. A small jump is easier than a large one, but no one wishing to cross a large ditch would cross half of it first.

At least arguably, we are living Jefferson’s prophecy. We need to fully consider how the Deep State has been scheming to force its “Great Reset” upon our country. The “Deep State” is cancer-like in nature.  And like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration. 

Deep State Foe

Clausewitz was all about winning. If Trump is too (he is), rearranging DOE’s “deck chairs” is just a short step across a large chasm. The Deep State cancer would likely just go into a four-year remission only to return with a vengeance with a return of another Democrat Administration down the road someday.

Ultimately, the choice comes down to serving the Deep State/Uniparty or serving the legitimate best interests of “we the people.” There is no “live and let live” middle ground as the present Biden (mis)Administration has abundantly demonstrated in words and deeds. Nor is there sufficient funding for “all electric” or even “all the above” energy policies.

We can’t afford the self-indulgence of environmental virtue signaling.  We need only to pursue energy policies that objectively and comprehensively focus on economic least-cost planning (and bidding) so we can avoid the looming reality of economic collapse. And yes, there is still room for objective energy efficiency; if it is market-based (as opposed to “big brother” dictates to throw money at an illusionary problem). There is even room for least-cost environmental progress. As RFK Jr. knows, soil regeneration is one of these.

It is imperative that the Trump 2.0 Administration achieve and demonstrate tangible and substantial results for energy consumers as soon as possible. Immediate actions should include clawing back the tragic Inflation Reduction Act, an all-you-can eat funding buffet for a myriad of parasitic “clean energy” zealots. These zealots have already received enough (unwitting taxpayer) IRA funding to plague “we the people” for decades to come.

The most efficient tactic (but not necessarily easiest) would be to simply eliminate DOE departments that oversee such funding. And along with that, repeal equally corrupted legislation that authorized DOE’s regulatory mission creep, such as the obsolete Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and self-serving, loophole riddled revisions thereof.

In short and in closing, DOE is not worth trying to salvage, because its cancer culture is immune to modest political reforms and intervention. Thus, like a junk car, part out what can be safely and economically salvaged and eliminate the rest. Assuming control of the House and Senate, this is, for the first time, entirely doable; given the will to persevere. So let’s declare victory over the gas lines of the 1970s and move on to overcoming House and Senate resistance for dramatically reducing the economic threatening cholesterol of excessive spending.

————————–

Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. His many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy can be found here. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Fortnightly, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy (Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.

Tom Tanton (tantontwitter@gmail.com) is Director with Energy and Environmental Legal Institute. Mr. Tanton has 45 years in energy and environmental policy, focused on enabling technology choice and economic development. Mr. Tanton has testified to numerous state Legislatures and Congress as an expert on energy policy. He formerly served as Principal Policy Advisor at the California Energy Commission.

[3] Tension with utility chiefs marked Dan Brouillette’s short stint atop EEI