Performative outrage and befuddlement at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Where are the media looking? Where are they not? Kyle Clark's different words depending on party affiliation.
Performative outrage and befuddlement at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
In something that apparently only seems to surprise the Democrats running this state and the PUC commissioners themselves, Xcel now says that they're unsure they can deliver on the state-mandated changes to our grid.
Well, at least they can't do it without more money. Always, always more money.
Fresh on the heels of submitting the required clean energy plan that came in at almost double the earlier estimate, Xcel has now gone to the PUC to say they may need yet more time and likely more money to comply with state law.
What's that you ask? No, silly, not more of their shareholder's money. More of yours!
Seems they're having some trouble getting grid-level solar off the ground because, well, that's the world we live in. Quoting the Sun article linked first below:
"'We’re experiencing both delays and cost challenges implementing the approved Clean Energy Plan portfolio,' Xcel Energy said. 'Global supply chain issues are delaying the delivery of critical equipment like transformers, high demand for construction labor is driving up the project’s costs and two recent trade actions by the U.S. International Trade Commission have impacted the development of new solar and storage projects,' the company said."**
Our reality is as it is. We Colorado, we humans, we the PUC, we Xcel, cannot control larger economic dynamics.
But there is something absurd about this whole drama to me. It is, as I wrote earlier (see the second link below for my open letter to the PUC/CO Dems), this has the elements of a farce.
I point you to the quote by PUC Chairman Eric Blank reproduced with the ellipsis from the Sun article:
"I am really nervous about what is going on here. … This filing causes me a lot of angst."
No kiddin huh? I am right with ya there on the angst buddy.
I point you also to the fact that, while we don't control worldwide markets, policymakers here in Colorado have made us vulnerable to them in a way that we didn't have to be.
If we didn't have the laws they voted in, requiring this to proceed on an arbitrary timeline, we could sit by, biding our time til the markets straightened themselves out.
We could have waited til the technology wasn't unproven and costly at grid-scale.
This is all part of the show: the PUC will have their angst, the Democrats who voted this policy in will have their hearings, they'll haul Xcel up and wag their fingers, and then you and I and all the other ratepayers can get busy paying more while they continue on with their rondo.
**In fairness to Xcel, the article notes that it isn't just Xcel having these problems. Anyone trying to build out new renewables right now is facing similar problems.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/07/18/xcel-clean-energy-goals-price-colorado-puc/
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/an-open-email-to-the-governor-of?utm_source=publication-search
Where are the media looking? Where are they not?
Post-Trump assassination attempt, I've been watching Colorado media to see what they would cover (and what they haven't) with an eye toward how local politicians reacted, and whether the media would hold Colorado politicians to their comments about Trump in the same way they have Republicans/conservatives.
There hasn't been much to share about their immediate reactions. Not that they didn't say anything, more just that how many times can you write that someone said a variant of "violence is not the answer".
There has been one exception to this. Rep Steve Woodrow. His contemporaneous remark on twitter (see links one and two below for a couple separate articles) brought a pretty immediate response from many, as it should have. See the attached screenshot from his now-deleted account.
It spurred a lot of articles. I put a pair of them below, linked first and second (and I would like to make a special note of the fact that the "nonpartisan" Colorado Sun has stayed mum on the topic). My curiosity was piqued at the possible depth of coverage on this topic. Would this be the beginning of a new era, a time when our media would start to not only notice, but call out extreme rhetoric by Democrats? Would they be asking every single Democrat--from Congress on down to the dog catcher--their thoughts about the words Biden and others have used? Would they be doing so for years?
We both know the answer to that, but nonetheless, I reached out to the authors of the stories linked below because they were the first I saw.
I inquired of Ms. Birkeland and Mr. Del Puerto whether or not they intended to ask any other Democrats (than Woodword) about their rhetoric re. Trump and/or whether they would ask Democrat candidates about Biden's rhetoric. You know, calling Trump an existential threat to Democracy, saying he had a target on him, that sort of thing.
I didn't hear from Ms. Birkeland, but Mr. Del Puerto respectfully declined to say anything, telling me that as policy they don't share their decisions about coverage with people outside the paper. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that her response would be similar. More on that in the "Related" content below.
Mr. Del Puerto did share the third link below in a later email by way of demonstrating what his paper did cover on the issue. Out of fairness/completeness, I included it. You're welcome to read it for more detail, but it's an article where they asked for reaction on Woodrow's comment from Colorado State Democrat leadership (McCluskie and Duran). Their tepid response is not worth relating.
That's kind of it as far as I've seen.** Now that Biden's left the race, there'll be lots of news on that and will essentially kill any efforts to ask Democrats about Biden's remarks (and with them any efforts to ask about their own words). I don't imagine coverage will drift back.
There is a glaring double standard here, and it's one that will be hard to wave away. Maniacs are responsible for their own actions, and I'm not a big believer in the idea that someone's words directly relate to violence by another (absent the obvious of course). Even given that, however, I want you to remember how many times you would hear politicians asked about Trump's words, when Trump was in office, when he was not. I want you to remember how many times you saw down-ballot Republicans asked about Trump.
Lastly, I want you to remember how the media had a chance to do the same with Democrats and have largely chosen to not. Certainly not to anywhere near the same degree.
**Fairness again demands a quick mention of a couple of equally breezy and quick questions tossed at Jason Crow by Face The Nation and Marshall Zelinger. I'd also like to note two other things. Linked fourth below is Complete Colorado's own effort on Jason Crow, a much more thorough look at what he's said and tweeted. Linked fifth below is an equally extreme and thoughtless comment by Rep Scott Bottoms. I wish Republicans would do better about letting the Democrats talk and keep their own mouths shut.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/07/14/colorado-lawmakers-trump-assassination-reaction-rhetoric/
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/07/17/jason-crow-attack-trump-breather-political-rhetoric/
Related:
For coverage on the coverage, check out the recent newsletter by Corey Hutchins where he covers the interesting (telling?) difference in the covers of the Post and Gazette after Trump's attempted assassination.
Both papers declined to comment on their process here for choosing headlines. This dovetails with Mr. Del Puerto's comments above and I wonder if it's an industry-wide best practice or unwritten policy. An interesting take and perhaps something I'll look at later in more depth.
For now, I merely leave it as a question: would you have more trust if the media gave more of a rationale?
Kyle Clark's different words depending on party affiliation.
Per Kyle Clark's Twitter video linked at bottom:
"Debbie says 'Why are we [presumably Next on 9News] only focused on Joe Biden and his bad debate and not on Trump's lies, deceit, felonies, etc.?'"
"Debbie, here's the thing. We have covered Donald Trump's lies, deceit, policy, for years here. Quite aggressively. And we will again in the future. Importantly, Republican voters have decided that they're okay with all those things from Donald Trump."
"Democratic voters are in a very short window to decide whether they are comfortable with Joe Biden as their nominee. That is why there is so much focus on him at the moment."
Fair enough.
Go back and re-read Mr. Clark's snippet and think back to any time you have watched his show. He's missing a detail here.
Did you catch it? It's subtle but it's there, rather, not there.
Have they covered Biden's lies? His deceit? His policy? Have they done it anywhere near the depth that they have Trump? Have they once attempted to open a discussion of Biden's age and fitness for the job prior to the debate?
Has Mr. Clark ever asked his fellow Progressives or Democrats whether they're okay with those specific things from Biden? You know, as opposed to the general "comfort" they have about Biden?
Because if the implication here is that they haven't covered those things by Biden because they haven't been there, well, that would be so wrongheaded as to be laughable.
Kyle Clark is quite savvy about media; you wouldn't get to where he is by not being good at your job. Like any good player, he can make the instrument take on a variety of tones to suit the emotion he wants to convey.
The trick is in paying careful attention to how he plays, because, whether he will admit it or no, he doesn't have the same standards for everyone he covers. Far from it.