Declassified papers show U.S. asked Japan for SDF support during 1990 Gulf crisis

A Maritime Self-Defense Force's minesweeper leaves the MSDF Kure Naval Base in Hiroshima Prefecture for deployment to the Persian Gulf in April 1991. | KYODO

KYODO, JIJI
Dec 22, 2021

In the wake of the Gulf crisis of August 1990, then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush urged Japan to provide logistical support to the U.S. military via its Self-Defense Forces, despite constitutional constraints, according to diplomatic records declassified Wednesday and testimony from former government officials.

The request was made directly to then-Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu.

Japan did not fulfill Bush's request to dispatch the SDF to the Gulf War effort. However, it did deploy minesweepers in the Persian Gulf as a postwar contribution, reflecting the United States' strong influence on Tokyo's security policy.

A top secret diplomatic cable that recorded a meeting between Kaifu and Bush on Sept. 29, 1990, revealed that the former president told Kaifu that he was aware Tokyo was considering ways to contribute militarily to international efforts in the Middle East, after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Bush added that such an action would be beneficial and appreciated by the world, expressing hope that Japan would contribute without delay.

This is the first time it has been publicly revealed that the U.S. president attempted to persuade Japan to dispatch the SDF in connection with the crisis.

Koichiro Matsuura, a former Japanese ambassador to France who served as head of the Foreign Ministry's North American Affairs Bureau, said Bush had asked earlier, in a phone call on Aug. 14, for the SDF to sweep mines and transport weapons.

In a series of talks, Kaifu responded by expressing the need to protect the war-renouncing Article 9 of the postwar Constitution, while stressing his desire to cooperate.

He sought to compromise by establishing a nonmilitary U.N. peacekeeping operations team and having some SDF personnel be part of that. But the plan ran into difficulties after a bill aimed at allowing Japan to cooperate in U.N. peacekeeping operations was scrapped in November of that year due to public opposition.

Japan was embroiled in a heated debate at the time over dispatching the SDF overseas under the constraints of the pacifist Constitution. In a meeting of political party leaders held before Kaifu's trip to New York for the summit meeting, the Japan Socialist Party and Komeito expressed their opposition to SDF deployment overseas.

According to diplomatic cables and former government officials, the United States effectively notified Japan of its intention to use force on Jan. 14, 1991 — three days before the Gulf War began.

Then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker secretly told his Japanese counterpart Taro Nakayama during his visit to the United States that the blood of Americans would be shed.

The records and testimonies also revealed that of the $13 billion Japan provided to the multinational coalition in aid, $9 billion was added in response to a request by then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady during a meeting with his Japanese counterpart Ryutaro Hashimoto in New York.

Multiple former Japanese government officials have testified that while there was no basis for the total amount sought by the United States, there was "no other choice" but to meet the request.

But Japan's response to the Gulf War was internationally criticized as "too little, too late," making it a traumatic experience for lawmakers and government officials that have strongly influenced the course of the country's security and foreign policies ever since.

Taizo Miyagi, a Sophia University professor who specializes in the history of international politics, said Japan was "overwhelmingly strong as an economic superpower" at the time of the Gulf War, and that U.S. "dissatisfaction" with Tokyo's reluctance to bear "a reasonable burden" is reflected in the diplomatic records.

"The Gulf War became a trauma for Japan, and the axis for evaluating foreign affairs since then has become the perspective of the United States," Miyagi said.

The two countries also discussed Japan's involvement in the Gulf War at a meeting between then-U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Robert Kimmitt and then-Japanese Ambassador to the United States Ryohei Murata on Aug. 22 the same year, before the summit meeting.

Noting that West Germany was considering amending its Basic Law at the time, Kimmitt said that Japan would suffer from being bound to its historical position and not being able to respond to new challenges, according to the diplomatic documents.

Bush's request for an SDF deployment was treated as top secret within the Japanese government. Although some news outlets reported the contents of the summit meeting, the First North America Division of the Foreign Ministry prepared a document that denied Japan had received a request to dispatch the SDF.

The denial was likely made out of fear of harsh reactions from the public and from opposition parties.

Kaifu was unable to pass the bill on U.N. peacekeeping cooperation under his administration. Legislation that enabled full-scale deployment of SDF troops overseas was enacted under the administration of Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa in June 1992.

Legal changes now allow the SDF to be dispatched to overseas peacekeeping operations even if they are not under the control of the United Nations.

Still, sending the SDF abroad for Japan's defense or international security cooperation needs to meet some conditions and remains a sensitive issue under the pacifist Constitution.

WHY THE US WILL DECRIMINALIZE

Marijuana Is on the Minds of Young Conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest

Natasha Yee
Tue, December 21, 2021

Trump Supporters In Phoenix Hold "America First" Event - Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

It’s day two of Charlie Kirk’s AmericaFest, and freedom is in the air. At a gathering aimed primarily at Gen Z and Millennial conservatives, the theme is threaded throughout the event, and it can be seen everywhere: Never has the American flag been donned in some many iterations. The red, white, and blue motif graces blazers, cowboy hats, and high heels, as well as the photo backdrops and stage lighting.

Freedom is the implicit message of Sunday’s opening worship led by Sean Feucht, a Christian musician and former worship leader at Bethel Church in Redding, California. Feucht hosted a mass religious gathering in downtown Nashville in October 2020, to the chagrin of city health officials. Thousands of young adults and students pile in as early as 7:30 a.m. to hear his tunes.

Who Needs a License? New York Weed Dispensaries Are Already Opening

An hour or so later, Donald Trump, Jr. takes the stage and reminds the young MAGA fans what they’re nominally here for. “You guys are the frontline of freedom. Fight for your country because it’s worth it,” he urges, between laughing at the military for promoting transgender pilots and calling “Let’s Go Brandon” the biggest cultural phenomenon of the last 50 years. He calls Democrats hypocrites. “If I was doing crack, you probably wouldn’t give me the pass,” he says, alluding to Hunter Biden.

A familiar herby floral scent wafts toward me and I avert my gaze from Trump Jr.’s dogged comedy show. The guy in the next seat asks if I’d like a hit from his vape pen. “THC?” I ask. He nods mischievously.

It’s a surprise, but it’s not all that surprising. The young people here displayed traditional values with a penchant for partying, and — like many young conservatives — their views on cannabis legalization and drug decriminalization are complicated.

Eighteen states, two territories, and the District of Columbia currently allow recreational marijuana use, while 36 states and four territories allow medical use. According to Pew Research Center, 63% of Republicans ages 18 to 29 believe that marijuana should be legal for recreational and medical use. But as age increases, that number decreases: 53% of those ages 30 to 49, 48% of those 50 to 64, and just 27% of Republicans 65 and up favor making marijuana legal recreationally and medically.

Oregon decriminalized non-commercial amounts of illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine through Measure 110, which went into effect on February 1st. The jury is still out on the consequences for a state that didn’t have the robust recovery systems in place to prepare for decriminalization.

“Marijuana should be legalized,” says Tyler Pemberton, a 27-year-old donning a khaki cowboy getup.

“The war on drugs is a losing war. I don’t partake recreationally, but as long as it’s used in moderation and not abused, it’s fine,”says the Grand Canyon University student. “I’ve never heard of anyone overdosing on marijuana, but I have heard of people overdosing on meth and heroin. But I don’t think throwing people in jail helps. The only thing that should be criminalized is the intent to distribute.”

At AmericaFest, views on marijuana are mixed, but questions about harder drugs gleaned a more hesitant approach.

Ishmael Sharif, a 20-year-old from Chicago, doesn’t stand by recreational legalization of marijuana. “Marijuana legalization is a gimmick in Illinois to extract more revenue from communities. I don’t think the state believes in it and I don’t believe in it,” he says. They’re just doing it to make money off people.” Sharif said that he could get behind medical legalization, but advised against the decriminalization of hard drugs.

Illinois residents could buy recreational marijuana starting on January 1st, 2020. The state collected $205 million in tax revenue from its sales last year, according to Marijuana Moment, and $31 million of that went to nonprofits.

The attitudes here reflect a broad public reimagining of how to deal with drugs and the people who use them — a shift that politicians are slowly catching up with. In June, Democrats initiated a bill to end President Nixon’s famous “War on Drugs” declaration 50 years prior. The Drug Policy Reform Act, introduced by Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) would decriminalize personal use and possession of all drugs, expunge current records and allow for re-sentencing and invest in health-centered responses to drug addiction.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced the States Reform Act in November, which would decriminalize cannabis at the federal level, delisting it as a Schedule I drug under Drug Enforcement Agency rules. The bill would also allow for expungement of federal convictions in nonviolent cases and lay the groundwork for federal regulation and enforcement in states that allow marijuana sales.

As I talk about drugs with TPUSA attendees, for many of them, it comes back to freedom, or at least, to the absence of government. “The less government the better when it comes to marijiuana legalization; it has clearly shown promise for pain relief,” says Czeena Devera, a 31-year-old children’s book publisher from Michigan. “But harder drugs are a different story and have the potential to wreck a society. Those need to be regulated.”

STATEHOOD OR INDEPENDENCE
Puerto Rico Oversight Board Sues to Stop New Pension Benefits


Jim Wyss
Tue, December 21, 2021

(Bloomberg) -- The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico said it filed a lawsuit to stop the local government from offering public workers billions in new retirement benefits that it says will undermine the island’s long-sought plan to restructure its debt.

In a statement issued late Monday, the board said it had filed the suit in Puerto Rico District Court to stop the pension measures -- known as Act 80, Act 81, and Act 82 -- because they are being pushed forward without sufficient analysis about how to pay for their costs.

The board estimates the three laws could increase government expenses by as much as $8.3 billion over the next 30 years. Even partially implementing Act 80, which promotes early retirement, could cost the government an additional $61 million in the first year alone, the board said.

The lawsuit comes as Puerto Rico nears the end of a four-year bankruptcy process. The island, along with the oversight board and other interested parties, have negotiated a plan that would reduce public debt by $33 billion.

While public workers would not see their benefits cut, the board is seeking to eliminate cost-of-living increases and freeze the pensions of teachers and judges to switch them to a defined-contribution plan, similar to a 401(k). The new laws would freight the island’s pension system with new expenses.

On Tuesday, Puerto Rico general obligation bonds with a 5% coupon and maturing in 2035 traded at an average of 100.87 cents on the dollar, a 3.3% yield on a yield-to-worst basis, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That compares with an average price of 100.581 cents on the dollar last week with a 3.7% yield on a similar basis. The securities can next be called at par in July 2022

The federally appointed oversight board said it had been negotiating with Governor Pedro Pierluisi for more than a year to explore ways to make the new obligations affordable, but no agreement had been reached. Pierluisi has repeatedly clashed with the board over attempts to modify public pensions.

“The Oversight Board would have preferred to work with the government to find a viable alternative that would provide teachers, police officers, and other government employees with a real plan that Puerto Rico can afford rather than falling back into the old ways of making promises that cannot be fulfilled,” Oversight Board Chairman David Skeel said in a statement.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Swain, who is overseeing the island’s record-setting bankruptcy proceedings, threatened to reject the debt plan if the board didn’t provide more details to justify overriding local laws, including the three pension measures.

“The government and the Oversight Board both hope the court will confirm the plan,” Skeel said. “The last thing Puerto Rico needs is more fiscal mismanagement, just as it is on the verge of getting out of bankruptcy and returning to prosperity.”

Starbucks workers are reportedly pushing to unionize stores across the country following a successful vote in Buffalo — here's the list so far

Mary Meisenzahl
Tue, December 21, 2021

REUTERS/Lindsay DeDario


Starbucks workers in Buffalo, New York voted for the chain's first US union on Thursday.

Now workers at other locations are pushing for union votes, according to reports.

So far there are reported campaigns in Arizona, Boston, New York, and Seattle.

Starbucks officially has its first unionized company-owned US store in Buffalo, New York, and the successful campaign is inspiring baristas across the country to organize their own stores.

The Elmwood location in Buffalo was one of three that were voting on a unionization drive over the last few weeks. It was the only store that definitively voted in favor of the union so far. The unionization vote failed to pass at a second location by a vote of 12 to eight, though a lawyer for the union indicated a possible future challenge over votes he says were not counted. At the third location, yes votes were leading 15 to nine, but the NLRB was unable to call the election because of ballots challenged by both parties.

Here are some other locations where Starbucks workers are reported to be organizing unions.

Mesa, Arizona

Starbucks barista.REUTERS/Mike Blake

Six employees at a store in Mesa, Arizona announced plans to organize their Starbucks location in mid-November. The workers wrote a letter to Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson.

"We are organizing a union because we feel that this is the best way to contribute meaningfully to our partnership with the company," workers wrote in the letter. This location appears to still be in the early stages of the organizing process.

Buffalo, New York

REUTERS/Lindsay DeDario

Workers at three more Buffalo stores have filed paperwork to hold their own votes. which have not yet been scheduled. The stores are located in Buffalo suburbs of Cheektowaga, Amherst, and Depew. The NLRB is currently reviewing workers' petitions for elections and testimony from recent hearings before it will make a decision on holding elections, WIVB reported.

Boston

REUTERS/Mark Makela

Workers at two Boston area stores, in Allston and Brookline, announced plans to organize unions at their locations on December 13. They are working with the Workers United Labor Union, the same organization that workers in Buffalo organized with. So far, 36 out of 47 workers at the two locations have signed cards showing their intent to form a union, organizing members told WGBH.

"Buffalo is that first domino, and we hope that the Coolidge Corner and Allston stores can be the next domino here in Boston," Kylah Clay, a member of the organizing committee, told WGBH. The Boston workers cited stores in Buffalo and Arizona as part of the inspiration behind their drives.

Seattle

Ted S. Warren/AP

Starbucks workers at a location in Seattle filed to hold a union vote with the NLRB on December 20, The Seattle Times Reported.

"We do not see our desire to unionize as a reaction to specific policies, events, or changes, but rather a commitment to growing the company and the quality of our work. We see unionizing as a fundamental and necessary way to participate in Starbucks and its future as partners," four organizing workers wrote in a public letter to CEO Kevin Johnson.

Starbucks started in Seattle 50 years ago and is still headquartered in the West Coast city.

"Starbucks started here in Seattle 50 years ago and we intend to make the next 50 even greater with a union," workers wrote in the letter.

Starbucks Shop in Coffee Giant’s Hometown Joins Union Effort

Matt Townsend
Tue, December 21, 2021



(Bloomberg) -- Workers at a Starbucks Corp. store in Seattle, the coffee giant’s hometown, say they aim to unionize, adding momentum to the organizing efforts at the chain.

“We believe that partnership comes with a weight and responsibility on all sides, one that can only be fulfilled with equal power and accountability,” the workers said in a letter to Chief Executive Officer Kevin Johnson. “We are organizing a union because we believe the best way to uphold our end of the partnership is by creating a voice for ourselves.”

A Starbucks representative pointed to a recent letter by Rossann Williams, the coffee chain’s executive vice president for North America, saying that the company values working directly with its employees. “From the beginning, we’ve been clear in our belief that we do not want a union between us as partners, and that conviction has not changed,” Williams said.

Earlier this month, Starbucks employees successfully voted to unionize a store in Buffalo, New York -- marking the company’s first union location. Attempts to organize are being made at a handful of other locations. The company has agreed to negotiate with newly formed union.

Starbucks shares rose 1.3% at 10:02 a.m. Tuesday in New York.

Starbucks takes hard line on unions, insists will ‘come to the table’ with Buffalo workers

Brooke DiPalma and Dani Romero

Mon, December 20, 2021

Starbucks (SBUX) on Monday reiterated its tough stance against unionizing, saying that while the movement was not in the best interests of its workforce, it would “bargain in good faith” with one location that voted to organize.

Recently, partners at a store in Buffalo scored a big win after voting to form the coffee giant's first ever union. On Friday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) confirmed the vote, according to an internal memo obtained by Yahoo Finance. Yet the Seattle-based coffee chain remains opposed to the effort. 

“From the beginning, we’ve been clear in our belief that we do not want a union between us as partners, and that conviction has not changed,” Rossann Williams, Starbucks EVP and president of U.S. Retail and Canada wrote to all U.S. partners, which Starbucks call its employees.

She added that: “We have also said that we respect the legal process,” insisting the company would "bargain in good faith with the union that represents partners in the one Buffalo store that voted in favor of union representation. Our hope is that union representatives also come to the table with mutual good faith, respect and positive intent."

The 50-year-old company actively lobbied against the Buffalo effort, saying it's more than 8,000 company-owned U.S. stores operate best when it works directly with its employees.

Voting wrapped up last week, where a second cafe narrowly rejected the measure, and a third coffee shop is still waiting on results amid a number of challenges to individual ballots.

Starbucks Workers United, a union representing the workers, filed objections with the NLRB for two elections on Thursday. Union organizers claim that Starbucks “dramatically” and “negatively” affected the results of the vote at the second cafe store.

Meanwhile, union representatives of the Buffalo Starbucks location will begin to negotiate a contract for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

It’s unclear when the results for the third store will be finalized. However, the Starbucks union movement has now spread to Arizona and Boston, as workers at two locations in the city are taking up their effort to form a union.

Starbucks to ‘stay true to Mission and Values'

The upscale coffee giant is one of many companies confronting a pandemic-era reckoning with a stressed out and underpaid workforce, and has moved to address quality of work and pay issues.

In late October, Starbucks announced its plans to increase all U.S. hourly wages to at least $15 an hour, up from the current $12 rate, by the summer of 2022. This will bring the average pay for all U.S. Starbucks’ hourly partners to nearly $17 per an hour.

The memo sent Monday morning emphasizes the company’s desire to remain directly connected with its partners.

“We stand for fairness and equity for our partners. We stand for growing and learning together," executives wrote. 

"We stand for the Starbucks Experience, and building a company together where partners and the business can thrive and share success. Most importantly, we always stand together as one Starbucks. Always,” the letter said.

Shares of Starbucks have been mixed, losing ground recently but up 5.2% year-to-date. Analysts continue to view the vote as neutral to the coffee giant’s bottom line if the unionization takes hold, given its vast resources and pricing power.

“We do not believe the recent news creates a need to adjust our model at this time, but have chosen to provide a backdrop scenario analysis to assess what it could mean, should the situation become more pervasive," Brett Levy, executive director at MKM Partners, wrote in a research note last week.

While reiterating the stock as a "Buy," Levy said higher labor costs could push up operating expenses across 15% of its stores, translating into a bottom-line hit of around 3%.

Brooke DiPalma is a producer and reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter at @BrookeDiPalma or email her at bdipalma@yahoofinance.com.

Dani Romero is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter: @daniromerotv

Documents show FPL wrote bill to slow rooftop solar’s growth by hampering net metering

Mary Ellen Klas, Mario Alejandro Ariza

MIAMI HERALD
Mon, December 20, 2021


Rooftop solar power generation in Florida is still a nascent industry, but Florida Power & Light, the nation’s largest power company, is pushing to hamstring it — by writing and delivering legislation the company asked state lawmakers to introduce, according to records obtained by the Miami Herald and Floodlight.

FPL, whose work with dark-money political committees helped to secure Republican control of the state Senate in the 2020 elections, asked state Sen. Jennifer Bradley to sponsor its top-priority bill: legislation that would hobble rooftop solar by preventing homeowners and businesses from offsetting their costs by selling excess power back to the company, an arrangement known as net metering.

Records from the Florida Senate show that FPL drafted the bill, and lobbyist John Holley delivered it to Bradley, R-Fleming Island, and FPL’s parent company followed up with a $10,000 contribution to her political committee. Bradley filed the bill in November. A week later, state Rep. Lawrence McClure, R-Plant City, introduced an identical version in the House.

Only about 90,000 Florida customers, about 1% of the state’s more than 8.5 million customers, sell excess energy back to the electrical grid, but the arrangement has driven significant rooftop solar expansion in Florida. The proposed legislation could seriously curtail that growth. FPL is pushing for it as Florida’s biggest utility — it has 5.5 million customers, about 65% of the state. Duke has 2 million customers, followed by TECO with 800,000 and then many other smaller utilities.

The solar industry — companies that make, sell, install, lease and maintain rooftop solar equipment — is fighting back fiercely, suggesting that the bill will devastate its business.

“This is a tired tactic that utilities have used to maintain their monopoly grip on electricity markets,” said Will Giese, southeast regional director for the Solar Energy Industries Association. “Net metering is a popular program that gives people the right to choose the energy that works for them, provides benefits to all ratepayers and creates thousands of energy jobs across Florida.”

But FPL is arguing rooftop solar could cost Florida utilities about $700 million between 2019 and 2025, according to documents submitted to the Florida Public Service Commission. That’s a trend nationwide, as power company profits are threatened by the rise of distributed renewable energy — a technology which scientists say is essential to limiting the pollution that causes the climate crisis.

FPL spokesperson Chris McGrath said the company doesn’t oppose net metering but wants to see the current law revised. He argued that customers with rooftop solar are being subsidized by other customers who continue to buy electricity and pay to maintain the power grid.

“We simply believe rooftop solar customers should pay the full cost of this investment,” McGrath said.

A long, political battle

The bill is just one front in a decade-long battle against the policy. For years, FPL has been one of the largest contributors to legislative Florida political campaigns. It backed a failed ballot amendment in 2016 that would have allowed regulators to impose fees and barriers to rooftop solar installation. FPL has also invested millions into groups with untraceable, anonymous donors that launched attacks on state and local politicians.

According to reporting by the Orlando Sentinel, FPL executives have been tied to a series of ‘dark-money’ nonprofits, one of which figures prominently in the Miami-Dade state attorney’s investigation into a scandal involving a “ghost” Senate candidate. Under the scheme, a candidate with no political background was on the ballot as a no-party option in an effort to confuse voters and dilute support for the Democrat in the race, helping Republicans maintain their majority in the state Senate.

FPL CEO Eric Silagy was directly involved in steering money to dark-money groups led by the consultants who controlled Grow United, the organization used to promote the ghost candidates, according to documents obtained by the Sentinel. Holley, the FPL lobbyist who delivered the net metering language to the Senate, worked to promote Republican Senate candidates in the close races. FPL denied any wrongdoing related to political campaigns.

“Any report or suggestion that we had involvement in, financially supported or directed others to support any ‘ghost’ candidates during the 2020 election cycle is patently false, and we have found absolutely no evidence of any legal wrongdoing by FPL or its employees,” McGrath, the FPL spokesperson said in response to questions for this story. Records obtained by the Sentinel also show overlap between Grow United and previous campaigns to overhaul net metering.

Rooftop solar customers in Florida can sell excess power they generate back to their utility company. A bill written by FPL for legislators aims to change that arrangement.

One person affiliated with Grow United is Abbie MacIver, who formerly worked for Energy Fairness, a group that encourages policymakers to consider the “cost of energy choices, as well as their benefits.” Last year, McClure sent a letter to state regulators at the Florida Public Service Commission citing the result and urging it to update its net metering rule.

The commission held a workshop, which drew 16,000 messages from solar advocates urging it to leave the net metering program alone. Commissioners said it was the highest response rate they had received on any issue and concluded that no immediate changes to net metering needed to be made.

“What people may not realize is that public opinion is very much in our favor,’’ said Bryan Jacob of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “They’ve got the lobbying power, and we’ve got the people power.”
How the bill came to exist

Bradley, who received FPL’s draft bill, is a first-term senator who is close to Senate leadership and chairs the Community Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Congressional Reapportionment. Bradley is married to former state Sen. Rob Bradley, an influential politician who was head of the Senate budget committee.

Bradley said the bill language emerged after a meeting she had with Holley and other members of the utility industry.

“I looked at the language. It was based on our discussion, and it was one that I could support as a starting point,’’ she recalled.

Emails show that Bradley’s staff followed up with FPL after that discussion. On Oct. 8, 2021, Bradley’s legislative aide Katie Heffley emailed Holley with the subject line: “Net Metering Bill.”

“Good afternoon, Hope you’re doing well,’’ she said. “I just wanted to check in and see if you had any follow up information or language in regards to the net metering bill you discussed with Senator Bradley.”

Holley replied eight minutes later: “I do. Can I bring it to you all later today?’’ he wrote. Heffley suggested that he could “send it via email today or we will be at the Capitol next week.”

Holley declined to provide an electronic version and offered to “drop it off” in person the following week. Ten days later, Heffley wrote Holley again. “I just want to reach out and see if I could get an electronic copy of the net metering bill so I can put it into drafting.”

A staffer in Sen. Jennifer Bradley’s office asked FPL for an electronic copy of the bill the company drafted.

Two days later, Florida Division of Elections records show, FPL’s parent company, NextEra Energy, gave $10,000 to Bradley’s political committee, Women Building the Future.

McClure’s political committee, Conservative Florida, did not receive any utility money during this time but on Nov. 4 did receive a $10,000 contribution from Associated Industries of Florida’s political committee, Voice for Florida business, which promotes FPL’s agenda and whose consultants have also worked on the dark money campaigns, according to the Orlando Sentinel reporting.

NextEra Energy said its political committee did not make its contribution to Bradley’s campaign “with an expectation of favor.”

The email records were provided to the Herald and Floodlight by the Energy & Policy Institute, a watchdog organization that works to counter misinformation about renewable energy.

Most states allow net metering

Florida is one of 47 states that allow households and businesses that produce power to sell it back to the grid at a set rate. However, those policies are coming under fire as utilities become increasingly concerned about how the growth of distributed solar energy affects their bottom line.

In California, regulators plan to increase fees on rooftop solar customers. Even some environmental advocates say the change is fair and necessary because of the fast rate of rooftop solar development in that state.

Rooftop solar, while critical to fighting climate change, is a threat to the traditional utility business model.

Electricity companies like FPL make money off of the things they build: mainly large power plants and the power lines that bring that energy to customers. They don’t make money off of the solar power generated from rooftops.

Under Florida’s current arrangement, homes and businesses that generate less than 2 megawatts of solar power can sell the excess back to their utility in exchange for a bill credit of 11 cents per kWh. FPL argues that arrangement is unfair to customers who don’t generate their own power but continue to pay for the costs of maintaining the grid that rooftop solar customers also use.

Rooftop solar in Florida expanded slowly until 2018 when the Florida Public Service Commission allowed electricity customers to lease solar systems with little or no upfront costs. That decision catapulted the growth of small-scale solar capacity in the state. It grew by 57% in 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

FPL says the cost of subsidizing its 24,000 net metering customers was $30 million in 2020 (about $1,250 per customer).

The solar industry disagrees, pointing to research that shows rooftop solar penetration is low enough in most states that “the effects of distributed solar on retail electricity prices will likely remain negligible for the foreseeable future.”

But utility experts have testified to the Florida Public Service Commission that rooftop solar in the state could grow at a rate of 39% a year until 2025 if Florida’s current net metering system is left in place.

That growth has the utilities, and legislators, worried.

“As a result of the current system, my constituents are being forced to subsidize the decisions of neighbors in other counties who are in a position to be able to put these expensive systems on their homes,’’ Bradley said.

FPL wrote the language for a bill on net metering and gave it to bill sponsors in the Florida House and Senate for the upcoming legislative session.

What the bill would do

Under Bradley’s bill, net-metering customers whose solar panels deliver energy back to the utility grid would no longer receive credits based on the retail cost of energy, but instead receive credits based on a lower wholesale cost. That cost is based on the “avoided cost” that the utility would have incurred if it were to install a comparable system.

The bill also allows utilities to charge rooftop solar customers more, by adding in facility charges, grid access fees and minimum monthly payments. Customers who are already using rooftop solar power before 2023 would be grandfathered in and keep their previous compensation rates for 10 years.

Bradley said she is open to discussing alternative models for her bill, including a system in use in the Carolinas to compensate rooftop solar customers who provide extra power for the grid when it is most needed, during peak hours.

Florida now has the second-largest solar workforce in the country — about 11,000 direct jobs and 31,000 indirect ones, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. It ranks third among states for installed solar capacity, although much of that is large-scale, utility-owned solar.

Justin Vandenbroeck, the president of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association who also owns an Orlando-based solar installation company, said the solar industry consists mostly of independently owned small businesses. “If this bill passes as it is, it has the potential to send Florida back to 2013, as if the advances of the last 10 years didn’t happen,’’ Vandenbroeck said.

McClure conceded the bill “is not baked.”

“Very early on in this bill’s ride, I think it has a real chance to settle out in a way that most parties are not upset,’’ he said. He added that the net metering law has not been updated in 13 years and now is time to discuss it.

“We need to have the debate,’’ he said. “I’m not afraid if the conclusion is it’s not the time to do this. I feel rooftop solar is beneficial to the environment, and Floridians. I am concerned that it will result in significant costs here, but I also don’t want to destroy the rooftop solar industry in Florida.”

Katie Chiles Ottenweller, Southeast director for Vote Solar, an Atlanta-based advocacy organization, is optimistic but wary given FPL’s clout in the Florida Legislature and its role in drafting the bill.

“Companies do not pass legislation. Legislators pass legislation,’’ she said. “I’m hopeful this is a conversation starter but, at the same time, it’s really hard to have a conversation when you have a gun to your head. The bill as it is written will decimate this industry.”

Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@miamiherald.com and @MaryEllenKlas

This story is a collaboration with Floodlight.

Wisconsin museum working to return hundreds of human remains to Indigenous nations

Frank Vaisvilas, Green Bay Press-Gazette
Tue, December 21, 2021, 5:02 AM·3 min read

BELOIT – Researchers at Beloit College are working to repatriate the remains of hundreds of individuals unearthed during archeological excavations at ancient Indigenous burial sites.

Some of the bones had once been used as teaching materials, but scientists have since realized that was an unethical practice.

“We don’t believe it’s ethical for us to continue teaching with human remains because our threshold is consent,” said Nicolette Meister, director of the Logan Museum of Anthropology, a teaching museum at Beloit College.

RELATED: Group works to preserve ancient Indigenous burial mounds across Wisconsin

Online archeological group deciphers arrowheads, artifacts found regularly in Wisconsin

Twenty ancient Indigenous burial mounds are located on the college campus. There were originally 25 mounds that date back 1500 years, but some mounds were destroyed during archeological excavation, which ceased during the 1970s when college museum staff and students started working with Indigenous nations in northern Wisconsin.

About 80% of ancient burial mounds in Wisconsin have been lost since the early 1800s due to farming, development, erosion or looting.

Beloit staff and archeologists in the mid-1980s worked and succeeded in convincing state legislators to pass some protection for burial mounds in Wisconsin.

In 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), administered through the National Park Service, that requires certain Native American remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony be returned to their rightful tribes.

“NAGPRA makes museums accountable and consult with the tribes,” Meister said. “That wasn’t the case in the past when only the museum had the authority. … We recognize the history and legacy of colonialism is inescapable, especially in anthropology museums.”

She said the Logan Museum has a long history of NAGPRA compliance and consulting with tribal neighbors, but it wasn’t until earlier this year that museum received a federal grant to help repatriate the, at least, 400 individual human remains in possession of the museum.

The museum will use the up to $89,000 NAGPRA grant to help identify which tribes the remains belong to.

The college is located on the ancestral land of several cultures, including the Ho-Chunk and Potawatomi, but the museum had collected artifacts from around the world.

The museum was established in 1894 based on a collection and acquisitions of artifacts from the 1893 World Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

It has since grown to curate about 350,000 objects.

Meister said the NAGPRA grant will help to accelerate consultation and eventual repatriation of the human remains to their respective tribes once the work is complete to determine where they should go.

“We’re not just consulting with one group,” she said. “Much of this work is focused on building trust and building relationships. There’s an understanding that our common goal is to repatriate. Everyone is working on return of these ancestors to the earth.”

The museum also has worked to repatriate cultural items in the past, including a headdress to the Hopi Nation in Arizona, a drum to the White Earth Ojibwe Nation in Minnesota and metal artifacts to the Odawa Nation in Michigan.

These artifacts were acquired by the museum around 1900.

“The work of NAGPRA is important human rights legislation,” Meister said. “And the museum is focused on anti-racism, equity and inclusion.”

Frank Vaisvilas is a Report For America corps member based at the Green Bay Press-Gazette covering Native American issues in Wisconsin. He can be reached at 920-228-0437 or fvaisvilas@gannett.com, or on Twitter at @vaisvilas_frank. Please consider supporting journalism that informs our democracy with a tax-deductible gift to this reporting effort at GreenBayPressGazette.com/RFA.

This article originally appeared on Green Bay Press-Gazette: Researchers working to return human remains to Indigenous nations

Maine's sparrows are being wiped out by mercury and climate change

Sam Schipani, Bangor Daily News, Maine

Tue, December 21, 2021

Dec. 21—Pollution and sea-level rise are putting Maine's most unique birds in jeopardy.

Tidal marsh songbird offspring are less likely to survive long enough to leave the nest when the mother bird has high levels of mercury in its blood, according to new research from the University of Maine. Even so, the birds, which have already seen extreme declines over the past two decades, are more sensitive to sea level rise.

The tidal marsh is a unique habitat, situated at the border of land and sea. The birds that live there — particularly the native saltmarsh sparrow and its closely related sister species, the Acadian Nelson's sparrow — have uniquely adapted to survive there.

"They're one of relatively few terrestrial or land species that live in tidal marsh," Kate Ruskin, a UMaine lecturer in ecology and environmental sciences who led the study.

The birds are also in danger. The saltmarsh sparrow, a native Maine species, is slated to be considered for Endangered Species protection in 2024 and predicted to be extinct by 2060. Previous studies from the University of Maine showed that saltmarsh sparrow populations are declining 9 percent annually across the northeastern U.S., while Acadian Nelson's sparrows are declining 4.2 percent annually.

"Those numbers are pretty huge," Ruskin said. "I remember thinking it wasn't quite that bad when I heard it, but from year one to year two, that's from 100,000 to 91,000 [birds], and by year 10, that's down to 39,000 birds."

Scientists thought that this may be because tidal marshes are also breeding grounds for mercury, which can impede bird reproduction. Mercury floats through the air over to Maine from coal fired power plants from even as far away as the Midwest, but it takes the special bacteria like the kinds found in tidal marsh to convert mercury into a form organisms can consume.

Ruskin and her fellow researchers set out to find out if mercury was to blame for the decline in these special sparrows. Over the course of three breeding seasons, the researchers sampled more than 100 birds to determine whether mercury was accumulating in their blood and, if it was, whether that correlated to their offspring not making it out of the nest.

The study yielded a number of interesting results. First, though the birds from Maine had the lowest total mercury concentrations in their blood, Ruskin said the variability between plots that were only a few miles away from each other was vast.

"It's variable on a small spatial scale and that's a good takeaway for conservation," Ruskin said. "That suggests small conservation action can make a difference."

The levels of mercury in the birds' blood also changed so much over the course of the years that the researchers determined that the toxic substance wasn't bioaccumulating, or staying in the birds' systems to build up over time.

However, when the birds did have high levels of mercury in their blood, the researchers saw that the baby birds were less likely to live long enough to leave the nest.

A more pressing concern, though, was flooding caused by sea level rise in these sensitive intertidal areas. Nests were at least twice as sensitive — and at most, 17 times more sensitive — to flooding than they were to mercury exposure. The researchers even found that study plots where the mercury was highest had relatively high nest survival — and happened to have some of the lowest nest flooding levels.

Doug Hitchcox, staff naturalist at Maine Audubon, said that knowing which factors are contributing to the species decline — and how important they are compared with one another — is essential to saving them.

"While we know mercury levels in many of Maine's birds, including our iconic Common Loon, can negatively affect nesting success, this study shows that these sparrows nesting in tidal marshes are at a greater threat to increasing sea level rise from climate change, a threat that we need to act as soon as possible to slow," Hitchcox said.

Losing the saltmarsh sparrow could send a ripple throughout the ecosystems of Maine in a way that will affect more than just birdwatchers. Hitchcox pointed to the fact that saltmarsh sparrows feed on pesky, biting greenhead flies during the summer.

"Without those sparrows, some of our favorite summer outdoor activities may become much less enjoyable," Hitchcox said.

Ruskin hopes that her research will be useful — and hopeful — to conservationists looking to preserve the unique ecosystems of Maine.

"We found some negative effects from mercury but addressing that is not going to prevent them from going extinct this century," Ruskin said. "Making sure they have a place to live where the nests aren't getting flooded, that's the key to survival in the next century."

Research shows Permian Basin air pollution on the rise as EPA works to finalize new rules




Adrian Hedden, 

Carlsbad Current-Argus

Tue, December 21, 2021

Methane emissions continued to rise in the Permian Basin this fall, and environmentalists used their own research on the matter to advocate for stricter federal air pollution controls on the oil and gas industry.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) last week released the results of an aerial survey of 900 oil and gas sites in the Permian Basin, which spans southeast New Mexico and West Texas, finding “significant plumes” of methane coming from 40 percent of the sites.

About 14 percent of the emissions were from malfunctioning flares, the report read, while 30 percent of the surveyed pipelines were releasing methane into the air and about half of all midstream facilities studied also had emissions.

Methane is a greenhouse gas known to be a byproduct of oil and gas production and can lead to respiratory illness or cancer after long-term exposure to people.

The study conducted between Nov. 12 and Nov. 21 and released Dec. 14 was the eighth as part of the EDF’s broader PermianMAP project to track emissions in the region – the U.S.’ most active oilfields.

Researchers attached infrared cameras to a helicopter to study emissions at sites previously observed in past PermianMAP studies, allegedly finding about half of the measured sites had reoccurring releases of methane.

The study also looked at specifically smaller-producing sites and the reoccurrence of emissions within a week, finding a third of such facilities had emissions that continued for days.

Dave Lyon, senior scientist with the EDF said the research indicated stronger policy was needed to reduce emissions and thus air pollution from oil and gas operations.

He said requirements to increase inspection frequency and repair leaks and malfunctioning equipment was an important step to mitigating the industry’s contributions to climate change.

More: 'The time is now': New Mexico taking action on oil and gas-induced earthquakes

“There are dozens of reasons why a site might be emitting high levels of methane. The only way to know what’s going on and to ensure things are operating properly is to regularly check sites for problems that lead to massive pollution,” Lyon said.

“Our research has consistently shown that leaks can and do happen at all types of facilities – including smaller, leak-prone wells – and the best way to control emissions is to find and fix them.”

Jon Goldstein, senior director of regulatory and legislative affairs said the federal government must take action to ensure oil companies in all states operate under adequate pollution controls.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was developing new rules targeting methane emissions, seeking to expand the regulatory applicability to not only newly-built oil and gas facilities but existing sites throughout the U.S.

The EPA recently extended a public comment period for the drafted rules, which include added leak detection and repair requirement, to Jan. 31, 2022, contending that when enacted the proposal would cut nationwide methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

“The EPA has a real opportunity to change the game and make a meaningful dent in our methane pollution,” Goldstein said. “This research makes clear that the agency must tackle frequent, large emissions from smaller wells if we’re going to have a shot at achieving our climate goals and protecting communities from air pollution.”

More: Smaller 'independent' oil and gas producers leading Permian Basin growth, study says

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the regulations would ensure “long-lasting” pollution reductions while also encouraging technological advancement within the industry aimed at addressing environmental concerns.

The Agency’s data showed the oil and gas industry was the U.S.’ largest emitter of methane emissions, and that a third of greenhouse gasses, which cause global warming, were generated by human activities.

The industry in the U.S. emits more methane and greenhouse gas than 164 countries combine, per the EPA, also including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants.

More: Benefits of oil and gas debated in Congress as feds ready to lease more land in New Mexico

The EPA estimated its proposed rules would prevent the release of 41 million tons of methane from 2023 to 2035, and also recover up to $49 billion in natural gas that would otherwise go to waste during that timeframe.

“With this historic action, EPA is addressing existing sources from the oil and natural gas industry nationwide, in addition to updating rules for new sources, to ensure robust and lasting cuts in pollution across the country,” Regan said.

“By building on existing technologies and encouraging innovative new solutions, we are committed to a durable final rule that is anchored in science and the law, that protects communities living near oil and natural gas facilities, and that advances our nation’s climate goals under the Paris Agreement.”

More: Interior's proposed fossil fuel reforms criticized by industry, New Mexico environmentalists

But the proposal drew concern from oil and gas industry leaders who said the cost of compliance with such rules could threaten economic prosperity brought on by fossil fuel development.

In public testimony given by Kevin O’Scannlain, vice president of upstream policy with the American Petroleum Institute, he argued the EPA must take into account the cost and availability of equipment that would need to be retrofitted at oil and gas sites to comply with the rules.

He said the Institute – of the industry’s largest, national trade groups, support federal regulation of methane but that the rules must reflect the needs of the industry along with environmental protection.

“With respect to rule implementation, we urge EPA to carefully consider the availability and cost of equipment, labor and other required resources needed to comply with the proposed standards,” O’Scannlain wrote in his submitted testimony.

“These aspects are especially critical in setting workable implementation timelines, given the hundreds of thousands of existing sources that may require retrofit, and current well-documented supply chain shortages.”

Adrian Hedden  achedden@currentargus.com or @AdrianHedden on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Carlsbad Current-Argus: Research shows Permian Basin oil and gas air pollution on the rise

Three House Democrats ask watchdog to probe 'peaker' power plant pollution

Tue, December 21, 2021

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Three House Democrats from New York on Tuesday called on a federal watchdog to investigate pollution generated by "peaker" power plants, or those that only generate electricity during periods of high demand.

House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) joined Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) in calling on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the effects of such plants on local communities.

The lawmakers noted that the plants are both less energy-efficient than standard power plants and are frequently located in lower-income or predominantly minority neighborhoods.

"Addressing the use of peaker plants, which can emit twice the carbon and up to 20 times the nitrous oxides of a typical plant while operating significantly less efficiently, represents a high-impact opportunity to reduce climate risks and tackle a life-threatening environmental justice issue," they wrote. "We request GAO's assistance in reporting on key data to assess damage, uncover health burdens, calculate economic costs, and identify alternative solutions to the use of peaker power plants."

There are 89 peaker plants in New York City alone, including 28 in or near Maloney's district and 16 in Ocasio-Cortez's district. An area in western Queens with a number of such plants has become known as "Asthma Alley" due to its disproportionate rates of the respiratory condition.

Earlier this year, Clarke joined three other New York Democrats - Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Nydia Velazquez and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand - in introducing bicameral legislation to replace and upgrade the plants. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee in May but no action on it has been taken since.

The Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized a commitment to environmental justice, or addressing environmental hazards that disproportionately affect low-income communities and people of color. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would use $1 billion in initial funds from the bipartisan infrastructure bill to take action on 49 unfunded Superfund sites.

Nuclear energy is the best solution for combatting climate change | Opinion

Natalia M. Best
Tue, December 21, 2021, 6:01 AM·3 min read

As an East Tennessean now residing just outside of Washington DC, I’m very proud of my home state’s contributions to clean energy.

Tennessee is the home of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory— also known as the Tennessee Valley Authority — and plenty of outstanding institutions of higher education that are leading the way to create sustainable, zero emission energy.

Partnerships between these institutions enabled the development and distribution of nuclear fission as a clean and sustainable energy source. These partnerships continue to produce technology and drive innovation from which the entire world will benefit.

The significance of these contributions were brought into focus this month at the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference, COP26, in Glasgow. The U.N. Secretary-General admitted that nuclear power will be apart of the solution.

The White House and the State Department delivered some other long overdue announcements that strongly support nuclear energy’s value proposition in the fight against climate change.

The impact that nuclear energy can have on climate change

Tennesseans are no strangers to the risks posed by climate change: the 17 inches Hurricane Ida dumped on the state in August and the heart wrenching losses from April’s record flooding in Nashville are just a few reminders that we will all be impacted by the effects of climate change.

If nations and states do not increasingly commit to resilient, zero emissions energy alternatives like nuclear fission, extreme weather events like these could become more frequent, more severe or both.

While California and New York close and dismantle their nuclear power plants and increasingly turn to fragile, less reliable and less sustainable forms of clean energy like solar and wind, Tennessee’s two nuclear plants contributed 47% of the state’s electricity in 2020.

Natalia Best

This enabled the state to increasingly phase out other forms of energy with high carbon emissions while balancing renewable energy inputs.

Admittedly, nuclear energy is not a silver bullet for ensuring clean and reliable energy or solving climate change. Nuclear energy is expensive and is associated with unfortunate but preventable accidents caused by human errors.

We are still in search for a solution to long-term waste storage and disposal. However, when compared with all the existing clean energy alternatives, nuclear is the best, the most reliable and the safest large-scale clean energy solution we have for now. At least until the Oakridge National Laboratory develops a better solution.

Given nuclear energy’s overdue recognition coming out of COP26, I’m hopeful more states will follow Tennessee’s lead by prioritizing and incorporating nuclear energy into their electric grids. I applaud my home state for resolutely forging the path for clean energy.

Natalia M. Best is a commander in the U.S. Coast Guard Officer currently enrolled as a
graduate student at National War College in Washington, D.C. She is from Englewood, Tennessee.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: How nuclear energy could help solve climate crisis