Another aide to Congressman Brady pleads guilty in payoff

Donald “D.A.” Jones pleaded guilty Friday in an ongoing probe of efforts to hide a $90,000 payoff U.S. Rep.
Bob Brady’s campaign made to convince a 2012 primary challenger to drop out of the race (Jessica Griffin)

Jeremy Roebuck reports for Philly.com:

A top political strategist for U.S. Rep. Robert Brady on Friday became the latest defendant to admit his role in a scheme to illegally cover up $90,000 the congressman’s campaign paid a 2012 primary challenger to drop out of the race.

Donald “D.A.” Jones pleaded guilty to charges of lying to federal agents and agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation in a brief hearing in federal court in Philadelphia.

His admission of guilt is the first to come from within Brady’s camp in a case that already has wrung guilty pleas from the congressman’s 2012 opponent – former Municipal Court Judge Jimmie Moore – and the judge’s former campaign manager.

“I accept full responsibility for my actions and consider my guilty plea a first step in making amends,” Jones said in a statement issued by his attorney Alan J. Tauber after the hearing. “I apologize to the people of Philadelphia and to my family for bringing this dishonor upon them.”

What Jones’ plea means for Brady – one of the longest-serving congressmen in the state and the powerful head of Philadelphia’s Democratic Party – remains unclear.

For months, federal investigators have signaled that they were building a case against the 10-term incumbent. But last month, prosecutors allowed an agreement preserving their right to charge Brady outside the traditional statute of limitations to lapse, raising questions about their willingness to move forward with a case.



Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

Another aide to Congressman Brady pleads guilty in payoff Read More »

Seniors group, AARP, to Congress: Don’t cut Medicare




AARP Chief Executive Officer Jo Ann Jenkins called on congressional leaders Thursday to keep their promise to America’s seniors and prevent a large cut to Medicare that the tax bill now being debated on Capitol Hill would trigger.

The tax measure would result in a $1.5 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Such a deficit would prompt an automatic $25 billion cut to Medicare as soon as January because of the “pay-as-you-go” law, commonly referred to as PAYGO.
The law was designed to keep the deficit in check by requiring the administration to reduce spending in many mandatory federal programs if Congress enacts a law that increases the deficit but doesn’t provide offsetting revenue.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader Charles Schumer, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Jenkins reminded McConnell and Ryan that they had recently issued a statement promising that “we will work to ensure these spending cuts are prevented.”
In their statement, the Republican leaders pointed out that the PAYGO law has never been enforced since it was passed in 2010 and “we have no reason to believe that Congress would not act again” to forestall the cuts PAYGO would require.
Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps and some other social safety net programs are exempt from the PAYGO law. But Medicare and programs like federal student loans, agricultural subsidies and the operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection are not exempt.
The law caps how much the government can trim from Medicare at 4 percent. That’s $25 billion the first year, according to CBO. The amount could be higher in subsequent years, depending on the size of the deficit and Medicare’s budget.
The reduction would affect the payments that doctors, hospitals and other health care providers receive for treating Medicare patients. Individual benefits would not be directly cut, but the reduction could have implications for the care beneficiaries receive.
“The sudden cut to Medicare provider funding in 2018 would have an immediate and lasting impact, including fewer providers participating in Medicare and reduced access to care for Medicare beneficiaries,” Jenkins wrote. Health care providers might stop taking Medicare patients, she added, even as 10,000 older adults are enrolling in the health program each day.
In addition, Medicare Advantage plans and Part D prescription drug plans may compensate for the cuts by charging higher premiums or shifting more costs to beneficiaries in future years.

Seniors group, AARP, to Congress: Don’t cut Medicare Read More »

MacArthur, NY buddies put GOP tax-plan blame on states

Tom (What, me worry?) MacArthur, best congressional friend of the rich

Tom MacArthur–the only congressman from New Jersey backing the GOP tax plan that will deliver huge tax breaks to one-percenters while ravaging the middle class– joins five fellow Republicans from New York in a novel defense: It’s all the fault of your spend-crazy state.

The Times’ Jesse McKinley and Nick Corasanti lay it out in:
 If the G.O.P. Tax Plan Hurts You, Congressmen Say It’s Your State’s Fault

Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

 

MacArthur, NY buddies put GOP tax-plan blame on states Read More »

Opinion: We need ZECs but not just for nuclear power

 | NJSpotlight | DECEMBER 8, 2017


We need a comprehensive ZEC policy that reflects the total costs of all power sources — including solar and wind — in the rates charged for them by the state’s utilities

potter

Credit: Amanda Brown
R. William Potter
The State House is all abuzz with rumors that the Legislature will try to pass a controversial bill during the brief, January lame-duck session authorizing payment of so-called zero-emission credits (ZECs) to Public Service Electric & Gas as the price for keeping its three nuclear plants, which supply 40 percent of our electricity, in operation.
PSEG argues that the influx of ultra-cheap natural gas from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania will soon render zero-emission electricity — produced by the Salem I and II and Hope Creek nuclear units — uncompetitive in the brave New World of competitively priced power, forcing PSEG to shut the plants down, causing an increase in pollution from the gas-fired units that will replace them.
At one time, natural gas was considered the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, but recent studies confirm that its “fugitive emissions” of methane gases spewed into the atmosphere are far more potent agents of global warming and climate change than even carbon dioxide from coal-burning units.
In short, PSEG’s vocal push for ZECs has solid support in economic theory — which holds that consumers should willingly pay more for fuels that in addition to generating energy also produce “positive externalities” that go by other names, including “environmental benefits” or “societal services” like cleaner air and better health.


Cleaner is costlier, but worth it

Put simply, cleaner is often costlier, but well worth the premium in health and environmental benefits.
Conversely, energy sources that pollute the environment produce “negative externalities” — such as greenhouse-gas emissions, sulfur dioxide, smog, particulates, and so forth — and for that reason they should be penalized and taxed so that they do not push cleaner sources out of the marketplace.
In effect, authorizing ZECs is a way to level the playing field so that dirtier and often cheaper fuel sources do not have a competitive advantage over cleaner but more expensively produced electricity, including nuclear along with renewable sources, solar and wind.
Recently Illinois enacted a ZEC law for the purpose of preventing the threatened shutdown of several nuclear power plants that were facing stiff competition from natural gas.


Responding to PSEG

In response to PSEG’s urgent requests, the Senate and Assembly environment committees held a rare joint hearing that ended with environmental groups shouting their opposition to the ZEC initiative, in part because the hearing ended before they could testify.
A few days earlier NJ Spotlight published an articulate denunciation of the ZEC legislation, titled “PSEG, Open Your Books!,” by noted energy attorney Stephen Goldenberg. He characterized the ZEC proposal as a “nuclear subsidy … a huge, multibillion-dollar nuclear tax imposed on all New Jersey citizens” leading to “windfall profits” for the utility.
Citing past “stranded cost claims” that nuclear units would be unprofitable in a deregulated era, Goldenberg wisely called for lawmakers not to enact the proposal — which has yet to be introduced or made public — during the lame-duck session, concluding that “the Legislature should just say no to nuclear taxes!”
Instead, they should say “maybe.”


Getting it half right

Goldenberg got it half right: Legislators should take some time to consider ZEC legislation and not rush it through in the few days of the lame duck before Gov.-elect Phil Murphy takes office. ZEC legislation should not single out nuclear power as the sole beneficiary. We need a comprehensive ZEC policy that ranks all power sources — including solar and other renewables — on an “externality scale.” The cleaner the energy source, the greater the “positive externalities” and the higher the ZEC premium to be paid for it.
But how do we do that, put a price tag on the “societal benefits” and “societal harms” of diverse energy sources?
In 1990 Pace University and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) published a massive study, “Environmental Cost of Electricity,” directed by former Congressman Richard Ottinger, an early leader in the environmental movement, that provides some answers.
The Pace/NYSERDA tome attempts to “quantify environmental externality costs and include them in utility rate-making and resource selection” through a process wonkily called “monetization” of impacts. In short, we need a comprehensive ZEC system that reflects and incorporates the total costs of differing power sources in the rates charged for them by the state’s utilities.
This should be a priority for the incoming Murphy administration.

R. William Potter is a partner in the Princeton-based law firm Potter and Dickson. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or any client.

Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column — >>

Opinion: We need ZECs but not just for nuclear power Read More »

From Clean Economy Weekly: 

Tax bill loves fossils (renewables not so much)

Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images   
The tax bill Republicans are rushing to wrap up by Christmas has no gifts for renewables—but quite a few for fossil fuels. The House version would diminish tax credits for solar and wind; the Senate version would add a BEAT (base erosion anti-abuse) tax that the industries say would devastate clean energy investment. Oil and gas producers, meanwhile, could see a significantly lower tax rate through a “pass-through” benefit that’s in the Senate bill supposedly to help small businesses, and both bills target the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. InsideClimate News reporter Georgina Gustin has the highlights here.

The tax bill is just the first step. Coal and nuclear lobbyists are pushing Congress for more goodies: American Electric Power, several coal producers and a coal industry group are proposing a tax credit for operation and maintenance expenses, to be spread among existing coal plants at a cost of up to $6.5 billion a year, Axios reports. Exelon, a utility with a large fleet of nuclear, is asking for up to $1.2 billion a year for four years to help with capital expenditures at existing nuclear plants. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has also proposed rewarding coal and nuclear plants for stockpiling fuel; never mind that grid operators and other experts say it’s a bad idea. Reuters has the latest on that plan here. Axios, here, concludes that the lobbying efforts face long odds.

KEY QUOTE:  “Frankly, this is a novel idea to people who are used to nuclear tax credits and renewable tax credits. This is the first time anyone has thought about one for the existing coal fleet like this.”  —Paul Bailey, CEO of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates

See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

Read More »

Oil industry says it will do methane reductions on its own

An oil well flares off excess methane in the desert east of Farmington, New Mexico. (Courtesy of Michael Eisenfeld)

An oil well flares off excess methane in the desert east of Farmington, New Mexico. (Michael Eisenfeld)

Dino Grandozi reports for The Washington Post:
Amid an effort by the Trump administration to ease rules on the oil and gas sector, 26 companies said they will take voluntary steps to ratchet down emissions on a potent greenhouse gas the Obama administration tried to regulate.

The week, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil and gas lobbying group in Washington, announced the launch of a program aimed at reducing emissions of methane from oil and natural gas production.
“The program overall is set up to continuously improve the environmental performance for onshore operators throughout the country through the process of learning, collaborating and taking action,” said Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for API. “This is a very robust program.”
However, some environmental groups called the initiative, titled The Environmental Partnership, too little, too late given the industry’s embrace of Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
“It’s somewhat amazing that the industry hasn’t already put forward its own standard,” said Chase Huntley, director of energy and climate at The Wilderness Society.
Oil and gas firms participating in the program, which includes heavyweights like Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil onshore subsidiary XTO Energy, have agreed to cut pollution by monitoring and repairing leaks and replacing or retrofitting “high-bleed” pneumatic controllers, identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a top spot for the release of methane.”It’s a very targeted, surgical approach,” Milito said.
Methane is between 28 and 36 times more effective than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere over a 100-year time period, according to the EPA. The measures are also meant to curb the release of volatile organic compounds, which can act as a precursor to ground-level ozone, a component of smog linked to heart and lung problems.

The voluntary program, in which 23 of the top 40 U.S. natural gas producers by volume are participating, focuses on the process of producing natural gas, not the final product — that is, not on the amount of methane actually released into the atmosphere. Under the program, API will publicly report on its progress, with the first report coming in 2019.
Energy firms have a financial incentive to work together, as they are under this program, to capture as much methane as possible. Because methane is the main component of natural gas and can be burned for fuel, every molecule of methane emitted is lost energy — and lost revenue.
The Obama administration, through rules issued by the EPA and the Interior Department, attempted to rein in methane emissions. But Trump has put both agencies’ policies under review, a move API and other industry players welcomed.

Read the full story

Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column —
>>

Oil industry says it will do methane reductions on its own Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights