October 2016 – Page 3

OPEC agrees to a production decrease, prices increase – but could be just right

Commentary by Marita Noon

At the end of September, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) surprised the markets by agreeing to a production cut. As soon as the 14-nation deal was announced, oil prices jumped more than 5 percent to some of the highest levels since the crash two years ago. (Editor’s note: Locally prices at the pump are relatively unchanged because the area was mildly affected by the Alabama pipeline break earlier in the month, so prices were just beginning to recover.)

The proposed output cap is historic and represents a shift in the “pump-at-will policy,” as Bloomberg called it, “the group adopted in 2014 at the instigation of Saudi Arabia.”

Many analysts see that the Saudi gamble, aimed at putting American producers out of business, has failed. While U.S. oil production is down from last year’s highs and bankruptcies are up, the industry has become more efficient and the cost of extracting oil from shale is continuing to come down – resulting in the sixth straight week of an increased rig count and the 15th without a decrease. Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports: “Many oil producers believe drilling in some U.S. regions can be profitable even with oil prices in their current range of $40 to $50 a barrel.”

Additionally, U.S. crude stockpiles have fallen for the fifth consecutive week – as have crude imports. American drivers are consuming more gasoline than ever. Exploration budgets, due to the low oil prices, have been slashed with the predicted result of lower production in the next few years. It appears that demand is catching up with production and prices have been creeping up since February’s lows. Phil Flynn, senior market analyst with the PRICE Futures Group explains: “While supply is still at a historically high level for this time of year, strong U.S. demand and rising U.S. exports are cutting down the glut.”

Meanwhile, the social costs of low-priced oil have been high for OPEC members – hitting Saudi Arabia especially hard. The cartel’s biggest producer has lost billions of dollars of revenue, which has resulted in a 20 percent pay cut for its ministers, reductions in financial benefits for government employees, and an increase in fees and fines, and cuts in subsidies, for all in the kingdom. Fear that the loss of the coddled lifestyle could throw the country into chaos, according to industry veteran and consultant Allen Brooks, likely convinced Saudi Arabian officials to moderate their position. The view from Bloomberg concurs: “Saudi Arabia’s willingness to do a deal, in particular, demonstrates the economic pain lower oil prices has caused producers.”

Iran, OPECs other majordomo, has, due to sanctions, gotten used to austerity and is now seeing its economic pressures easing and its oil exports increasing. It, therefore, heading into the OPEC meeting, appeared to be rejecting the Saudi output offer and dashed hopes of a compromise to cut crude production. The Financial Times quotes one Gulf OPEC delegate as saying: “All producers are hurting.”

The surprise came on Wednesday, September 28, when, after two years of failed attempts at an agreement and months of dialogue leading up to the meeting, “Saudi Arabia agreed to take on the bulk of OPEC’s proposed cuts,” wrote the WSJ. The headline from the New York Times read: “OPEC agrees to cut production, sending oil prices soaring.”

The proposed cuts are moderate in reality, only 1-2 percent of the 14-nation cartel’s 33.2 million barrels a day of production and they represent less than 1 percent of total global production. Yet, the announcement buoyed markets and added power to the previously mentioned price momentum. According to CNN Money, the agreement offers “powerful symbolism.”

While the price of oil received a bounce from the news that has given the industry cautious optimism, it is not expected to have a big impact on the price of gasoline. Oil prices are now expected to stay near $50 a barrel through the end of the year and below $60 a barrel through 2017 – which will likely mean an increase of a few cents a gallon at the pump. Julian Jessop, chief global economist at Capital Economic, in CNN Money, called the situation “a period of ‘Goldilocks’ oil prices” – low enough to help consumer spending and “high enough to keep major producers afloat.”

The slight bump in prices the proposed deal adds to the upward trend is enough to send some producers back into the oil field and encourage another burst of drilling. That increased production will have a self-leveling effect on prices. As prices go up, production increases. As more oil enters the already-glutted market, prices come down.

Additionally, the OPEC agreement is only a plan. It isn’t finalized. That could happen in Vienna in November if, and it is a big if, the members can agree on who will make the cuts, when the cuts will go into effect, how long they will last, and how they will be enforced. While all 14 countries – and non-OPEC producers such as the U.S. and Russia – will benefit from higher prices, no one wants to be the one taking the cut. Iran, Libya, and Nigeria are all trying to increase production that has been stifled due to sanctions or conflict. Plus, as WSJ reports: “OPEC has a long history of agreeing to production cuts, only to have the pact collapse when countries change their minds.” CNN Money adds: “cartel members also have a tendency to overshoot production quotas.”

So, while the OPEC announcement is “not a game-changing move that will send oil prices shooting back up towards the $100 a barrel level,” as The Guardian reported, it is big news that brightens prospects for the energy industry while keeping things just right for consumers.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Earning my presidential vote (part 1)

As you likely know, I’m not supporting either of the two major party candidates on the ballot. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are flawed personalities who I find untrustworthy and feel would do damage to a concept I believe in: a federal government properly restrained by the Constitution and conducted in accordance with traditional Judeo-Christian values.

So that leaves me with a lot of choices – in fact, there’s not just the four who are on the ballot in Maryland but (as of this writing) 42 write-in candidates. Now some just want attention or are crackpots, so I have eliminated those who have not selected a vice-presidential running mate. After doing so, there are ten remaining – all four on the ballot and six write-in hopefuls. I’ve already eliminated Trump/Pence and Clinton/Kaine, so that leaves eight. In this phase I will eliminate the ones who would not be obvious choices.

On the ballot we have the Libertarian Party, which is represented by former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts governor William Weld. Obviously I have a significant amount of libertarian views, but there are areas I have concerns with them. However, I know enough about where they stand to advance them to round 2.

On the other hand, the Green Party, which is represented by Dr. Jill Stein and running mate Ajamu Baraka – who incidentally was selected over Maryland’s Green Party U.S. Senate candidate Margaret Flowers and former U.S. Senate candidate Kevin Zeese – is far, far, FAR too far to the left for my consideration.

So that’s the folks on the ballot. But what about the six write-ins?

The Constitution Party is represented by Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley, and simply based on the name and philosophy of fealty to the Constitution will move forward.

James Hedges and Bill Bayes represent America’s oldest third party, the Prohibition Party. It has an interesting platform that combines a number of very conservative viewpoints on some issues with a far more progressive approach to others, which is reflected in the candidacy of Hedges. I think it will merit further study, although they may well not be my first choice.

Lynn Kahn (and running mate Kathleen Monahan) tried to get on the Maryland ballot as independents, but could not reach a sufficient number of signatures to do so. Overall, the biggest problem I see with Kahn is one of philosophy: she seems to believe that government can be fixed to be more efficient and accountable through a number of methods, but I believe the government needs to be fixed by the Constitutional means of rightsizing government. To me, her ideas are not the fix we need so this ticket is out.

In the little bit of time I have looked through their platform, I believe Evan McMullin and Mindy Finn have a good chance at securing my vote, so I will advance them pending my further research. Because they are write-in candidates, it may not matter that the person listed by the Board of Elections as VP candidate (Nathan Johnson) is not the person McMullin intended to be his running mate, although it is a rookie mistake.

I think Marshall Schoenke and James Mitchell are very honest and forthright people who earnestly believe they are statesmen, with a God-fearing (if somewhat muddled populist) platform. But they have a huge problem: because both reside in Illinois, they are ineligible under the Twelfth Amendment as I read it.

So despite the fact the website has some pretty good music on it (Schoenke is a professional musician) I have to eliminate them from further consideration.

Tony Valdivia and running mate Aaron Barriere are political neophytes. Valdivia’s introduction stressed campaign finance reform, but he doesn’t have a website to check his issues out, which is a drawback for me. Basically the story seems to me that he decided over the summer the top two choices weren’t to his liking so he decided to run himself and has secured write-in positions in a number of states besides Maryland. It’s a nice story, but from the few minutes with which I listened to what he had to say it seemed like he’s more centrist and populist than I would prefer. So he is out.

I also have a dark horse in the race who announced he has filed as a write-in candidate in Maryland as of today, one which was suggested to me so I will look into their platform as well: Tom Hoefling and Steve Schulin of America’s Party. What I’m interested in seeing is whether there is anything they offer beyond their position on social issues to address the other concerns I have.

This means my final five, which I will begin studying more in earnest, represent four parties and one independent: the Libertarian Gary Johnson, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle, the Prohibition Party’s James Hedges, Tom Hoefling of America’s Party, and independent Evan McMullin. As I did for the GOP candidates, I will focus on ten key issues: education, Second Amendment, energy, social issues, trade and job creation, taxation, immigration, foreign policy, entitlements, the role of government, and other intangibles.

I think I can do this in a week, so look for an update seven days hence.

Some quick impressions on Trump’s bimbo eruption

The firestorm of protest over leaked eleven-year-old remarks by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has roiled the race, with a handful of Republicans withdrawing their endorsement and others wringing their hands as this story launched just in time to get certain coverage at the Presidential debate tonight.

So here are a few bullet points and stream-of-consciousness thoughts on the situation.

Someone had this tape laying around just waiting for the proper moment to release it, and that person obviously supported Hillary Clinton. Had this come out in February we may have had a completely different nominee so this is a good reinforcement for the theory that the media – once again – orchestrated the campaign with the assistance of Hillary’s supporters to make sure the GOP nominated its weakest candidate.
Whether this is locker-room banter or not is irrelevant. It seems the Republicans I know are bending over backwards to tell me this is a common thing, and men often talk this way in their unguarded moments. I’m not going to argue that point, but shouldn’t we demand a little more from our candidate?
And since when has it been appropriate to refer to women in such a way? Does “never” ring a bell?
This argument often goes on to discuss either the fact that Bill Clinton was a sexual predator or that Hillary Clinton has done far worse criminal acts during her adult life. But this isn’t relevant to me, nor should the fact it’s 11 years old be an excuse. We don’t have evidence that Trump’s apology was more than half-hearted nor can we say he’s contrite over the fact he’s sought to sleep with other married women while married himself. Again, should we not expect higher standards from those we call on to be leaders?
Two weeks ago, before the first debate, Donald Trump had caught up to or passed Hillary Clinton in the polls. Since then not only is he suffering from the subpar performance in his first go-round against Hillary but he now has to deal with this issue. The lack of preparation for his campaign has really shown.
Yet those people who believe we need to replace Trump on the top of the ticket are going to have a rude awakening. People are already voting, ballots have been printed, and in general it is too late to change. A plurality of GOP (?) voters chose Trump, and at every juncture where this could have been prevented it wasn’t. I’ve said this before: you break it, you bought it.

Unless the current trends cease – and it will be very interesting to see the polls come Monday and Tuesday – we may begin to see an electoral bloodbath. Last week saw Trump slip behind in Ohio and Florida, where he had been leading. Soon he may be down to those states which are reliably Republican, but don’t add much to the Electoral College. Those states that have voted Republican the last four cycles only contribute 180 electoral votes, while the same scenario for Democrats provides 242. (This is amazing when you consider who the Democrats ran in 2000 and 2004.) But even a few of those old reliable states are close in the polling, with a worst-case scenario rapidly becoming a 400-vote Electoral College win for Hillary as she racks up all the East Coast and West Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the desert Southwest.

So, yes, this is a bimbo eruption Hillary could benefit from – again. And it’s all the fault of people who decided that party trumped principle, the heavy dose of statism we’ve endured over the last eight years called for a heavier dose of populism (with a dash of revenge for perceived wrongs tossed in) and the bathwater needed to be tossed whether the baby was in it or not.

As I said before, Hillary became President the moment Donald Trump secured the nomination. All that’s left is the formality.

monoblogue music: “The Songs” by Jim Peterik

All right, this is one that is very intriguing. Take a musician who may not be a household name himself, but realize that you KNOW most of the songs on the album because they were done by artists you’ve heard – particularly Survivor and .38 Special. Jim Peterik was a founding member of the Ides of March as well as Survivor, but has also worked with a number of other artists as a songwriter, including the aforementioned .38 Special.

Yet what you get on this album isn’t just a paint-by-numbers retrospective of a long career that began way back in 1964 with a group called The Shon-Dels that evolved into the Ides of March. Instead, Peterik headed down to Nashville and put a brand new spin on this classic rock. Imagine the Ides’ 1970 hit Vehicle performed as a slow jam, with primarily a keyboard accompaniment, or Eye of the Tiger done in a bluegrass/country style and tempo. Other Survivor songs like Is This Love, The Search Is Over, or I Can’t Hold Back also get an acoustic country treatment – but High On You is treated with a Caribbean flavor while L.A. Goodbye (another Ides of March hit) becomes a piano-based ballad that’s a highlight of the compilation.

But while Peterik has performed the most with the Ides of March (along with a couple other lesser-known groups, Pride of Lions and Lifeforce), he wrote many of the songs for .38 Special. This is what he did with Caught Up In You:

I daresay you won’t hear that on the classic rock station. Meanwhile, Hold On Loosely is recast as a slow acoustic ballad.

There are also songs that Peterik wrote for others on this as well. I never had really heard That’s Why God Made The Radio, but it was a song written years before its 2012 release on the Beach Boys’ album of the same name. (Peterik had worked with Brian Wilson in his solo career, too.) This version could have stood up in the 1960s with its vibe. And the last classic song was the one I liked most: redoing the Sammy Hagar song Heavy Metal (from the soundtrack of the 1981 movie of the same name – one of my all-time favorites) as more of a heavy blues song. I was wondering what he would do with it, and the treatment paid off.

Tucked in toward the end of the album are two recent original compositions: the gospel-influenced Miracle At Ground Zero, and the introspective The Same Muse, where he sings about music being “the only love I know.” I suppose if one of your claims to fame is being a co-author of “Songwriting for Dummies,” you would have a knack for putting together good tunes.

So to wrap things up, I guess the way I can best describe “The Songs” is to let you know that you might know the songs, but chances are you’ll also enjoy the music. After all, Jim Peterik started playing and singing professionally the year I was born, and since then it doesn’t look like he’s missed a beat.

A look at the trade (part 2)

I’m going to pick up on this saga where I left off last week. The 2012 season brought Oriole magic back to the minds of Charm City fans who, for over a decade, had little to cheer about between football seasons. But a loss in the ALCS meant there were improvements to be made, so Dan Duquette quickly set to work during the Hot Stove League season.

Trade 8 (November 20, 2012) – Orioles trade infielder Robert Andino to Seattle Mariners for outfielder Trayvon Robinson.

Andino is still remembered in Baltimore for the last day of the 2011 season, when his base hit defeated the hated Boston Red Sox and, coupled with a stunning comeback by the Tampa Bay Rays against the Yankees, knocked the BoSox out of the playoffs. Some consider it the birth of the Orioles’ recent renaissance. But Robert slumped in 2012 (although he played well in the postseason) so Duquette shipped him off to Seattle. Andino would spend barely a half-season there, compiling a (-0.3) WAR before being traded to Pittsburgh for a player to be named that never was. Andino resurfaced in the big leagues briefly last month with the Miami Marlins, the team Baltimore got him from back in 2009. It’s more than Robinson can say – he spent one season between Bowie and Norfolk before being allowed to sign with the Dodgers as a minor league free agent. Since then Robinson has played with four organizations and split time between two independent league teams this year. I’ll call this one a push.

Trade 9 (November 30, 2012) – Orioles trade minor league pitcher Jhondaniel Medina to Pittsburgh Pirates for infielder Yamaico Navarro.

Apparently Duquette was looking for infield depth, but Navarro didn’t stick long with the Orioles – most of his time with the organization was with Norfolk, although he compiled 0.1 WAR in 8 games with the O’s before latching on with teams in Korea and Japan over the last three seasons. On the other hand, the 23-year-old Medina has worked his way up to the AAA level with the Pirates, meaning they could still get a return on the deal four years later. In this respect it is similar to the Jim Thome deal (Trade 5.) A push, but could still be a Baltimore loss.

Trade 10 (April 10, 2013) – Orioles trade pitcher Luis Ayala to Atlanta Braves for minor league pitcher Chris Jones.

This was sort of a head-scratcher at the time – Ayala was a solid veteran pitcher who had a good season for Baltimore in 2012 but struggled in his first two outings in 2013. Luis pitched the rest of the season with the Braves, picking up an 0.4 WAR for the campaign before signing for the next season as a free agent with the Washington Nationals. An attempt at a 2014 reunion with the Orioles fell flat as Ayala pitched briefly at Bowie, but he was still active in the Mexican League this season. Jones pitched mainly in Norfolk for three seasons before being dealt to the Los Angeles Angels in a 2016 spring training deal (Trade 35.) Slight loss for Baltimore, but could eventually be a push or better thanks to the later trade.

Trade 11 (April 28, 2013) – Orioles trade minor league pitcher Rob Delaney to Los Angeles Angels for catcher Chris Snyder.

Delaney was a “just in case” pitcher the Orioles had signed for minor league camp, although he had brief stints with Minnesota and Tampa Bay in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Once the season began at Norfolk, he was lit up and didn’t fare much better at AAA for the Angels, pitching his final game by mid-June. Delaney replaced Snyder on the Salt Lake roster, where he was the starting catcher. For the Orioles, though, Snyder played in just 9 games in two different stints as backup (for a WAR of 0.0) and spent most of his lone season in the organization at Norfolk. The next season he was signed and released by the Nationals before a short run as a AAA catcher with Texas led to Snyder voluntarily retiring in April 2014. A push.

Trade 12 (June 30, 2013) – Orioles trade minor league infielder Ty Kelly to Seattle Mariners for outfielder Eric Thames.

Believe it or not, this trade is still an active one in terms of value. While Kelly never made it to Seattle, after the 2014 season he was traded again to St. Louis for minor league pitcher Sam Gaviglio, who is still active with Seattle’s AAA farm club in Tacoma. So they can still score from this deal. (Kelly eventually made his MLB debut this season for the New York Mets.) Meanwhile, Thames languished in the Gulf Coast League for a rehab stint before a forgettable 36 games with Norfolk. He was lost on waivers to Houston after the minor league season ended but has spent the last three seasons playing professionally in Korea. A push, but could still be a Baltimore loss.

Trade 13 (July 2, 2013) – Orioles trade pitchers Jake Arrieta and Pedro Strop to Chicago Cubs for catcher Steve Clevenger and pitcher Scott Feldman.

Jake Arrieta was a prospect for whom the Orioles ran out of patience. As his ERA climbed with each season in Baltimore, the team decided it needed a more reliable starter and sent Jake off to Chicago for the rental of pending free agent Scott Feldman. Pedro Strop was a decent relief pitcher who sweetened the deal for the Cubs as a return if Arrieta was a bust, while the Baltimore native Clevenger was Duquette’s third try at trading for a backup catcher. Of course, no one knew that Arrieta would blossom to be a Cy Young winner for the Cubs, racking up an aggregate 19.4 WAR in four seasons in Chicago (compared to 0.3 WAR in four Baltimore seasons) while Strop has chipped in with 4.4 more Wins Above Replacement in his seasons with Chicago. For Baltimore, Feldman had an 0.7 WAR but they couldn’t sign him to a deal – he eventually went to the Houston Astros as a free agent and now pitches in the AL East in Toronto’s bullpen. Clevenger had just an 0.3 WAR for Baltimore in three seasons. So the deal looks like a huge loss for Baltimore, but there is a potential silver lining in a later trade (Trade 32) since Clevenger was the price the Orioles paid to get Mark Trumbo (and his 1.6 WAR in 2016). Overwhelming loss for Baltimore, but may even out some over time.

Trade 14 (July 12, 2013) – Orioles trade minor league outfielder Russ Canzler to Pittsburgh Pirates for minor league pitcher Tim Alderson.

This turned out to be a strictly minor league deal. While Canzler had a modest amount of MLB time with Tampa Bay and Cleveland, by this point he was bouncing on and off 40-man rosters with regularity. Canzler only played in the Pirates organization through the end of the 2013 season, later on trying to grab a spot with the Yankees and Phillies before his career closed in 2015. Alderson spent about one full season in Norfolk before being released, moving on to minor league stints with Oakland and Washington then independent baseball in 2016. A push if there ever was one.

Trade 15 (July 23, 2013) – Orioles trade minor league infielder Nick Delmonico to Milwaukee Brewers for pitcher Francisco Rodriguez.

Looking for that elusive shutdown reliever, Baltimore sent a decent prospect out for the veteran closer “K-Rod” – and promptly used him mostly as a setup guy. Their reward? An 0.1 WAR and watching him return to Milwaukee in free agency, where he would be an All-Star for the next two seasons before being traded to Detroit for this year. However, Milwaukee only had Delmonico for a season before a suspension for amphetamine use led them to release him after the 2014 campaign. He’s now playing in the White Sox organization. Slight win for Baltimore.

Trade 16 (July 31, 2013) – Orioles trade minor league pitcher Josh Hader, outfielder L.J. Hoes, and their 2014 Competitive Balance Round A draft choice to Houston Astros for pitcher Bud Norris. The Astros selected outfielder Derek Fisher with the draft pick on June 5, 2014.

Hoes had just been called up to the Orioles when he was sent across the stadium for Norris, as the Astros were in town when the trade occurred. It led to the unique situation of Hoes getting his first MLB hit off Norris, the player he was traded for, the next day. In three seasons bouncing between the Astros and AAA, Hoes compiled a WAR of 0.2. He ended up coming back to Baltimore in a cash deal last November but spent the season in Norfolk. For his part, Norris gave the Orioles a great 2014 season (15 wins plus another in the playoffs and 1.9 WAR) but in roughly 2 seasons with the Orioles only compiled an aggregate 0.7 WAR. After a disastrous start to 2015 Norris was let go in August and has gone on to pitch with San Diego, Atlanta, and the Los Angeles Dodgers, who released him last month. If the trade were straight-up Hoes for Norris, it would be almost even. But the fact that Fisher has smartly rocketed up to AAA in 2 1/2 seasons for Houston means the strong potential for this trade to be a significant loser. And then you have Hader, the first draft pick in a Duquette draft to be traded away, who was involved in a six-player deadline deal with Milwaukee in 2015 that netted the Astros outfielder Carlos Gomez and pitcher Mike Fiers. While Gomez contributed a net WAR of 0.0 in about a season with Houston (he was released and signed with the Texas Rangers in August) Fiers has put up a WAR of 1.3 in a little over a season with the Astros, where he remains active. Clear loss for Baltimore.

Trade 17 (August 30, 2013) – Orioles trade minor league outfielder Xavier Avery to Seattle Mariners for outfielder Mike Morse.

The final trade of the 2013 season sent Avery, who had played sparingly for the Orioles in 2012 but was in Norfolk at the time, for the pending free agent Morse. Avery would play one season in the Mariners’ chain before leaving for AAA stints with three different teams in 2015. The Orioles re-signed him for 2016 but he never got out of Norfolk. Only the fact that Avery never panned out makes this deal a slight loser since Morse managed to accrue a (-0.5) WAR in just 12 Oriole games before an injury ended his season. Morse went on to have a decent season for San Francisco in 2014, but fared worse for Miami and Pittsburgh before his career ended the next season. Slight loss for Baltimore.

As you can tell, the 2013 trading season was not Duquette’s shining moment. In ten trades Duquette only won one and was significantly burned on at least two others. Most of the rest had little effect, and it may be why Baltimore slumped to an 85-win season. So it was back to the drawing board for Dan, who had plenty up his sleeve to begin 2014.

Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court

Commentary by Marita Noon

President Obama’s flagship policy on climate change had its day in court on Tuesday, September 27. The international community is closely watching; most Americans, however, are unaware of the historic case known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP) – which according to David Rivkin, one of the attorneys arguing against the plan: “is not just to reduce emissions, but to create a new electrical system.”

For those who haven’t followed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, here’s a brief history that brings us to up to date:

EPA published the final CPP rule in the Federal Register on October 2015.
More than two dozen states and a variety of industry groups and businesses immediately filed challenges against it – with a final bipartisan coalition of more than 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 electric co-ops, 3 labor unions, and about a half dozen nonprofits.
On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a request for a stay that would have prevented implementation of the rule until the court challenges were resolved.
On February 9, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), in an unprecedented action, before the case was heard by the lower court, overruled, and issued a stay that delays enforcement of CPP.
The Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear oral arguments before a three-judge panel on June 2, but pushed them to September 27 to be heard by the full court – something the court almost never does (though for issues involving “a question of exceptional importance” procedural rules allow for the case to proceed directly to a hearing before the full appeals court).

The court, which is already fully briefed on a case before hearing the oral arguments, typically allows a maximum 60-90 minutes to hear both sides and occasionally, with an extremely complex case, will allow two hours. The oral argument phase allows the judges to interact with lawyers from both sides and with each other. However, for the CPP, the court scheduled a morning session focusing on the EPA’s authority to promulgate the rule and an afternoon session on the constitutional claims against the rule – which ended up totaling nearly 7 hours. Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell Law, representing one of the lead challengers, told me this was the only time the full court has sat all day to hear a case.

One of the issues addressed was whether or not the EPA could “exercise major transformative power without a clear statement from Congress on the issue” – with the 2014 Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA determining it could not. Republican appointee Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted that the UARG scenario “sounds exactly like this one.”

Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush appointee, questioned: “Why isn’t this debate going on in the floor of the Senate?” In a post-oral argument press conference, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) pointed out that the debate has been held on the Senate floor in the form of cap-and-trade legislation – which has failed repeatedly over a 15-year period. Therefore, he said, the Obama administration has tried to do through regulation what the Senate wouldn’t do through legislation.

“Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of Obama’s mentors,” writes the Dallas Morning News: “made a star appearance to argue that the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.”

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Bush appointee, concluded: “You have given us all we need and more, perhaps, to work on it.”

The day in court featured many of the nation’s best oral advocates and both sides feel good about how the case was presented.

For the challengers (who call CPP “an unlawful power grab”), West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who along with Texas AG Ken Paxton, co-lead the case, reported: “We said (then) that we were looking forward to having our day in court on the merits. Today was that day. I think that the collective coalition was able to put very strong legal arguments forward, as to why this regulation is unlawful, and why it should be set aside.”

But the case has its proponents, too, and they, also, left feeling optimistic. In a blog post for the Environmental Defense Fund, Martha Roberts wrote about what she observed in the courtroom: “The judges today were prepared and engaged. They asked sharply probing questions of all sides. But the big news is that a majority of judges appeared receptive to arguments in support of the Clean Power Plan.” She concluded that she’s confident “that climate protection can win the day.”

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) summarized the session saying that stakeholders on all sides were left “parsing questions and reactions, and searching for signs of which way the judges are leaning.” U.S. News reported: “The judges repeatedly interrupted the lawyers for both sides to ask pointed questions about the legal underpinnings of their positions.”

The decision, which is not expected for several months, may come down to the ideological make-up of the court: 6 of the judges were appointed by Democrat presidents and 4 by Republicans. Though, according to WSJ, Obama appointee Judge Patricia Millet “expressed concern that the administration was in effect requiring power plants to subsidize companies competing with them for electricity demand.” She offered hope to the challengers when she said: “That seems to be quite different from traditional regulation.” Additionally, in his opinion published in the Washington Post, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler, stated: “Some of the early reports indicate that several Democratic nominees posed tough questions to the attorney defending the EPA.”

Now, the judges will deliberate and discuss. Whatever decision they come to, experts agree that the losing side will appeal and that the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court – most likely in the 2017/2018 session with a decision possible as late as June 2018. There, the ultimate result really rests in the presidential election, as the current SCOTUS make up will be changed with the addition of the ninth Justice, who will be appointed by the November 8 winner – and that Justice will reflect the new president’s ideology.

Hillary Clinton has promised to continue Obama’s climate change policies while Donald Trump has announced he’ll rescind the CPP and cancel the Paris Climate Agreement.

The CPP is about more than the higher electricity costs and decreased grid reliability, which results from heavy reliance on wind and solar energy as CPP requires, and, as the South Australian experiment proves, doesn’t work. It has far-reaching impacts. WSJ states: “Even a partial rebuke of the Clean Power Plan could make it impossible for the U.S. to hit the goals Mr. Obama pledged in the Paris climate deal.” With Obama’s climate legacy at stake, the international community is paying close attention.

And Americans should be. Our energy stability hangs in the balance.

That pesky electoral map

As you surely can tell I haven’t been writing nearly as much on politics the last couple months. I suppose having a Presidential election that reminds me of a nasty toothache will do that to you, and the root canal I need isn’t scheduled until the middle of November when the hoopla and post-mortems finally die down.

But one thing I have done as of late and shared via Facebook is see where states are polling and how that affects the Electoral College. In my last rendition Friday, the news wasn’t as promising for Republicans who pinned their hopes on Donald Trump. I’ll grant that the map is flawed in the fact that not all states are polled equally and it’s based on the last poll or groups of polls released and shared on the RCP website, but in this one Hillary enjoys a 313-219 lead (Iowa and its 6 EVs last polled a tie.) Out of the three I have done so far on a weekly basis it is the worst. The difference between this and previous maps can be traced to recent polling placing Clinton in the lead in Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada. Flip those 50 EVs, give Clinton Iowa, and do you know what? We have a 269-269 tie.

(In that case, the Constitution dictates that the House votes – by state – and the majority rules. Republicans have the larger delegation in a majority of states so they would likely vote for Trump.)

The trend, though, seems to be working away from Trump. It’s also worth considering that the most recent polls were compiled after the first debate so Trump’s subpar performance may be reflected in these new polls shifting momentum Hillary’s way.

So the question really comes down to whether the Republicans are more afraid of Hillary or the Democrats are more afraid of Trump. At this point, both candidates seem to have consolidated the support of their party regulars to the tune of 90 percent or more – the #NeverTrump movement has seen the defection of conservative heavyweights such as Mark Levin and Ted Cruz, both of whom succumbed to the aforementioned fear of Hillary and set principle aside for party. (I’m not as worried about Hillary, since my faith assures me God is really in control. So I will vote my principles – I just haven’t decided for whom, but I can assure you it won’t be for at least three people on the Maryland ballot: Clinton, Stein, and Trump.)

Thus, the #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary groups are much like those who would not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008, or Al Gore in 2000. Trump is too moderate-to-liberal for principled conservatives and Hillary is too corporate and war-mongering for the progressive Left. But for now they are a far smaller part of the electorate than the large percentage who won’t vote because they think it won’t matter. In my life I have missed two elections – one in college because I didn’t get my absentee ballot back in time, and the other because I was moving shortly and it was a local election. I consider it a privilege, not to be taken lightly.

I’m pleased to see that Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party and Evan McMullin (a conservative independent) are on the Maryland list of write-in candidates – they are among those I would consider. A vote with conscience is never wasted, despite what those desperate to preserve the R/D duopoly may say. And who knows? If we had the 269-269 scenario with the exception of one state won by the longshot candidate, it is possible for that person to win – especially if he’s conservative and House Republicans thumb their nose at Reince Priebus. I probably have a better chance of winning Powerball, but otherwise the conservative, pro-liberty movement is in for rough times ahead.

If Donald Trump doesn’t want to be in the Al Gore position of winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College, it’s obvious where he needs to be.

monoblogue music: “Ride The River” by Jess Wayne

In his debut album, which was released June 10, Jess Wayne impressed me with his songwriting ability and ability to recruit a very solid band behind him. It’s not bad for a guy who gave up life as a successful Colorado bankruptcy lawyer seven years ago to move to southern California and find himself in the music business. No, really, that’s his story and I suspect he’s sticking to it. If he gets successful enough in his second career, I’m sure he knows people who know people who have the juice to get a biopic done.

So it’s quite ironic that one of the better songs on this album is the biting wit of Say Goodbye Hollywood. And for a relatively new professional musician, Jess has many of the emotional bases covered in his songs: for example, the sad regret of Taken You Home Last Night that opens the album slips right into the cynicism of Better Get Used To It. In turn, we get the familiar “I’m deep in the doghouse” theme of Make It Up To You.

That’s not to say “Ride The River” is a paint-by-number effort, as there are a lot of categories and genres covered by these ten tracks. Taken You Home Last Night gives me a weepy country vibe, but Better Get Used To It comes across more like smooth jazz to me, while Make It Up To You seems more adult contemporary. If I were to have a complaint about these first three songs, it would be in the way Wayne sings them – he seems to want to dictate each lyric rather than letting it flow out of him. I don’t know what the order of recording was, but it seems like it takes him until the fourth track Hold On to let it rip a little bit vocally. Jess isn’t ever going to win “The Voice” but he has nothing to be afraid or ashamed of as a vocalist as he learns how to shape songs to his voice.

It starts to come together a lot better on the back half of the collection, as Jess makes Say Goodbye Hollywood into a fun song, keeping it light for Next Time Around. Why Don’t You Lie To Me comes across as a pleading, as a lyrical twist eventually makes the song make sense. Meanwhile, up until then the band was rather tight as well – the Jess Wayne Band has a number of musical veterans in it, and this shows.

So I was a little disappointed in the strange drum line in Garden Song because it took away from the humorous yet poignant lyrics. Aside from that slight flaw, though, I thought the band was effective in being the background, particularly as there are several guests contributing bass, vocals, and harmonica, (In particular, the bassist who played on “Ride The River” is not the touring/live performance bassist.) While I generally frown on self-production – especially from budding artists – having his bandmate, keyboardist John Matthew Rosenberg, as co-producer likely smoothed over some of the excess these self-producers often have. (“Ride The River” production is credited to Rosenberg and Douglas Jessop, which is Wayne’s real name. Jess Wayne is a combination of his last and middle names.)

Luckily, I felt Wayne and his band saved the best for next-to-last. I thought the album’s highlight was the blues number How Do You Know, which has a great riff and a fantastic use of call-and-response, with the background vocals coming off just right. All I Can Do For Now provides the coda for the album, which is just ten songs but rather lengthy – Wayne puts a lot of meat on the bones of these songs, as all but two run four minutes or more.

And to be quite honest, knowing Wayne’s backstory is good for getting a perspective on the album. (I normally prefer to listen first, then read up on the artist later so as not to prejudge.) I think as Wayne learns his craft and figures out how to use a rather unique vocal style he could be successful. The album release was backed up by a modest tour in California, Arizona, and Colorado (with his Denver show billed as a “reunion of family, friends, and colleagues”) so he seems to be working hard at this musical journey.

While you can sort of pin Jess down in the adult contemporary genre, there’s enough overlap of styles that most people can find something to like about it. (In my case, it was the blues song.) But don’t take my word for it – listen for yourself and see what you think.