The Wall Street Journal - 23.10.2019

A16| Wednesday, October 23, 2019 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Are California’s Blackouts a Step to Reform?

Regarding Holman Jenkins’s “Do

California’s Blackouts Make Sense?”

(Business World, Oct. 12): It makes

sense, when a company is in bank-

ruptcy over state-mandated fire liabil-

ity, that the company would refrain

from supplying power in the face of

more liability. It makes sense that

more power outages will occur be-

cause of the multibillion-dollar liabil-

ity burden put on public utilities. This

situation can only be mitigated by the

government changing the laws and

Public Utilities Commission rules. The

politicians want to blame corporate

greed and avarice in search of that

feel-good, self-righteous moment to

signal virtue and gather votes.

Meanwhile, customers get to feel

what it’s like to not have a public util-

ity. You get to pay for your own gener-

ator and fuel and keep the system run-

ning yourself. Those voters need to

reassess their support for feel-good

politicians. This is the hard but only

way to get change.

Some people—with the money to do

it—may switch off grid and give up

having a public utility. Power market-

ers are allowed to offer new and

cheaper renewable energy than PG&E

legacy contracts. The shrinking of the

utility, both financially and through

the loss of its customer base, may lead

to the end of the public utility. It won’t

be able to obtain funds to continue in

business or pay claims. So when this

comes full circle, it will make sense.

MARKS.SAJER

New Providence, N.J.

Whether blackouts make sense or

not isn’t the point. The point is that

California is getting exactly what a

majority of its voters voted for: a pro-

gressive, Democratic Party-run gov-

ernment and Democratic regulators

and their deep state. Their climate-

change policies have stolen key re-

sources from PG&E and applied them

to very expensive renewable-energy

solutions, which have distorted PG&E’s

ability to manage its business and cost

California ratepayers extra billions.

The equally damaging environmen-

tal mismanagement policies of the

forest floor and underbrush coming

out of Sacramento make wildfires

more frequent and intense. Thus,

blackouts make a lot of sense to

PG&E, to further protect its business

from would-be pillagers, and to the

political class, which is straining to

find a scapegoat so the public won’t

realize who created this mess.

ANDYWOOD

Bedford, Mass.

Kern County is ground zero for Cal-

ifornia’s intended destruction of the

oil- and gas-production industry. The

state says it wants a “managed de-

cline” of oil and gas extraction here. It

has no plans to replace the lost jobs,

many of them very well paying. The

economic devastation will be horrific,

not to mention the greater depen-

dence on oil from outside the county.

I advocate nuclear power produc-

tion here in Kern County as a zero-car-

bon alternative if the state insists on

destroying the oil industry that is such

a large part of our economy.

France produces more than 70% of

its electricity from nuclear plants and

recycles the fuel. Advanced designs

are cheaper to build because they are

simpler, safer and more efficient than

the old ones. Small plants can be

placed in rural areas, some designs

can be used to desalinate water, pro-

duce heat for industrial processes and

produce hydrogen for more clean en-

ergy. Third-generation reactors have

up to a 60-year life.

ELAINEFLEEMAN

Bakersfield, Calif.

In “California’s Dark Ages” (Oct. 11)

the editorial board rightly points out

that our centralized electricity system

is broken, yet misjudges the way for-

ward.

With affordable technologies like

solar and battery storage, locally pro-

duced renewable power is the solu-

tion to California’s challenges. Smart

investments in solar have created

more than 76,000 good jobs and sup-

ported a booming economy.

Residential solar and battery stor-

age is proven technology. That’s why

households in PG&E’s service territory

across Northern California powered

through mandatory power shutoffs us-

ing energy generated by rooftop solar

and stored in batteries, all while pay-

ing less than they otherwise would to

the utility for electricity.

PG&E’s residential rates are so

loaded up with additional costs that

they are as much as seven times the

cost of wholesale power in California,

based on PG&E data. PG&E’s costs to

maintain the types of transmission

and distribution lines that were de-

energized recently will grow, while

the costs for distributed energy solu-

tions like solar and batteries will de-

cline further.

Rather than doubling down on a

crumbling and outdated centralized

energy system, California and other

states should invest in resilient, dis-

tributed energy solutions.

EDFENSTER

Co-founder and executive chairman

Sunrun

San Francisco

With the power outages, I would

imagine that it’s difficult to pay for

generators and fuel with cryptocur-

rency.

C.D.SNIDER

Clinton, N.J.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters intended for publication should

be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,

or emailed to [email protected]. Please

include your city and state. All letters

are subject to editing, and unpublished

letters can be neither acknowledged nor

returned.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Pepper ...

And Salt

Schools Need Radical Change, Not Tinkering

In “How Parents Helped Transform

a Los Angeles School” (op-ed, Oct.

14), former Los Angeles Mayor Anto-

nio Villaraigosa, to his credit, men-

tions a number of politically unmen-

tionable problems with today’s public

schools. But his solution—“elect more

leaders who pledge to always put the

interests of kids first”—is comical.

We’ve already sacrificed enough gen-

erations of kids, particularly minority

kids, and there’s no sign of reform

except the usual litany of cynical

promises from the vested interests in

the $700 billion government-spon-

sored monopoly on public education.

Nothing will change until kids can

use their pro-rata education-budget

allocation at any school their family

chooses—a prospect that unions and

politicians have fought tooth and nail

for decades. Any “solution” to the ed-

ucation problem that doesn’t open

schools to the accountability of mar-

ket forces, which we insist on in all

other endeavors, is no solution at all.

STUARTGARNER

Georgetown, Texas

Mr. Villaraigosa cites initiatives to

“promote effective practices at un-

derperforming schools.” The first

called for the formation of “parents

unions” authorized to march into

failing schools and put them in

shape. But when, in 2015, a parents

union sought to invoke the second

initiative, the state’s trigger law, the

school district refused and brought a

lawsuit to keep parents out. The deal

that finally allowed in parents stipu-

lated they would be “working under

school district authority.”

L.A.schools have thus turned in

loco parentis on its head. The doc-

trine views parents authorizing oth-

ers (in this case, teachers) to act in

their place (with limits). But in the

L.A.school system, unions and ad-

ministrators determine when parents

will be permitted to function (subor-

dinately) in the schools. So much for

“inspiring reform.”

The improvements attributed to

the initiatives are, well, less than

stirring: One is a “greater use of

computers.” The other is that the

school “boasts some of the most

improved math scores in the dis-

trict,” a claim so vague it must have

been compiled by a committee—of

administrators.

REV.STEVESCHLISSEL

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Brigid Kosgei Would Have

Led Marathon World in ’

The article on marathon running

“Records Test Limits of Physiology”

(Sports, Oct. 14) makes the point

that Brigid Kosgei’s time of 2:14:

broke Paula Radcliffe’s world record

of 2:15:25 by a handsome margin of

more than one minute. Historically,

it is revealing that had Ms. Kosgei

participated in the 1960 Rome

Olympics marathon she would have

beaten the men’s winner—Ethio-

pia’s Abebe Bikila—again by a mar-

gin of more than one minute and

that her time would have been a

world record.

EM.PROF.SCOTTA.G.M.CRAWFORD

Eastern Illinois University

Carlsbad, Calif.

Canadians Humble Trudeau

C

anadians behaved with characteristic
moderation on Monday and dealt Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau a rebuke while
letting him hold onto power
with a minority government.
The biggest loser was the glib
politics of climate change.
Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party
lost 20 seats compared to the
2015 election, falling short of
a 170-seat majority with 157. The Conservatives
led by Andrew Scheer won the national popular
vote (34.4% to 33% for the Liberals) and picked
up 26 seats, but they fell short in Canada’s
first-past-the-post-system with 121 seats. To
their credit, the Conservatives are not calling
the result illegitimate.
The scandals of the Trudeau government
were a major issue, but more important was
the politics of energy. Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal
supporters in big cities are infatuated with
addressing climate change, but their green
policies run into trouble when citizens are
asked to pay for them.
That’s especially true in the Canadian prai-
ries and Rocky Mountain region, where the
Conservatives dominated. Liberals were wiped
out in Alberta, the heart of the oil sands, and
struggled in Manitoba. Liberal cabinet minister
Ralph Goodale lost his seat after 26 years, turn-
ing all of Saskatchewan Conservative.
Voters have been revolting against national
and provincial carbon taxes that have raised
the cost of living in already expensive metro
areas. Federal policies that make it difficult to
get Canadian oil to market are also divisive. Mr.
Trudeau paid a political price for cancelling the
Northern Gateway pipeline and banning Cana-

dian oil tankers on British Columbia’s northern

coast. The government has also passed legisla-

tion that threatens to hyper-regulate pipelines.

Westerners resent this inter-

ference from Ottawa.

Canada’s energy industry

is an engine of national eco-

nomic growth, and Mr.

Trudeau has already signaled

that he needs to be wary of

destroying it. Last year the government bought

the troubled Trans Mountain Pipeline expan-

sion project, and in June it said the project

cleared regulatory hurdles. On Tuesday Finance

Minister Bill Morneau said the government will

go forward with the project.

Minority governments in Canada aren’t un-

usual, though it typically takes more than one

term for a ruling party to suffer this kind of

reprimand. Mr. Trudeau will now have to seek

the support of other parties on specific issues

to govern. The likely candidates are the left-

leaning New Democratic Party, which has a

stronghold in coastal British Columbia but

lost 15 seats, and the French nationalist Bloc

Quebecois, which staged a comeback and is

now the third largest party with 32 seats. The

Bloc shares Mr. Trudeau’s desire for more

welfare spending, but its price may be more

provincial autonomy.

Mr. Trudeau has been running budget defi-

cits even in these good economic times, so he

will need an energy revival to serve his fiscal

needs. Conservatives missed an opportunity to

regain power sooner than they expected, and

Mr. Scheer ran a lackluster campaign. But they

may get another chance soon because minority

governments tend to be short-lived.

The Liberals take a

beating over energy

but hold onto power.

Donald Trump’s ‘Lynching’

D

onald Trump made himself a political
celebrity in 2016 by persuading news
media to talk about—Donald Trump.
He did it mainly by the expedi-
ent of saying outrageous
things—by trolling, in the par-
lance of social media—and it
worked. It’s still working,
though these days as often to
his detriment as advantage.
On Tuesday the President guaranteed he’d be
topic number one for at least 24 hours by tweet-
ing that the effort to impeach him is a “lynching.”
Instantly, and perhaps as he intended, his critics
in the media, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere ex-
pressed rage and disbelief that Mr. Trump could
compare the conduct of his political opponents
to the mobs that murdered African-Americans
in an earlier, shameful era.
The verb to lynch means to execute without
a trial or due process. It doesn’t refer only to
extrajudicial killings in the post-Reconstruction
and Jim Crow South. Accordingly, it’s occasion-
ally used in a figurative sense in other English-
speaking countries. But in the United States the
word is electric for its historical context, and
you don’t have to indulge in racial hypersensi-

tivities to appreciate why. Clarence Thomas fa-

mously used it during his confirmation hearing

in 1991 when, as he saw it, a cabal of white liber-

als sought to destroy his nom-

ination to the Supreme Court

by a “high-tech lynching.” Jus-

tice Thomas had what we

would call political and histor-

ical standing.

But no President should

use the word in the off-hand and self-indulgent

way that Mr. Trump did in his tweet. What’s so

galling about this and similar pointless provo-

cations is that, in his quest to remain always

and forever in the headlines, Mr. Trump puts

his more judicious allies on the political spot.

Every Republican in Congress is immediately

asked either to ignore him and risk association

with his reckless pronouncements, or criticize

him and risk his wrath.

Democrats are bent on impeaching Mr.

Trump, and if he wants to survive he is going

to need allies—especially in Congress. The more

he forces Republicans to defend words or ac-

tions that don’t deserve defending, the more

their resentment will build and the more politi-

cal trouble he will be in.

The President keeps

asking friends to defend

the indefensible.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION

California’s Gasoline Panic

D

emocrats in California have worked
hard for years to inflate gasoline prices,
but now they’re searching for a fall guy
as voters gripe about how
much they’re paying to fill up.
Round up the usual fossil-fuel
suspects!
California Gov. Gavin
Newsom on Monday ordered
state Attorney General Xavier
Becerra to investigate oil companies for alleg-
edly overcharging consumers and price-fixing.
Gas prices in California average $4.13 per gal-
lon, about $1.50 more than the rest of the U.S.
“The mystery surcharge adds up, especially for
cost-conscious, working families,” the Governor
declared.
You have to excuse his apparent shock. He may
not have filled a tank in awhile, and gas prices in
California spiked last month amid refinery prob-
lems. Few refiners outside of California produce
its special clean-burn-
ing fuel, which adds
about 10 cents a gallon.
When a refinery in the
state has an outage,
gasoline must be im-
ported by tanker at
higher cost.
But California gas
prices have been in-
creasing relative to the
other 49 states for
years (see the nearby
chart). The disparity
especially widened in
2013 when the state’s
cap-and-trade program
took effect and in 2018
after Democrats raised the state gas tax. Last
year California’s gas prices tracked about 77
cents higher than the U.S. average.
The disparity has increased again this year,
prompting Democrats to demand an investiga-
tion by the state Energy Commission. The In-
spector Gadgets discovered no unlawful activity
or anything of surprise.
About half of the price difference between
California and other states is due to taxes, cap
and trade and the state’s low-carbon fuel stan-
dard, according to the commission’s report.
Higher refiner and retailer margins account for
another third. California refineries boast larger

margins because they face higher regulatory

costs and less competition.

The commission also says retailer margins

have inexplicably grown since

2012, especially among gaso-

line brands like 76, Chevron

and Shell. Between 2010 and

2018 California brand-name

station margins increased by

about 30 cents a gallon versus

six cents on average nationally. The agency sug-

gests price fixing may be to blame.

But about 95% of gas stations with conve-

nience stores are independently owned, which

includes mom-and-pops that license brand

names. Some consumers will pay more for

brand-name gas as they will for Prada purses or

Starbucks lattes. As gas prices rise, consumers

may also burn more money than they save driv-

ing in search of the cheapest stations.

Notably, the commission ignores that retail

margins include labor

costs, utilities, rent and

taxes. In 2012 the state

increased taxes on high

earners, which hit many

small businesses. Cali-

fornia’s minimum wage

has increased by 50%

since 2013. According

to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, worker

wages at California gas

stations over the last

fiveyearshavein-

creased 50% more than

nationwide.

Mr. Newsom has

threatened legal action

against oil companies to “protect the public.” But

liberals have long wanted higher gas prices so

folks will ditch gas-powered cars. The Governor

last month ordered revenue to be redirected from

the last gas tax hike, which was supposed to fund

highway construction, to projects that “reverse

the trend of increased fuel consumption and re-

duce greenhouse gas emissions.”

So Californians in the future can look forward

to paying more to drive on deteriorating roads

as they head to homes without electricity due

to blackouts. How long will it take California vot-

ers to figure out that these are problems made

in Sacramento by politicians?

Hey, Governor

Newsom, didn’t you

want higher fuel prices?