Tag Archives: Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm

A New Definition Of Security

Posted on by

On Saturday, Just the News posted an article about a recent statement made by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

The article reports:

Praising Biden’s historic green energy funding and 100% clean electricity goal by 2035, Granholm said “With all this electrification, we could slash our net crude oil imports by almost 60%, and that strengthens energy security.”

Granholm, who appeared with Vice President Kamala Harris also said Harris “has been amazing inside the White House as the champion for clean energy.” 

One of the most common critiques of Biden’s green agenda is that it has thus far achieved the opposite of energy security. Regulators claimed in May that more than 66% of the country is vulnerable to summer blackouts because of “new environmental rules” cracking down on fossil fuels. 

The regulators explained that the government is causing a spike in energy demand at a pace faster than renewables can match.

I don’t have a problem with cutting crude oil imports–if we open up American drilling and regain energy independence, we can be a net exporter of oil again. The world economy is based on oil. It is the commodity that fuels our manufacturing, our transportation, enables trade, and makes the lives of people who live in countries with ample energy much more pleasant. A number of European countries have switched away from green energy because they discovered that it could not meet the energy needs of their population.

The article also notes:

Center for Industrial Progress President and founder Alex Epstein wrote that “Joe Biden’s escalating bans on domestic fossil fuel production, combined with mandates of unreliable solar and wind overwhelmingly produced by unreliable China, are an existential threat to our energy security and therefore our national security.”

This isn’t the first time Granholm has made this claim. In April, she also stated of her trip to Japan that Biden’s green agenda will “address how the acceleration of the clean energy transition will help strengthen global energy security.”

Green energy is the modern equivalent of the perpetual motion machine. It’s a great idea, but I suspect that it will always remain just slightly out of reach.

First They Came For Our Shower Heads…

Posted on by

On Sunday, The New York Post reported that the Biden administration is now targeting gas generators and gas water heaters.

The article reports:

Water heaters could soon be subject to much more stringent efficiency requirements if a recent Department of Energy proposal that has been criticized by Republican lawmakers goes into effect.

In a draft rule unveiled Friday, the Biden administration is seeking to compel most electric water heaters to deploy heat pump technology and gas-fired ones to use condensing technology.

It comes months after the Biden administration ignited a firestorm over feared stove top regulations, after Albany lawmakers enacted a controversial first-in-the-nation gas stove ban in New York.

“Today’s actions—together with our industry partners and stakeholders—improve outdated efficiency standards for common household appliances, which is essential to slashing utility bills for American families and cutting harmful carbon emissions,” Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said in a statement. 

Water heaters that have tanks are not as efficient as tankless gas water heaters. Heat pump technology is not efficient below about 40 degrees. The idea of getting everyone off of gas is not about ecology–it’s about control–it’s easy to shut off electricity or limit it if someone says the wrong thing or supports the wrong cause.

The article illustrates some of the reaction to this move:

“First they came for your gas stoves. Then they came for your dishwashers. Next they came for your water heaters and air conditioners. Now the Biden apparatchiks are coming for your portable gas generators,” Forbes contributor David Blackmon tweeted.

“From the people who want showers and faucets without enough water pressure, dishwashers that don’t fully clean, washers and dryers that fully wash or dry, etc. they now want water heaters that don’t fully and quickly heat. All in the name of ‘environmentalism’ or ‘climate change,’” Ken Gardner tweeted.

“Leave us alone. These products already exist in the free market. Consumers should decide whether the upfront cost of a heat-pump water heater is worth the possible long term savings. In many cases, the monthly savings never make up for the upfront cost of the equipment,” Rep. Thomas Massive (R-Ky.) tweeted.

Somehow I don’t think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they established our government. I wonder if the White House and the Capitol Building are planning on changing their water heaters.

Changes Made Due To Being Under Scrutiny?

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Epoch Times posted an article about a grant that was part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) that was rescinded.

The article reports:

House Republicans have voiced worries about the Biden administration’s energy-related spending, questioning a Department of Energy (DOE) official about how a Chinese-owned battery manufacturer was on pace to get hundreds of millions in taxpayer money before the Biden administration yanked the money away last month.

That company, Microvast, somehow qualified for a $200 million grant to build a battery separator facility in Tennessee as part of spending doled out through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).

The Department of Energy announced the decision in October 2022 as part of $2.8 billion in what its announcement repeatedly described as “funded projects” for the American battery sector.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the money would “supercharge the private sector to ensure our clean energy future is American-made.”

“Shortly after the announcement, Microvast’s association with the Chinese Communist Party became apparent,” Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said in his opening statement at the June 21 hearing.

“According to Microvast’s own SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] filings, the government—referring to the People’s Republic of China—’exerts substantial influence over the manner in which we must conduct our business activities, and may intervene at any time with no notice,’” Griffith continued.

“Uncertainties with respect to the PRC legal system could limit the legal protections available to you and us,” that same filing states. It also describes the firm’s receipt of Chinese government subsidies and states that “most of [Microvast’s] current customers” are in China.

The article notes:

At the June 21 hearing on Microvast, Griffith and his colleagues questioned David Howell, principal deputy director of the DOE’s Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains.

The Virginian asked Howell how companies are vetted by the DOE for funding.

The DOE official said “detailed negotiations are started” over BIL grants after selections are made.

“Most of us did not understand that, because it appeared from the press statements that these people were awardees,” Griffith said.

“The in-depth vetting began the day after those announcements,” Howell said, before stating that previous “in-depth vetting” of the applicants focused on “technical capacity and capabilities of the companies.”

Griffith pressed Howell on the official’s assertion that Microvast is “a majority-U.S. owned company.”

“If they’re majority U.S.-owned, how can the Chinese Communist Party through the Chinese government say … why would they say that they could be stopped or change course because of what the government said in China?” he asked.

“Simply because Microvast’s major production operations are in China,” Howell answered.

“All of the other companies that you vetted do not have that problem?” Griffith asked.

“That is correct,” Howell responded.

We have a budget deficit. We have tons of money that we have borrowed from China. Why in the world would Congress be passing laws that benefited the Chinese economy?

The Conflict Between Going Green And The Mid-term Elections

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted an article on Friday about the mixed messages the Democrats are sending out about energy policy.

The article reports:

  • Democrats and White House officials have pushed for both greater domestic fossil fuel production and less reliance on fossil fuels over the last 24 hours.
  • President Joe Biden announced a deal with the European Union on Friday morning to export an additional 15 billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to member nations in 2022.
  • But Biden noted at a press conference that the deal called for “reducing Europe’s demand for gas overall,” even as the plan itself forecasted greater LNG exports to the continent.

What in the world do those ideas have in common? They have very little in common, but they are the result of the approaching mid-term elections. If the Democrats lose Congress in the mid-terms, it is quite possible that America will again become energy independent. It will take a bit to rev up the oil drilling and remind the banks to lend to fossil fuel companies, but it will happen. If the Democrats retain control of Congress or have enough power to stop an override of a Presidential veto, we can expect more hardship for the average America.

Some of the conflicts noted in the article:

But Biden noted at a press conference that the deal called for “reducing Europe’s demand for gas overall,” even as the plan itself and Sullivan forecasted greater LNG exports to the continent. In addition, the president said the Ukraine crisis, which has led to a U.S. ban on Russian oil imports and a promise from EU nations to ditch Russian energy, proved the need for the world to “double-down on our clean energy goals.”

…Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a Democratic-majority U.S. agency that regulates pipelines, made a sudden reversal to a climate policy announced in February. On Thursday, the commission struck the policy, which mandated a more stringent environmental review of pipelines and other fossil fuel projects, saying it would now consider the policy a “draft.”

…In another reversal, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Thursday that the global transition to clean energy “must be accelerated” during a meeting with the International Energy Agency in Paris. However, during a March 9 speech at the energy industry CERAWeek conference, Granholm said the U.S. was on “war footing” and needed to “increase short-term supply” of fossil fuels.

Who does she think caused the decrease in the short-term supply of fossil fuels? Anyway, elections have consequences–even before they occur.