governors

Jan. 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration, backed by a group of eastern-states’ governors, are planning to ask the PJM Interconnection electric grid operator to hold an auction to help boost the power supply strained by data centers and lower prices for consumers.

The emergency power auction would offer 15-year contracts for electricity generation from newly built power plants. Normally, auctions offer one-year contracts to energy companies. The proposed auction would be open to tech companies to help pay for their extra power use.

Trump also wants regulators to put a cap on the amount that existing power plants can charge.

The auction would be let the tech giants pay to fuel their energy-gobbling data centers that process data for artificial intelligence. The cost of electricity generation for data centers is driving up the price of power to consumers. The White House can’t mandate the auction.

PJM Interconnection is the power grid that serves 13 states and Washington, D.C. It serves 65 million people and includes northern Virginia, which is the largest data center market in the world. The money raised would help finance construction of new power plants.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and governors from the mid-Atlantic region are scheduled to announce an agreement Friday to lobby PJM to take these actions, a White House official told CNBC.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the administration is leading an unprecedented bi-partisan effort urging PJM to fix the energy subtraction failures of the past, prevent price increases and reduce the risk of blackouts,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said.

In its most recent auction, PJM was 6 gigawatts short of its reliability requirement for 2027, CNBC said. Six gigawatts is equal to six large nuclear plants.

“Instead of a blackout happening every one in 10 years, we’re looking at something more often,” said Abe Silverman, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who served as general counsel for New Jersey’s public utility board.

Consumer rates are determined by state regulators, but also by the costs that utilities pay for energy from their plants or at auctions. Rates have risen because of the higher demand from AI and data centers.

SACRAMENTO — Reacting with anger and despair, welfare recipients and advocacy groups predicted Monday that Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposed initiative to cut aid payments to families with children would only serve to increase hunger and homelessness among California’s poor.

With housing costs already taking most of each month’s welfare payment, the groups said, even the 10% cut proposed for all recipients would force more families onto the streets. The proposal also calls for an additional 15% cut for the able-bodied after six months.

“I wouldn’t be able to live anywhere. We’re barely living on what we get now,” said Sendre James, a disabled Vietnam veteran who supports his son and two foster children in Los Angeles on $535 a month. James has been unable to receive any aid for the foster children.

Monica Valease Hamilton, a Los Angeles mother of three who has been living on welfare since a son was born three years ago with heart problems, said that if payments are reduced many families will cut back on food to try to keep their homes. Hungry children, she warned, often resort to desperate acts.

“If you’ve got a child whose mother can’t feed him, that child’s going to be stealing somebody’s purse because that child’s got to eat. The whole situation is just frightening. I pray to God it’s not my child who has to resort to stealing,” she said.

Advocacy groups said Wilson’s proposals seemed to be based on his belief in the old myths that welfare recipients are basically lazy, able-bodied adults who have chosen existence on the public dole as a lifetime occupation. Casey McKeever, directing attorney for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, said the state’s own statistics dispute those contentions, showing that most recipients have one or two children and stay on welfare less than two years.

“(Wilson) seems to blame poverty on welfare, and I think the reality is that welfare is the reflection of poverty,” he said.

Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Assn., said Wilson’s attack on welfare recipients has served to mask what he considers the real cause of many of government’s fiscal woes–namely, tax loopholes that have been granted large corporations and the wealthy.

Because of the way government is structured, he said, special interests can be granted a tax loophole through a simple majority vote of the Legislature, but tax reformers who want to close those loopholes need a two-thirds vote.

“It seems that from a fiscal standpoint, (Wilson) is trying to lay the burden of balancing the state budget on the backs of the very poor, and that’s not really where it belongs,” Goldberg said.

Hamilton, who acknowledged that the welfare system needs reform, said Wilson seems to be accepting a stereotypical view of poor people rather than trying to understand their plight.

“Poverty is 10 degrees below hell,” said Hamilton, who supports her family on a $788 monthly welfare payment. “If he’s been there, he can relate. But if he hasn’t been there, how can he dictate? He wants to sit up there and cut my check again, and I’m not even surviving on what I’ve got.”

Callie Hutchison, executive director of the California Homeless and Housing Coalition, criticized the governor’s proposal to limit the amount of welfare new residents can receive, noting that there is no “concrete evidence” that large numbers of people were moving to California because of the welfare benefits.

“People come for jobs and the much-touted California lifestyle,” she said. “They are attracted by their dreams for a better life, not how to live better in poverty.”

HILTON HEAD ISLAND, S. C. — With the wounds from last week’s election defeats still tender, Republican governors and political leaders met Monday in this robustly sunny resort to chart a suddenly clouded political future.

Calls for increased emphasis on education and the environment were squelched by other sounds: teeth-gnashing, backbiting and bemoaning of the turn of political events.

Just a year ago, in the flush of George Bush’s presidential victory, Republicans saw the 1990 elections as a historic opportunity to overthrow the Democrats and control the powerful reapportionment process stemming from the 1990 census.

Now, as they looked forward, mostly what they saw was the troubling issue of abortion, which is credited with breathing new life into the Democratic Party and is at least partly responsible for last week’s Democratic gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia.

“If you look at last Tuesday’s results, you are hard pressed not to say . . . that the pro-choice coalition has indeed, definitely, become a force,” Republican pollster Linda DiVall warned the governors.

“If we in the Republican Party don’t recognize that, we are setting ourselves up for some major defeats.”

The emergence of abortion as a potent tool to be wielded against anti-abortion Republicans has sent the party scrambling to regain the offensive for 1990.

Strategy for 1990

In plans outlined Monday, party leaders detailed a two-pronged approach to next year’s elections–playing down abortion while pressing issues that could overshadow that emotional topic.

Vice President Dan Quayle, in a speech here Monday, pointedly did not mention abortion but tried to rally support for a more activist 1990 program modeled after Bush’s 1988 race.

“We will continue to work and identify with issues beyond peace and opportunity,” he said, “and (will) relate to opportunity the importance of education, the importance of the environment, the importance of enhancing our competitiveness, renewing an attack on poverty.

“These will be Republican issues,” he said.

Also, Quayle underlined the firm break between the 1990s-version Republican Party with its Reagan-era predecessor. He touted the importance of government–a position precisely the opposite of that pronounced by Ronald Reagan at the turn of the last decade.

“We cannot adopt an idea that somehow all government or any government is simply evil,” Quayle said. “That’s not the case.”

In talking to reporters later, the vice president said that an emphasis on popular topics like education and the environment will help Republican candidates. And he argued that the party’s anti-abortion stance “is going to be a neutral issue.”

But other Republicans roll their eyes at such rosy predictions and worry nervously that abortion will prove the difference in 1990’s elections.

Next year, 34 Senate seats, 36 governorships and all 435 House seats will be on the ballot. More important, the elections will put into office governors and state legislators who can shape new boundaries for political districts, which will remain in force for 10 years. Whoever wins in 1990, in short, has a distinct advantage for the next decade.

Republicans are still smarting over the last reapportionment, in which Democrats controlled the process and came away with strong holds on many states, most particularly California.

Despite the success of the GOP in winning the presidency, Democrats currently hold 29 governor’s seats and control 28 legislatures. Among the 1990 battlegrounds will be California, Texas and Florida, which have gained in population and thus will gain congressional seats, and the Northeast and Great Lakes states, which are losing seats.

Major GOP Efforts

Republicans will be mounting major efforts as well in states where they are close to holding a majority of legislators in a legislative body–Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Florida among them, Republicans here said.

Republicans acknowledge that there are limits to their ability to force abortion onto the back burner. The Supreme Court, which unleashed a fury of political activity with its July decision permitting the states to place some restrictions on abortion, is due to consider the subject again next term. And abortion rights groups, which mobilized in the wake of the court decision, have vowed to exact revenge on anti-abortion legislators in 1990.

But, as they shift focus to newly embraced issues like education and the environment, the Republicans hope to take the edge off of the abortion issue by instructing party candidates to announce their position and stick to it. Many Republicans here castigated their losing gubernatorial candidates–J. Marshall Coleman of Virginia and James Courter of New Jersey–for waffling on the issue.

“You don’t shift positions,” said Florida Gov. Bob Martinez, who after the Supreme Court decision called a special session of the Florida Legislature to adopt new abortion restrictions–only to have the Legislature table the proposals.

“If you’re shifting around on quicksand based on the political winds, you’re gonna die,” he added.

Conservative South Carolina Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. spoke what is rapidly becoming the party line–that voters will accept an anti-abortion stance as long as it is consistent and expressed sensitively.

There has been no large-scale test of the theory since the Supreme Court’s decision was announced.

“The problem with Republicans is that they have not gone out in advance and told the public what they believed in,” Campbell said.

“The Democrats in this instance (last week’s races) went out and defined the issue (and) left the Republican candidates there with no clear message of what they stood for. And I’m going to tell you something: You’ll beat nothing with something every time.”

Thompson Disagrees

Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson, a moderate who has opted not to run again in 1990, split ranks with Campbell on the direction that party candidates must take in the future.

“At least at the state level, a candidate in any party who takes a strong pro-life stance is going to lose,” Thompson said.

“The old days when only the pro-life movement was political are gone,” he added. “The Republican Party is going to be pushed in the direction of the pro-choice movement.”

Most Republicans agree that all but the most rabid anti-abortion activists will have to silence in 1990 their once-public demands for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and for other highly restrictive measures.

“There’s room for an offensive–but the offensive is clearly in the middle,” Republican National Committee member Haley Barbour of Mississippi said.

Like others, Barbour suggested that moderate attempts at abortion restrictions–like advocating that parents be notified when a young girl seeks to have an abortion–will remain on the agenda, because polls show Americans to be more sympathetic to them than to more comprehensive barriers.

“Politics is the art of the achievable,” he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson on Thursday formally named Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce President Lee Grissom as senior policy adviser for economic development.

Grissom, 49, resigned from the chamber on Tuesday after heading the business group for 17 years. Over that period he oversaw the chamber’s growth from 1,400 to 3,700 member firms and helped mold the organization into an influential force in city politics.

In his new job, Grissom will advise the governor on economic planning as well as issues relating to the state’s efforts to attract and retain jobs.

Grissom has experience in that area, having served on the Governor’s Council on California’s Competitiveness, a blue-ribbon group that surveyed the problems of doing business in California contrasted with other states.