iftttwall

According to a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent of Americans would oppose the construction of a data center in their community, largely due to concerns over potential environmental impacts, quality of life, and energy affordability. This strong public opposition has left state lawmakers scrambling to regulate new and existing data centers, even in states with low energy prices. 

In North Carolina—where the residential cost of electricity is about 13.8 percent lower than the national average—the state Senate is currently considering the Ratepayer Protection Act. This bill would likely increase the cost of data center development in the Tar Heel State by requiring every data center proposal with a peak monthly demand of “100 megawatts or greater” to include noise assessments for schools and homes “within 500 feet” of the project, and force developers to implement more expensive cooling systems within their facilities.  

While the bill takes positive steps to end government paternalism by prohibiting local tax credits for data centers, it also mandates that data centers contractually cover all service-related costs to ensure retail customers aren’t “subsidizing” their operations. Some AI companies have already voluntarily committed to financing grid upgrades elsewhere in the country, and President Donald Trump has called for this to be the industry norm moving forward.   

The legislation also introduces new ways for the state to pick energy winners and losers by also barring utilities from retiring facilities that generate more than 100 megawatts (MW) of electricity—enough to potentially power as many as 100,000 homes—until an electric utility in the state receives regulatory approval to build a new 1,000 MW nuclear facility. 

There are currently five electric utilities operating in the state, but only one, Duke Energy, has plans to build a new nuclear power plant. However, Duke Energy’s proposed plant won’t be online until 2036 and falls short of the bill’s stipulated generation capacity of 1,000 MW.

Still, this provision, if passed, could come back to haunt North Carolina ratepayers by forcing aging, expensive power plants to stay open, even when cheaper alternatives exist. This is exactly what’s happening in Michigan, where a federal emergency order has forced a coal plant to stay open more than a year past its retirement date. This order could leave ratepayers to foot $180 million in additional costs, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.  

And even with noticeable gains in deregulating the nuclear industry, North Carolina’s bill doesn’t appear to account for the startup capital required for a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant. In Georgia, home to two recently built 1,000 MW plants, the state’s ratepayers were on the hook for $7.56 billion of the $10.2 billion needed to complete the plants, borne through higher utility bills.

North Carolina isn’t the only state considering new regulations for data centers. In Texas, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages 90 percent of the state’s electric grid, has proposed two new rule changes that will determine which data center projects are built.

Data centers and other large loads have requested “roughly 450 gigawatts of power—more than five times the all-time peak power demand recorded within the ERCOT region,” according to E&E News. To help weed out the serious applicants from the unserious ones, the grid regulator is proposing a new process for connecting power-hungry projects to the grid, the Batch Zero Interconnection Study.

Rather than considering large-load applicants individually, as ERCOT currently does, the new plan will consider them in batches. To qualify for consideration, serious applicants must submit a deposit to cover the cost of grid upgrades, “prove they have a contracted customer, a signed lease agreement or deed for the land they’re building on,” and meet other provisions, reports the Houston Chronicle. Once approved, an applicant must connect to the grid within 30 days. 

ERCOT has also proposed a rule requiring crypto facilities and data centers “to stay online during brief grid disruptions,” according to E&E News. The operator claims the rule would prevent cascading power outages, as occurred during Winter Storm Uri in 2021. 

However, in comments submitted to ERCOT, officials from Google, Tesla, and the Texas Blockchain Council all objected to the policy, which they say imposes a one-size-fits-all standard rather than establishing a threshold based on the specific needs of its large-load customers.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas, which regulates the state’s electric utilities, still has to approve ERCOT’s proposed rules.

With data centers likely to remain a focal point in public discourse, states are beginning to reveal how they will address the issue. While Texas’ plan has received some industry backlash, it seems more flexible to market needs than North Carolina’s, which appears to be motivated more by fear of the bad publicity surrounding data centers than by market signals. 

The post Data Center Wars: North Carolina Resists Innovation While Texas Considers Market-Based Rules appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34wGBIn
via IFTTT

From Andrew Sullivan (The Weekly Dish):

Governor Kathy Hochul has a decision to make by June 12.

The New York State legislature recently tackled the vital, pressing issue of whether the terms “mother” and “father” are cruel and oppressive. They concluded that these terms are indeed transphobic and need to be replaced in law by “gestating parent” and “non-gestating parent.” “Paternity” is also bigoted and axed. Among the Democrats, the vote was, natch, a few shy of unanimous. And let’s not kid ourselves: Hochul’s signature is inevitable. On all questions gay and trans, the Dems are now entirely controlled by trans and “queer” extremists.

Now take a look at this week’s Senate hearings on sex changes for children. Again, the Dems were unanimous, and their position utterly unchanged: the “safety” and “effectiveness” of transing children is beyond any dispute; no one but Republican bigots oppose it; and any problems can be dealt with retroactively by malpractice suits. (The only slight concession to reality was an end to the lie that transing children was the only way to stop them killing themselves. But no apology for the lie, of course. Or for the human wreckage the lie caused.) The Cass Review never happened. Affirmation-only guidelines never existed.

Gays and lesbians and feminists and liberals who oppose transing children and defend the fact of the sex binary? Senators Sanders, Markey, and Baldwin don’t seem to know we even exist. Unsurprising. MS NOW, to take one example, has never had a single guest who’s been critical of child sex changes. The Cass Review, when it has even been mentioned, has been instantly dismissed. The gay and lesbian press, such as it is, reports on all this as a trans genocide in full swing….

You can read the whole thing here. I haven’t followed all these issues closely, especially as to their political effects; but Sullivan certainly has. If readers can recommend sensible contrary views, I’d be glad to add links to them as well.

The post "The TQ+ Threat To LGB Rights" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/QueOdVH
via IFTTT

Expecting any level of ideological consistency from partisan political actors is a fool’s errand; even so, the amount of sheer hypocrisy generated by the Graham Platner scandal is striking.

In response to fresh allegations that Platner, the presumptive Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, was abusive in his past relationships, conservatives who in the past have been correctly discerning of the motivations behind certain sexual misconduct claims are now heralding these accusations as all but confirmed. In fact, they have assailed The New York Times, which published a detailed story about Platner’s dating history and alleged violent episodes, for not going further in its indictment. Meanwhile, many Democrats who gleefully and uncritically embraced the “believe all women” mantra of the #MeToo era are broadly dismissive of the Times story, even though the evidence of wrongdoing is arguably more compelling in this case.

What do I mean by that? The central accusation unfurled by the Times comes from Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner from 2013 to 2015. Fifield is a Republican activist, which is probably enough reason for some people to be dismissive of the claims: Her partisan reasons for raising issues about Platner’s behavior and character are obvious. Nevertheless, Fifield claims that Platner often grabbed her, dragged her, and shoved her during arguments and when he was drinking; he once “twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out,” she told the Times. Fifield denied that he ever seriously hurt her, instead characterizing his behavior as “rough.”

In an appearance on MSNBC last night, Platner strongly denied that any of these altercations took place, though he has conceded to being a bad boyfriend in the past and has chalked this up to psychological trauma from his service as a U.S. Marine. The Times could not corroborate this part of Fifield’s narrative, though she claims she provided them with ample sources who could do so. In a post on X, Fifield slammed the Times for failing to include accusations of sexual assault allegedly made by other women.

“The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign,” she wrote.

Supporters of Platner do not see it this way. Progressive commentator Cenk Uygur castigated the Times on X, calling the paper a “gossip rag” engaged in hyping up a “bullshit story.”

So conservatives are mad that the story doesn’t go harder against Platner, and Democrats are mad that it exists at all. That might lead an independent-minded person to conclude the story is right on the money, but I actually see some merit in both sets of criticisms. Fifield says that she provided corroboration that isn’t sourced in the story, and that she was told there were sexual assault victims who would go on the record. Instead, the Times focused on other past relationships they describe as “unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching.” But that’s unfair: No person accused of “emotionally wrenching” behavior can possibly disprove it, since it’s entirely subjective. Focusing on those elements of Platner’s behavior seems unfair.

The Times is on firmer ground when it effectively catches Platner in a lie with respect to his tattoo. Platner has claimed he had no idea the skull tattoo that marked his chest for 20 years was associated with Nazism, but Fifield provided the Times with fairly compelling proof that he did in fact know. Platner lying about that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s lying when he unequivocally states that the physical abuse did not take place, but it arguably speaks to his credibility.

Of course, all of that is beside the point if one applies the standards of the #MeToo era, which were simply that all women should be believed when they make an accusation of assault or sexual misconduct. This was, of course, the standard applied by progressive activists, Democrats, and many in the mainstream media when they considered Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), a progressive Democrat and major supporter of Platner, cited the believe-all-women ethos when he called on Kavanaugh to withdraw in 2018.

I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

I believe Deborah Ramirez.

I believe Anita Hill.

Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court.

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) September 28, 2018

Note that Khanna has not called on Platner to drop out of the Senate race—even though there is still time for Maine Democrats to select a different candidate—and even intends to continue campaigning with him.

That’s one prominent example of Kavanaugh/Platner hypocrisy, but there are countless others, including Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) and leftist commentators Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, and Emma Vigeland. These people all believed Blasey Ford was telling the truth about Kavanaugh, even though there was no corroborating evidence whatsoever that he groped her; indeed, there was no actual evidence that the two had ever met. With Platner and Fifield, the fact that they dated for two years—and the relationship was at times very toxic—is not even in dispute.

While it would be a good idea for everyone to move away from the excesses of the #MeToo era, don’t expect partisans to do so consistently. The frustrating truth is that both sides are perfectly willing to overlook huge red flags when evaluating their own people; when it’s somebody from the other team, though, the rules will be applied mercilessly and with blinding moral fervor.

The post Graham Platner Has Made #MeToo Democrats and Their Enemies Switch Sides appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Fb6Jph0
via IFTTT

The Trump administration is still fighting to keep billions of dollars in tariff revenue that it unlawfully collected from American businesses.

Despite begrudgingly starting to refund some of those tariff payments in April, the Trump administration told a federal court this week that it should not have to refund all those payments. If the administration prevails, it would only have to issue refunds to the businesses that filed lawsuits challenging the legality of those tariffs—which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in February—while many other businesses would be out of luck.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also trying to shield a top customs official from appearing before the Court of International Trade (CIT) next week in defiance of a judge’s order.

To understand how we got to this point, let’s go back to the Supreme Court’s ruling in February. The high court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” but it left unanswered the question of what to do about the roughly $166 billion that importers had paid since Trump imposed those tariffs last year.

The task of sorting out the refund issue fell to the CIT, which in March issued a universal injunction telling the Trump administration to refund all of the IEEPA tariffs. At the time, Judge Richard Eaton wrote that “all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of” the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Trump administration is now appealing that injunction to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On Wednesday, Eaton responded to the Trump administration’s appeal with a letter sent to the Justice Department and the appeals court. In the letter, Eaton took issue with the administration’s claim that it had “voluntarily” engaged in the refund process. In several attachments pulled from the Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) own announcements of the refund process, Eaton highlighted how the Trump administration was acting in response to the CIT’s orders.

“A stay would discourage continuing progress,” he wrote.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of another, related fight between the administration and Eaton, who has ordered Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear before the CIT next week to answer questions about the refund process.

Having apparently run out of patience with the administration’s foot-dragging on the tariff refund issue, Eaton ordered Scott to appear before the court on June 9.

“Commissioner Scott’s testimony is necessary to ascertain if it is the Government’s policy to return all of the unlawfully collected duties either by complying with the court’s order, or by some other means—that is, if it is the Government’s policy to refund the duties to importers both large and small,” Eaton wrote on May 29, in response to the Trump administration’s initial attempt to get Scott off the hook. “There is $166 billion involved.”

In the appeal filed this week, the Trump administration argued that the CIT could not compel Scott to show up for that hearing. As of Friday morning, the federal appeals court had not ruled on the matter.

Caught in the middle of all this are the many, many businesses that paid the illegal tariffs and are awaiting refunds—though some business owners have told Reason that they don’t have much hope of ever seeing that money again.

“Judge Eaton’s latest filing makes an important point: the progress made so far toward refunding unlawful IEEPA tariffs ONLY happened because the court ordered the government to act,” the Liberty Justice Center, which represented many of the plaintiffs in the IEEPA tariff case, wrote on Twitter in response to Eaton’s letter this week. “American businesses deserve their money back, and we will continue fighting to ensure those refunds are delivered quickly and fairly.”

So far, more than $20 billion in refunds have been issued, the Trump administration told the federal appeals court this week. In its latest progress report filed to the CIT on May 26, CPB said $85 billion in refunds were “processing.”

That still leaves tens of billions of dollars in unlawfully collected tariffs that must be refunded. Eaton is right to keep up the pressure on the Trump administration, which seems determined to weasel out of paying as many refunds as possible and keeping some of the ill-gotten gains from its unlawful tariff scheme.

The post The Trump Administration Is Still Fighting To Keep Billions in Illegal Tariff Revenue appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/moCLtXu
via IFTTT