What’s good for Generac’s bad for America, Swamp Thing, Gnatcatchers

Sep 10, 2021

What's good for Generac is bad for America, don't blame Biden for Afghanistan, another creature from the swamp, and furtive Gnatcatchers

It has been a busy, but rewarding, week. I’ve been sitting and writing so much that my arms and back are worn out. (Of course, I'm also in my dotage, so that may be part of it.) I published two pieces this week, wrote another for the New York Daily News that is slated for publication on Monday, and recorded two podcasts.

So, yes, I’m happy it’s Friday. Four items today:

My piece in Wall Street Journal on Generac and the weakening of our electric grid
Chuck Spinney on the podcast talking about the DoD and Afghanistan
My Forbes piece on the Clean Electricity Payment Program
Blue-Gray Gnatcatchers

Image note: the photo of the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher above was captured by Francesco Veronesi in 2012. More info here.

On Wednesday, I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal about how soaring sales of standby generators are symptomatic of the declining reliability and resilience of our electric grid. I began:

Generac Power Systems, a company that produces home generators and other equipment, announced in July record sales of $920 million during the second quarter, a 68% jump over last year. But what’s good for Generac is bad for America. That’s no slam on the Wisconsin-based company, which manufactures about three-quarters of the home standby generators sold in the U.S. Instead, Generac’s soaring sales are evidence that the U.S. electric grid is becoming less reliable, which will make Americans less wealthy and less secure.

I concluded: “If America wants to stay a world leader, it must have a robust grid that delivers cheap, abundant and reliable electricity all day, every day of the year. We can’t rely on Generac for that.”

I put a lot of work into the piece and was thrilled to get it published in the Journal. By Friday morning, the article had more than 575 comments. Here’s a link.

Chuck Spinney on Afghanistan: “the outcome, in many ways was worse than Vietnam.”

I have known, and admired, Franklin “Chuck” Spinney, for more than a decade. Chuck is a retired military strategist and author of the 1998 report “The Defense Death Spiral,” who served in the U.S. Air Force before becoming a high-profile critic of the Defense Department’s weapons acquisition process and overall strategy. I can’t recall exactly how, or when, we were introduced, but his work inside the Pentagon and as a key player in the military reform movement during the 1980s and 1990s has been inspiring. He was on the cover of Time magazine on March 7, 1983 after he called bullshit on the DoD’s budget and acquisitions process. Since leaving the Pentagon nearly 20 years ago, he continued writing and blasting the DoD on his website: http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com

In this episode of the podcast, Chuck explains why it is “ridiculous” to blame the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan on President Biden, gives his recollections of the military strategists Pierre Sprey and John Boyd, explains how the war on terror was used to justify ever-larger defense budgets, and how the ongoing growth of the “military-industrial-Congressional-complex” is undermining American democracy.

Among the many things he said that caught my attention was this: “the basic reason why” the U.S. military failed was that it “did not account for proper training of the Afghan military just like we did in Vietnam. We didn’t account for the training in the Vietnamese military. We had this theory of winning our hearts and minds and throwing aid into the country like we did in Vietnam. And of course, that unleashed the dogs of corruption. And if you look at the outcome, the outcome, in many ways, was worse than Vietnam.” It was great to catch up with Chuck, who I’m proud to call my friend. Here’s a link.

On Monday, I published a piece in Forbes about how top Democrats and their allies in Washington and in academia are trying to do an end-run around the democratic process by pushing through a measure that would have huge implications for the affordability, reliability, and resilience of the electric grid. They are trying to insert a provision into the reconciliation package that could cost as much as $200 billion and result in some of the biggest changes to the US electric grid since the passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. The measure is called the Clean Electricity Payment Program, which is, in reality, a clean electricity standard. Here’s how I began the piece:

Back in December, after Congress passed the 5,593-page Covid relief and spending bill, the longest bill ever approved by that political body, Joe Concha, a columnist for The Hill, dubbed it the "swampiest thing ever." Concha added that it was "exactly what one would expect from a dysfunctional, tone-deaf Congress: a pork-filled cluster..." Well, Concha and his fellow observers of the Washington swamp should brace themselves because Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats, think tanks, and academics, are hoping to jam through a measure known as the Clean Electricity Payment Program (CEPP) that has as much algae and kudzu on it as anything that has ever crawled out of the Bayou on the Potomac.

I concluded:

A final point: regardless of the staggering cost of the CEPP or its potential impacts on the electric grid, the proposal is a gobsmackingly bad way to make policy. If proponents of grid decarbonization want to see that happen, they should be willing to debate the merits of it instead of trying to sneak such an important bit of legislation into a budget bill. Yes, that’s the way the swamp works these days. But that doesn’t make it right.

Again, here’s a link.

Furtive Polioptila caeruleas

The words that come to mind when I think about the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, (Polioptila caerulea) are: tiny, furtive, and flighty.

A few months ago, in this “news” letter, I wrote about the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, a bird that is far easier to hear than it is to see. It is so furtive that I’ve only had a good look at it a few times in my life. Last week, I spotted a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in the tree outside my office window. Or, at least, I’m pretty sure it was a Gnatcatcher. The darn thing is so small and furtive, it’s hard to be certain. I can recall only a handful of times when I’ve been able to get my binoculars up and on the bird before it flitted away. But given my belief in the idea that you can identify birds using the GISS method – general impression, size, and shape – I’m close to 100% sure that it was a Gnatcatcher. (Note: the photo immediately above was taken in South Carolina in 2008 by Garry Tucker of the Fish and Wildlife Service.)

Wikipedia’s entry on the Gnatcatcher is very short and includes this description: “It is 10–13 cm (3.9–5.1 in) in length, 6.3 in (16 cm) in wingspan and weighing only 5–7 g (0.18–0.25 oz), Adult males are blue-gray on the upperparts with white underparts, slender dark bill, and a long black tail edged in white. Females are less blue, while juveniles are greenish-gray. Both sexes have a white eye ring.”

Allaboutbirds.org says this about the Gnatcatcher:

A tiny, long-tailed bird of broadleaf forests and scrublands, the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher makes itself known by its soft but insistent calls and its constant motion. It hops and sidles in dense outer foliage, foraging for insects and spiders. As it moves, this steely blue-gray bird conspicuously flicks its white-edged tail from side to side, scaring up insects and chasing after them.

It also notes that:

A pair of Blue-gray Gnatcatchers can build up to seven nests in a breeding season. They often re-use nest material from previous nests, which speeds re-nesting. This can be essential to breeding success, since predation, nest parasitism, or mite infestations frequently cause nest loss and brood failure.”

I’d tell you to be on the lookout for Blue-gray Gnatcatchers, but you’d best look sharp. If you are like me, you may be hard-pressed to be certain that you’ve actually seen one.

Have a good weekend.

Want to help?

1. Share this email to your friends and colleagues. Or have them email me so I can add them to my distribution list.
2. Subscribe to the Power Hungry Podcast.
3. Rent or buy Juice on iTunes or Amazon Prime.
4. Buy A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations and give it a positive review.
5. Follow me and Juice on Twitter.
6. Need a speaker for your conference, class, or webinar? Ping me!
Thanks!

Watch Juice for free on Roku!

If you haven't seen our documentary yet, here's a reminder: you can watch Juice: How Electricity Explains the World, on Roku, for free. Just click this link. If your friends haven't seen it, send them a link. Or if you have a prime membership, you can watch it on Amazon Prime.