Excellent. I had been wondering why Avista here in Wash was expanding its gas system despite the new idiotic laws. The decision lists American Gas Association as helping the plaintiffs, so presumably Avista was informed on the progress of the case.
Our condo board ruled that condo owners shall not use charcoal BBQs on their outdoor decks. But electricity or gas are allowed. Who is in control of how we heat our homes and cook? We are.... And those who try to control us are blowing smoke up our asses.......Incompetent leadership causes citizens to lose respect for officials which, in turn, leads towards anarchy. We will not be controlled by idiots.
In 2021 our (Mr. Bryce's and my) home city tried to pass an ordinance banning gas in new construction and phasing it out of existing houses by 2030.
Happily, also in 2021, the Texas legislature passed a law saying the municipalities could not pass ordinances favoring fuel sources. So Austin was preempted at the state level.
I hope this circuit court decision will ultimately mean that such action is also preempted at the federal level.
I would dearly love to know the influence path that led to Austin's City Council (of idiots) trying to pass this anti-gas ordinance. Or were they just thoughtlessly imitating big-brother California?
The amount of stupidity coming from Austin is just breath taking. In 2009 they could have participated in an expansion of their largest source of clean electricity, South Texas Nuclear Plant. They did not claiming that the consultants worst case prediction of $.08/KWHr was too expensive. But every single source of electricity they've spent money on since then has been guaranteed from the outset to be more expensive than $.08/KWHr, never mind worst case.
If you de-prorate the costs of transmission lines for wind in Texas, by using the ERCOT charge on every single KWHr consumed, it's clear that transmission alone is costing between $.10 adn $.15 per KWHr for the Wind energy Austin so dearly loves. Austin promised its citizens that the Green Choice (wind) subscribers would pay the full price for their choice (and enjoy the benefits, if any), yet the rest of us are subsidizing their transmission costs.
And the Nacogdoches wood burning plant is an amazing study of waste in the name of "green"-ness. Austin agreed to pay it $110M per year for 20 years just to be available. Any electricity, if purchased would be $.15 - $.16 per KWHr -- twice what the STNP expansion might have cost -- and finally when a tiny bit of sanity returned, after years of throwing $110M a year down this wooden outhouse, the city finally bought the plant outright (for $460M) as the only way to get out of the poor contract.
Austin squandered over (say it like Dr. Evil) ONE BILLION DOLLARS on this wood burning boondoggle and as far as I know not a single KWHr of electricity was ever delivered to Austin.
Sorry, digressed a bit. Austin angers me sooo much. I've been here since '75, but insane people seem to have taken over.
I think your arguments are strong enough that you don't have to put so much focus on where the money comes from. There's deep pockets on both side. While it's helpful to remind people of that, too much isn't giving folks on the other side their due. They're not all dupes, corrupted or hoodwinked by evil billionaires. Most are smart people who come to different conclusions for a variety of reasons.
Quick question: does the Ninth Circus' overturning of the natural gas ban, based on the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, apply to other fuels as well? In other words, does this ruling provide a way to overturn progressive efforts to pick one fuel (electricity) over others (gasoline and diesel) in regards to automobiles? Or solar/wind over coal/natural gas/nuclear in regards to electricity generation? If so, this would be a HUGE victory!
Gas stoves are around 40% efficient at getting heat into your pan.
A combined cycle gas plant is around 60% efficient at turning gas into electricity. Induction is around 84% efficient at getting heat into your pan. You need to multiply these together to to a total efficiency of around 50%.
Qualifications as a nuclear engineer are largely irrelevant to understanding the impact on the environment of fossil fuels. You might as well tell us that the guy has brown hair or likes chocolate. Instead you told us that he can't successfully multiply 2 numbers.
The much bigger question is how this will effect the much more serious issue of various authorities preventing gas hookups to anything but industrial customers. And will the ban prevent them from stifling gas distribution to Residential customers, which is the far superior way for them to ban gas appliances. Ultimately that will result in the end of free choice in energy for consumers.
These corrupted politicians are just itching to have the ability to shut all energy supply to the lowly serfs under their control. They see themselves as being masters of their constituents rather than their servants.
Does this ruling have broader implications for things such as California's electrification goals or CARB's requirement for carbon permits for certain types of fuel (fossil) but not others (renewables)?
Bob: Good job on this summary. The lawsuit decision is also a fascinating read. The Left lawyers are desperately pushing nonsense. For example, the verdict by the judges says: "Berkeley’s main contention is that its Ordinance doesn’t regulate 'energy use' because it bans natural gas rather than prescribes a 'quantity of energy.' While Berkeley concedes that a prohibition on natural gas infrastructure reduces the energy consumed by natural gas appliances in new buildings to zero, it argues that 'zero' is not a quantity, so the Ordinance is not an energy use regulation."
the malthusian nature preachers incite culture wars against normal people over rational preferences like cooking with gas or drinking from plastic straws, in their heroic fantasy this counts as saving the planet. meanwhile they obstruct energy, transport, industrial food, and cloud technology that will actually conserve habitat. not unlike another democratic party constituency the intersectional peacocks who incite culture wars against normal people who simply get along instead of joining ritual praise of and legalizing crimes by chosen 'victim identities'. meanwhile the hip peacocks are laisse faire or protectionist when it comes to distributing technical frontier jobs outside metropolitan areas, and hostile to family and student discipline -- both of which are essential to reskill the real victims of the real problem - technical advance which always begets creative destruction. if you learn social development you have less time for inventing enemies
Excellent. I had been wondering why Avista here in Wash was expanding its gas system despite the new idiotic laws. The decision lists American Gas Association as helping the plaintiffs, so presumably Avista was informed on the progress of the case.
Our condo board ruled that condo owners shall not use charcoal BBQs on their outdoor decks. But electricity or gas are allowed. Who is in control of how we heat our homes and cook? We are.... And those who try to control us are blowing smoke up our asses.......Incompetent leadership causes citizens to lose respect for officials which, in turn, leads towards anarchy. We will not be controlled by idiots.
In 2021 our (Mr. Bryce's and my) home city tried to pass an ordinance banning gas in new construction and phasing it out of existing houses by 2030.
Happily, also in 2021, the Texas legislature passed a law saying the municipalities could not pass ordinances favoring fuel sources. So Austin was preempted at the state level.
I hope this circuit court decision will ultimately mean that such action is also preempted at the federal level.
I would dearly love to know the influence path that led to Austin's City Council (of idiots) trying to pass this anti-gas ordinance. Or were they just thoughtlessly imitating big-brother California?
The amount of stupidity coming from Austin is just breath taking. In 2009 they could have participated in an expansion of their largest source of clean electricity, South Texas Nuclear Plant. They did not claiming that the consultants worst case prediction of $.08/KWHr was too expensive. But every single source of electricity they've spent money on since then has been guaranteed from the outset to be more expensive than $.08/KWHr, never mind worst case.
If you de-prorate the costs of transmission lines for wind in Texas, by using the ERCOT charge on every single KWHr consumed, it's clear that transmission alone is costing between $.10 adn $.15 per KWHr for the Wind energy Austin so dearly loves. Austin promised its citizens that the Green Choice (wind) subscribers would pay the full price for their choice (and enjoy the benefits, if any), yet the rest of us are subsidizing their transmission costs.
And the Nacogdoches wood burning plant is an amazing study of waste in the name of "green"-ness. Austin agreed to pay it $110M per year for 20 years just to be available. Any electricity, if purchased would be $.15 - $.16 per KWHr -- twice what the STNP expansion might have cost -- and finally when a tiny bit of sanity returned, after years of throwing $110M a year down this wooden outhouse, the city finally bought the plant outright (for $460M) as the only way to get out of the poor contract.
Austin squandered over (say it like Dr. Evil) ONE BILLION DOLLARS on this wood burning boondoggle and as far as I know not a single KWHr of electricity was ever delivered to Austin.
Sorry, digressed a bit. Austin angers me sooo much. I've been here since '75, but insane people seem to have taken over.
I think your arguments are strong enough that you don't have to put so much focus on where the money comes from. There's deep pockets on both side. While it's helpful to remind people of that, too much isn't giving folks on the other side their due. They're not all dupes, corrupted or hoodwinked by evil billionaires. Most are smart people who come to different conclusions for a variety of reasons.
Quick question: does the Ninth Circus' overturning of the natural gas ban, based on the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, apply to other fuels as well? In other words, does this ruling provide a way to overturn progressive efforts to pick one fuel (electricity) over others (gasoline and diesel) in regards to automobiles? Or solar/wind over coal/natural gas/nuclear in regards to electricity generation? If so, this would be a HUGE victory!
Gas stoves are around 40% efficient at getting heat into your pan.
A combined cycle gas plant is around 60% efficient at turning gas into electricity. Induction is around 84% efficient at getting heat into your pan. You need to multiply these together to to a total efficiency of around 50%.
Qualifications as a nuclear engineer are largely irrelevant to understanding the impact on the environment of fossil fuels. You might as well tell us that the guy has brown hair or likes chocolate. Instead you told us that he can't successfully multiply 2 numbers.
The much bigger question is how this will effect the much more serious issue of various authorities preventing gas hookups to anything but industrial customers. And will the ban prevent them from stifling gas distribution to Residential customers, which is the far superior way for them to ban gas appliances. Ultimately that will result in the end of free choice in energy for consumers.
These corrupted politicians are just itching to have the ability to shut all energy supply to the lowly serfs under their control. They see themselves as being masters of their constituents rather than their servants.
Great piece
Maybe the auto makers should sue over the preference for electric cars.
Very nice piece Robert. It raised my hopes that maybe....
As always, climate BS is where science goes to die.
These people would make Lysenko blush.
I’m puzzled by 501c3’s not having to disclose donors...it makes it hard to track where the $ are coming from and going. Does anyone know why this is?
Does this ruling have broader implications for things such as California's electrification goals or CARB's requirement for carbon permits for certain types of fuel (fossil) but not others (renewables)?
Bob: Good job on this summary. The lawsuit decision is also a fascinating read. The Left lawyers are desperately pushing nonsense. For example, the verdict by the judges says: "Berkeley’s main contention is that its Ordinance doesn’t regulate 'energy use' because it bans natural gas rather than prescribes a 'quantity of energy.' While Berkeley concedes that a prohibition on natural gas infrastructure reduces the energy consumed by natural gas appliances in new buildings to zero, it argues that 'zero' is not a quantity, so the Ordinance is not an energy use regulation."
the malthusian nature preachers incite culture wars against normal people over rational preferences like cooking with gas or drinking from plastic straws, in their heroic fantasy this counts as saving the planet. meanwhile they obstruct energy, transport, industrial food, and cloud technology that will actually conserve habitat. not unlike another democratic party constituency the intersectional peacocks who incite culture wars against normal people who simply get along instead of joining ritual praise of and legalizing crimes by chosen 'victim identities'. meanwhile the hip peacocks are laisse faire or protectionist when it comes to distributing technical frontier jobs outside metropolitan areas, and hostile to family and student discipline -- both of which are essential to reskill the real victims of the real problem - technical advance which always begets creative destruction. if you learn social development you have less time for inventing enemies