project WORLDVIEW                  copyright 2025                      Home                back to Choices We Make

chronologically listed selected past "Science Works" Daily Courier Columns ==> Scroll Down 

note: you can reach Science Works columnist Stephen Cook via email: feedback@projectworldview.org  

you can find water issues related columns here

************************************************************************************************************

June 29, 2025

Bunker Buster, Budget Buster Bill?

by Stephen P. Cook

 “Bunker buster” refers to 30,000 pound bombs President Trump hit Iran’s Fordow nuclear site with.  “Budget buster” refers to concerns that increased military spending will complicate balancing the federal budget and his proposed “big beautiful bill” (BBB) will explode the national debt. At $37 trillion it’s already staggering: divided by 340 million Americans = $109,000 of debt per person! What follows is a data-driven / “dismal science” of economics based effort sharing my concerns.

 On June 14 I joined 3,500 people at Prescott’s “No Kings” rally. We pledged allegiance to the flag, then expressed “D” word concerns about threats to our democracy posed by dictatorial rule. Today I expand that to “B” words—two in particular: borrowing and bankruptcy. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand the problem. It can be simplified as seven minus five equals two. Seven, as in USA annual federal spending is $7 trillion. Five, as in USA annual federal tax revenue is $5 trillion. Two, as in we’re spending $2 trillion more than we’re taking in! Congress could address this problem by increasing revenue: allowing the 2017 Trump cuts to expire and hiring more IRS agents. On the contrary, the BBB extends the cuts and nearly one-third of IRS tax return auditors are gone.

Or Congress could pass a “painful belt tightening bill.” Cutting federal spending across the board by 28.5% would reduce it to $5 trillion. Among the cuts: $285 billion from $1 trillion of defense spending, $480 billion cut from combined Medicare and Medicaid $1.7 trillion spending, and $285 billion cut from $1 trillion national debt interest payments…Alas, the latter asks investors to accept 28.5 cents less for every dollar they’re owed. We’d essentially be defaulting on the national debt: something bankrupt countries do…but not us. Removing that means those other expenditures need to be cut by 33.3%, instead of 28.5%. Defense spending cuts of $333 billion would be needed; Medicare and Medicaid spending would need to fall by $560 billion, etc.

 Drastic—but preferable to what Republicans propose? Their BBB (as of June 25) makes $600 billion to $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid.  According to June 12 Congressional Budget Office analysis, 10.9 million poor people would lose health insurance and poorest households’ income fall by $1,600 annually. In contrast, wealthiest households’ income would increase by $12,000.

Rather than cutting defense spending, together it and border security spending get a $200 billion increase. Concern about Iranian mischief / terrorism helps justify that.  The BBB would raise the debt ceiling—the legal authorization to borrow money—by $5 trillion, allowing the national debt to grow from $37 trillion to $42 trillion.

 Given interest rates of recent decades, effectively the USA government pays investors 2.5 % / year in financing its debt. Six weeks ago, spurred by bond market worries and rating agency downgrade of USA credit worthiness, yields on 30 year treasury notes briefly topped 5% / year. Taking 5% of $40 trillion yields an annual interest payment of $2 trillion—double the current outlay. This illustrates the danger posed by the huge national debt and the need to raise revenue without increasing interest rates. 

The consensus view of economists is that tariffs won’t do that. Any revenue they generate will be offset by reductions in economic activity / GDP, job losses, and higher prices—boosting inflation and interest rates. Some say a combination of raising the income tax rate on the top 2% of USA earners (>$400,000 / year), joining the effort for global minimum tax rate (15%) on large multinational corporations, and establishing a carbon tax could plug the $2 trillion / year budget hole. Trump / Republicans have sidelined these efforts (although two Republican senators have introduced a related one: “The Foreign Pollution Reduction Act.”) They’ve instead given us bills like $134 million (Pentagon estimate) for deploying 700 marines for 60 days in response to Los Angeles protests.

 Ominously, the BBB proposes raising revenue by selling 3.3 million acres of public land in eleven western states—including Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and national forest land in Arizona. Draft provisions suggest sale at breakneck speed in a giveaway to builders, fossil fuel and mining companies. Favorite scenic, hiking, camping, fishing, birding or wildlife-watching spots could become gated subdivisions or private resorts. Native American sacred areas bulldozed. 

 In contrast, leasing BLM classified “Renewable Energy Development Areas”—including 192,000 Arizona acres (some in Yavapai County)—for utility scale solar projects makes more economic and environmental sense. The BBB also targets Inflation Reduction Act clean energy programs. Just in our Congressional district, $5 billion in existing, potentially revenue-generating investments and 3,636 existing and potential jobs are threatened.  

 All of us want to see taxpayer dollars spent wisely. I’m sending Rep. Eli Crane my budget busting bill concerns—how about you? 

June 8, 2025

The Prescott City Council, Groupthink, and Academics 

by Stephen P. Cook

 Before ending with appointing Patrick Grady to fill an open seat, the May 20th Prescott City Council meeting encouraged thinking about the purpose of higher education, and was (dramatically / unexpectedly?) forced to navigate through “groupthink” territory. Wikipedia defines groupthink as “a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.” Fortunately,  Councilman Ted Gambogi may have helped steer the Council decision-making process.

 In introducing a critical thinking skills related interview question he asked of all three finalists, Ted expressed the opinion that colleges should teach students how—not what—to think. After the hour-long interview process, and three public comments, the Council adjourned to executive session—supposedly necessitated by legal considerations. It returned with an announcement: two of the six members were recusing themselves from voting, given oaths they’d taken to support only registered Republicans. Unless they were willing to break their oaths, Patrick—a registered Democrat—would not be getting their votes. Perhaps the City Attorney suggested that— to avoid critics charging “the system is rigged” in filling this supposedly non-partisan seat—civic duty should take precedence over political party loyalty?

 As a fan of academic freedom I have no use for oaths to political parties—the very thing George Washington warned against. I insist on making decisions based on my own thinking aided by a free inquiry process to fill gaps in my knowledge if needed. Moreover, as a long-time science educator, my over-riding goal has always been to teach critical thinking skills.

 As a scientist, I value honesty, communicating facts—what is known to be true after unbiased, objective examination— and “playing fair.” (In scientific method terms this is part of striving for “reproducible results.”) This is quite different from what politicians value. Physicist and U.S. Congressman Bill Foster once distinguished between science and politics, saying "In science, if you stand up and say something you know is not true, it is a career-ending move...In politics...for many who practice it, the question is not "Is it true?" but "What can I convince the voting public is true?" Alas, it increasingly seems politicians value their tribe “winning” more than doing what’s right.  

 Thus Democrats hesitate rather than insisting their aging president serve only one term. (See “The Original Sin” by CNN’s Tapper and Thompson.)  And, fearful of consequences should they speak, Republicans are silent as the new administration begins with firing 17 inspector generals. The blatant action goes beyond having the metaphorical fox guard the chicken coop, it removes any oversight. A May 30 PBS Washington Week in Review “Profit and Power” program discussion documents recent unprecedented Trump administration corruption. Given a Supreme Court mandate, Trump is immune from prosecution—unless a few courageous Republicans in Congress escape groupthink and join Democrats in impeachment proceedings.

 Those in bed with—sorry for mixing metaphors—fossil fuel or building industries, have no interest investigating the global threat posed by greenhouse gas driven climate change, or the local threat to the Verde River posed by building a pipeline to pull water out of the Big Chino acquifer. Some attempt to hide behind science in justifying what’s really a position based on a self-serving (typically money-making development) agenda. Example: see my (May 4) column “Simmering Solar, Languishing Libertarians” linking a climate change skeptical article to Big Oil company / petroleum geologists.

 A June 1 rant described me as “a California academic” preferring “moonbeams and ‘out of the box’ theories” to “rocks and reality.” Yes, I grew up in southern California but knew, by age 15, I had to get out. I haven’t lived there in nearly fifty years. Given my life —which includes teaching thousands of students and winning related awards (including at Prescott High School) —I say characterizing me as ungrounded in reality is laughable. Hey— I’ve built three houses doing essentially all of the work— including digging foundations, plumbing and electrical— myself. I worked as a volunteer wildland fire fighter for many years. (My science background aided these pursuits.) The “californication” I’m most concerned about: Prescott open spaces filling up with energy— and water— guzzling, huge  (unaffordable?) new homes. 

Yes, I’m an academic meaning I prefer knowledge to ignorance. Yes, I’m an “out-of-the-box” thinker meaning I prefer that to groupthink.  I don’t like being attacked by culture warriors. Gosh —I’m not even a registered Democrat! The May 20 Council session ended —after Patrick and many of his supporters thanked me for speaking on his behalf—with my offering an “olive branch” to one of the finalists not selected. Knowing of her leadership among Prescott Republican women, I recalled my (February 23) column and expressed hope that her group would accept the invitation from the Prescott Democratic women for a get-together.

April 20, 2025                  Banning Natural Gas? Tariffs? Not So Fast!

by Stephen P. Cook

 Imagine: (see Rants and Raves, April 8) all the Prescott City Council candidates really are “leftist” [they aren’t!] Imagine, as 2025 ends, a “radical environmentalist” Council majority drafts an ordinance prohibiting extending natural gas lines to new homes—only to have legal counsel inform them “What you’re proposing is illegal. Years ago Governor Ducey signed HB 2686, which prevents municipalities from discriminating against different utilities in issuing building permits and making zoning decisions. It prevents Arizona cities from banning natural gas.”

 Would my imagined scenario get that far—would Council members be ignorant of this 2020 Arizona law?  Unlikely—but  increasingly many of us live in a “news bubble” where we’re fed what some algorithm “thinks” we want to hear. And, rather than talking to people, we—me included— often decide  we know someone else’s position on an issue based on supposed clues. We may too hastily put a person into a category—like “leftist,” “liberal, ” or “redneck” —rather “dehumanizing” and prejudicially unscientific.  How so? More generally, science teaches us to avoid “Confirmation Bias”—meaning “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior belief.”

 Many see societal problems in black and white terms and seek simple solutions. This includes, I fear, Donald Trump. He sees tariffs as a simple way to fix a trade imbalance problem. He notes they once supplied all of our government’s revenue. My reply: “Yes, back in 1900 when USA federal spending was 2.7 % of GDP—today it’s 23%!” And consider this recent (subreddit) post: “I voted for Trump because I wanted to see liberals growl like dogs. I wanted affordable groceries, but the tariffs are going to make everything worse and my life savings will be gone.” Sad—the consequences.of simple, short-sighted “solutions” to complicated problems.

More examples: “Don’t worry about gigatons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning causing climate change” since, as one of my readers said, “climate has been in flux since the beginning of time, with or without human influence.” Or (see my last column) “Goodbye Utility Bills. Use Free Solar Energy.” Or, (reader) response to rising electricity costs, “Deregulate electricity in Arizona.” If only it were that simple!

Years ago when legislators were debating HB 2686—and some were getting large campaign contributions from big utility Southwest Gas—I realized this wasn’t a simple issue. For starters, unexpectedly, libertarian (often Republican) types— who like “freedom to choose” and disdain “big government” limiting choices local governments might make—supported the bill. And unexpectedly, consumer advocates (often Democrats) were on the banning gas / opposing the bill side—though natural gas can save consumers money (especially for home heating) compared to using electricity in meeting similar needs.

I stayed neutral, despite environmentalist friends favoring phasing out natural gas—given its chief (96%) component is methane, a potent greenhouse gas—being against the bill. As explained in my August 25, 2024 column, the USA has 78 million residential methane gas customers served by 2.2 million miles of pipelines. With such infrastructure in place, seems a shame not to use it. As I mentioned, biogas (renewable energy) from livestock manure or made in digesters from rotten hay, cornstalks, or wood waste could eventually replace fossil fuel.

One new development: in The Economist’s “The World Ahead 2025” issue, California-based Terraform Industries announced “We’re now making cheap synthetic natural gas from sunlight, water, and air.” And pulling greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air in doing it! Sounds too good to be true—often a signal one should dig deeper! Terraform says they’re making “pipeline grade synthetic natural gas for $35 per thousand cubic foot (MCF.)” Much higher than what my calculation says Prescott gas costs: $5 to $6 per MCF. But that price is deceptively low because pollution is not factored in. Accounting for 120 lbs of carbon dioxide associated with burning 1 MCF of methane—using social cost of carbon $200 / ton—adds $11 per MCF.

Even with that, solar-derived natural gas looks twice as expensive as current fossil fuel offerings. Nevertheless—if it meant having no gas for cooking, for backup to solar water heating, or for staying warm in emergencies—I’d pay that price. Having this choice is important to me. But I see two reasons for banning natural gas: 1) current use of methane is a greenhouse gas nightmare, and 2) dreaming of a renewable energy / biogas future may be a pipe dream (pun intended) when the gas industry is slow to fix methane leaks, and seems reluctant to change. A complicated issue!

Interested in utility-related economic and environmental issues? You’ll want to attend the April 24 6:30—8:00 PM program “Energy Choice for Arizona” I’ll be moderating at Prescott College’s Crossroads Center. See you there!

 ***************************************************************************************************************

April 6, 2025     Economic Freedom and High Electric Bills 

by Stephen P. Cook

 Jack Saville lived “off the grid northwest of Prescott” when his book Magic Machines was published in 2013. The machines referred to are “simple solar appliances you can build” –a phrase appearing just above “Goodbye Utility Bills. Use Free Solar Energy” on the book’s cover. Its back cover includes pictures—of solar batch water heater, and solar air heater— and proclaims: “Magic Machines is about economic freedom.” 

 A long-time seeker of economic freedom, do-it-yourself (DIY) solar practitioner, and author of a 1984 book Achieving Self-Reliance—Backyard Energy Lessons—I’m well-qualified to review Jack’s book. I won’t do that here. I will say, “Though the solar DIY route is not for everywhere, it represents the biggest bang for money invested.” (Note: Jack’s book does not cover using photovoltaic solar panels.)

 With respect to payback, energysage.com reports that Arizonans need 10.88 years to recoup (with reduced energy costs / credits) paying a third-party (say $20,000) for a rooftop photovoltaic solar / grid-tie system. Ideally by year eleven (of forty year lifetime?) you’d have free electricity—except for utility company basic fees / grid access charges. To escape those, you need to go off-grid and invest in battery storage. You’d then be free from what some call “utility company tyranny.” Note many more appreciate electric company / APS service and reliability.        

 Unfortunately, given shaded house location, my Prescott friend Jenny— who relies on electricity to stay warm— lacks solar options. Her average APS bill for December 2024 and January 2025 was $468 per month. This is up from $314 for similar time periods five years earlier (when temperatures were comparable) —a nearly 11 % per year increase. What APS customers pay is based on a rate of return allowed by the Arizona Corporation Commission. This “lacking competition” Arizona model incentivizes utilities to make unneeded investments to increase their rate base and profits. It deincentivizes their keeping expenses in check and rates low. Typically USA public power regulators allow rate of return on utility company investments of around 10% per year. Very high compared to the 4 % or so that investors in CDs or T-notes get. 

In recent years I’ve been working on changing this system. On February 11 I planned to testify in support of a bill that would have promoted energy competition and choice. Sadly, I never got the chance. Reportedly a lobbyist from another Arizona utility company (not APS) convinced the committee chairman to withdraw support, effectively gutting the bill. Since then I’ve learned two things that strengthen my contention that such companies are failing ratepayers.  

 First, from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2024 figures, I learned Arizona gets 47% (5400 gigawatthours) of its electrical energy from natural gas. So perhaps rising gas costs are behind our rising cost of electricity? If so, you’d expect Prescott supplier Unisource Energy’s (USE) bills to show big increases. Surprise: since July 2014, USE gas delivery charges have not changed and the current cost of gas ($0.4555 per therm) is 20% lower than a decade ago ($0.5831 per therm.)  

Second, EIA figures show Arizona gets only 12% of its electricity from solar and wind—compared to neighboring New Mexico’s 49%. Seems New Mexico residential customers— paying 7% less (average 14.26 cents per kWH says electricchoice.com) than Arizonans (15.20 cents per kWH) —are benefitting from these clean, relatively inexpensive sources of energy more than we are.

 The gutted bill I mentioned would have increased energy generation choices and restored retail competition to the Arizona electricity marketplace. Since then another bill has advanced that, if it becomes law, will tighten the monopoly investor-owned utilities stranglehold. HB 2774 would allow utilities and their industrial partners to install small modular nuclear reactors without having to apply for a certificate of environmental compatibility and face a public hearing.

Utility company preference for gas and nuclear will not benefit Arizona electric ratepayers. Small nukes’ electricity won’t be available until 2030, is estimated to cost 30 cents per kWH, and will necessitate managing radioactive waste for thousands of years. In contrast, average 2024 power purchase contracts wholesale prices (from lbl.gov) for solar / battery storage electricity averaged 6 cents per kWH. Given such economic realities, such installations accounted for 84 percent of new US electricity generation capacity last year, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association / Wood Mackenzie. Not so much in Arizona though…

 Arizona also lags ten other states in not allowing cities and counties to set up community choice aggregates to purchase low-cost power on behalf of residents.  Conceivably, suffering Arizona consumers could demand legislation that makes this possible. Laying the educational foundation for this is an important part of what the April 24 6:30 PM program “Energy Choice for Arizona” I’ll be moderating at Prescott College’s Crossroads Center is about. Those interested in economic freedom are welcome!  

***************************************************************************************************************

March 23, 2025                        Prescott, Paradise, and Kiss it Goodbye

by Stephen P. Cook

 Years ago, my sister, after listening to raves about our area, replied, “It sounds like Paradise.” Hearing this, I thought of a line from the 1976 Eagles song “The Last Resort”: “Call someplace Paradise, kiss it goodbye.”  Years later, after a wildfire destroyed Paradise, California, the Prescott—Paradise link became a “don’t follow the path we blazed” cautionary tale. Putting aside that connection, Prescott residents supporting the protecting open spaces measure on the August election ballot, will like the song’s “development destroys natural beauty” theme.

 I will “act locally” and vote “yes” on that, but in what follows I’ll paint a bigger “think globally” picture. I’ll start with a feeling the Eagles Don Henley expressed in a 1978 interview when talking about this song: “We have mortgaged our future for gain and greed.”  We’ll return to this economic connection, but first note: this song is not angry in tone. It’s like a hymn— one that preaches “stewardship and caring for creation,” not “having dominion over.” 

 Another Eagles song, “Hole in the World” — written in response to 9/11/2001 terrorism— is similarly quasi-religious. Here paradise = promised land —as in the line: “Until we learn to love one another, we will never see the promised land.”  Enough—this religious stuff hardly belongs in a science column! Onward, to “big picture” economic science connections—and two “holes in the world” of our market-based capitalist economic system which merit discussion.

 First, consider a question French economist Thomas Piketty studies, “Will capital accumulate and wealth become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands?”  He fears “Yes” unless something changes. Others characterize the problem in terms of an unfair economic playing field—notably described by Donald Trump saying “the system is rigged.” If something is rigged, the outcome’s a foregone conclusion. There’s no competition: big and powerful triumph over small and weak. Big government allies / large corporations win; individual consumers / small businesses lose.

 Second, consider the problem oil company (Exxon) former executive Oystein Dahle’s identifies: “Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow the market to tell the ecological truth.” Simply put, market prices typically don’t include true environmental costs. Most critically the failure to ignore the consequences of burning fossil fuel and costs of associated (heat-trapping carbon-dioxide gas) emissions is magnified as climate change impacts grow. Economists tell us carbon pricing is the best way to plug this hole.

 If fossil fuel was more expensive, we would burn less of it. Emissions would fall—reversing their dangerous (almost unbelievable?) climb. In the fifty years since Don Henley wrote “The Last Resort,” humanity has added roughly 1350 million metric tons (mmt) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere—three times the amount (450 mmt) added in the 250 years before 1976 dating back to the industrial revolution’s beginning. Not surprisingly, since 1980, says the NOAA climate.gov website, USA climate-related disasters costing more than $1 billion (in constant 2024 dollars) have grown from 2 to 3 per year (1980-1982) to 28 and 27 (2023-2024). Notable here: the 2018 fire that destroyed Paradise and the 2023 fire that wiped out Lahaina in Hawaii.

 While no one can definitely attribute a particular disaster to greenhouse gas emissions, climate scientists increasingly connect them in terms of increased likelihood of occurrence. Cumulatively the 403 disasters over the last 45 years that NOAA documents have cost nearly $3 trillion. They provide a database for considering the social cost of carbon (SCC) —the cost to society of an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions. That’s a term which a Day One Trump executive order discouraged federal agencies from using. Indeed, by the end of January 2025—after costly ($250 billion?) Southern California fires in Altadena, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu—few wanted to think about climate-related disaster costs.

 Almost prophetically, Paradise, Lahaina, and Malibu are mentioned in “The Last Resort” lyrics. The costly recovery from what happened in those places—and in those affected by (fall 2024) Hurricane Helene—suggest a 2016 Obama Administration SSC=$37/ton figure was too low, not too high as Congressman Andy Biggs (conceivably Arizona’s next Governor?) argued. A 2022 study published in Nature—perhaps the world’s foremost science journal—estimated SSC=$185/ton. Last month its authors refuted a conservative Heritage Foundation paper supposedly justifying banning federal SCC considerations.

 Ignoring the true costs of rising carbon emissions, and looking to save money by cutting US Forest Service fire fighter jobs—such stupidity could be disastrous for drought-stricken Prescott. But Prescott consumers are suffering today from sky-rocketing electric utility rates. My next column will document how Arizona’s “the system is rigged” monopoly investor-owned utility model fails to protect consumers, and how those utilities are steering us toward a future increasingly powered by unneeded natural gas and expensive small nuclear reactors. It will describe an alternative to the “kiss it goodbye” path we’re on.  

************************************************************************************************************

“Resiliency and Sustainability” is the title of chapter 1 in the General Plan that Prescott voters will need to approve. The Plan neglects defining these terms—it simply says “Being more resilient and sustainable means that we are better able to prepare, adapt, and get stronger in response to internal and external pressures and stresses.” Here I focus on what we might do to protect the electrical grid from forces—both natural and man-made—that might threaten it.

The Plan’s Chapter 1 begins “With the increased impacts of climate disruption, it is becoming more and more obvious that we need to cultivate resilience.” No doubt the 4.5 million homes / businesses in Texas left without power by freak cold in February 2021—some for several days—wished natural gas infrastructure had been properly winterized.  Likewise California utilities learned the hard way—after lawsuits they lost sent the cost of power soaring—that transmission lines can’t start catastrophic wildfires during extreme drought if they’re buried underground. While some of 1.1 million customers in the Carolinas and Georgia affected by Hurricane Helene toppling power lines had expensive backup generators, others went without electricity for days before links to distant power stations could be restored. Batteries storing electricity locally as part of micro-girds—could have helped them. 

 Human misadventure—vandalism, terrorism and war—also threatens the grid. Last January I lobbied for a bill I’d helped draft called “The Family Protection, Energy Security and Cost Savings Act.” In seeking sponsors, we courted a Senate committee chair who reportedly lives in an off-grid house powered by solar panels. And is big on protecting the grid from threats from vandalism, terrorism, cyber mischief, and electromagnetic radiation—conceivably from atmospheric nuclear blast (say from North Korea) or rare (but not inconceivable) solar coronal mass discharge.

 This bill’s introduction began, “Last year, in wake of attacks on utility substations across the nation, the Arizona legislature passed HB2212 which would have increased penalties for those who damage utility infrastructure or trespass on utility property.” HB2212 was vetoed by Governor Hobbs, but  concerns about possible utility power outages grew as Phoenix area July 2023 heat—and related deaths—set records. Months later, after seemingly being encouraged by Senator Bennett, I handed another of our LD1 legislators, Representative Nguyen, a flyer about our bill that featured an Arizona Mirror story about HB2212 with a headline quoting Nguyen saying “Nobody predicted 9/11 on 9/10.” Neither Bennett nor Nguyen got to vote on our bill: the committee chair declined to sponsor it at the urging of the Senior Policy Advisor, who said it would lead to California-style high electric bills. 

 The bill proposed assessing potential benefits of distributed generation (DG)—including saving consumers money and increasing grid security.  DG, serving many households and businesses, interconnects small energy generation units—lots of solar arrays, but potentially wind turbines, fuel cells, gas-fired peaker plants, etc. —and puts them closer to where the energy is used. One local generator with battery storage might power a community microgrid; many can serve a local distribution grid. Centralized electrical power plants and dependence of entire regions on a single long distance transmission line, which DG avoids, characterize “Brittle Power”—the title of a 1982 book that was reprinted after the 9 /11 disaster. Brittle’s the opposite of resilient. Inter-connected distributed generation based grids are resilient by design: multiple connections insure that if one breaks, everyone’s lights don’t go out!

What has this to do with our area’s electrical grid? From an August 2024 meeting about a proposed Chino Valley utility scale solar installation,  I learned that—unless something changes—electricity produced there will be sent elsewhere, not utilized locally. And I acquired a map confirming my suspicion that a single high voltage (500 kilovolt) line connects us with the Palo Verde nuclear plant and other large generation facilities to the south. One wonders, “What if something severs this link? This recalls the arrest of eco-terrorists who didn’t like nuclear power. They were caught using a blowtorch trying to topple an electrical transmission tower —leading to a 1991 trial in Prescott and national attention.

 Monopoly utility companies—acting as “gate keepers” of an electric grid they don’t own—are another potential enemy of the distributed generation that would improve grid resilience. To prevent such abuse, an Institute for Local Self Reliance paper argues, “Our transmission and distribution infrastructure should be…operated by non-profit, co-operative, or public entities to prevent for-profit companies from using the grid platform from inhibiting competitors.”  Perhaps a worthy goal for Arizona’s future? Today, with the new Legislative session about to start, we are seeking sponsors for a revised bill that would study distributed generation (or more precisely: disturbed energy resources,) increase grid security, and open the Arizona energy market to competition / offering consumers more choices. 

“Economic Competitiveness and Prosperity” is the title of chapter 4 in the General Plan that Prescott residents will eventually be asked to approve.  It’s focus: what can Prescott do to succeed in “competition for business” with other cities. It considers cost of living with respect to “Housing Affordability and the Workforce.”  After some words about competition in general, in what follows I consider costs of housing, groceries, and utility service.

Economics has been called “the dismal science.” More positively I’ve developed  a grudging respect for the competition-based market system. I like its built-in feedback loop—as in “consumers vote with their pocketbooks” — and the “wisdom” associated with its operation. But as much as I like Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” world where consumers have lots of choices, modern corporate capitalism often limits choice. So government regulators need to occasionally step in, break up monopolies and promote competition. Metaphorically they represent the adults in the room telling those who want all the marbles to share with others—and play fair.

Housing. Market forces have pushed median sale prices of Prescott homes above $700,000, and not enough small (affordable) homes are being built. I’ve learned of one Prescott Valley subdivision requiring homes have a minimum 2300 sq.ft, and two Prescott ones requiring at least 2050. What can local jurisdictions do to rectify things? Earlier this year I urged the Prescott General Plan writers to include this goal: “Promote the energy and cost savings associated with building / installing / utilizing affordable tiny homes, and discourage the proliferation of expensive, energy-wasting large single family residences.” 

Groceries. Think grocery prices are high now? Imagine two of Prescott’s Frys and Safeway stores closing as corporate parents Kroger—Frys and Albertson’s—Safeway merge. Fearing reduced competition would raise prices, federal regulators—with help from some state attorney generals—stepped in and succeeded in blocking this merger. Reportedly “Prescott Girl” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes recently celebrated her office’s role in this victory.

Utility Service.  My July 21 column, headlined “Prescott Girl’s Legacy with ACC Threatened,” ended with “Arizona ratepayers are not benefitting from abundant sunshine and the technology that can turn it into reliable, cheap electricity.  Rates continue to rise. Many feel a rogue [Arizona Corporation Commission] ACC—beholden to the utilities it regulates like [Arizona Public Service]APS—is standing in the way…One obvious solution: Arizona voters can…vote out ACC Commissioners deemed responsible.” That did not happen.  Why?

APS must be doing something right. My experience suggests two things—first: reliable service. This is critically important given that a May 2023 Arizona State University study found that a simultaneous multiday heat wave and electrical grid failure in Phoenix could result in half of all residents needing urgent medical attention and 13,250 deaths (1% of the population).

 Second, APS has many friends—not just in the ACC, but in the Arizona legislature—which typically does its bidding.  Why? Money—as in campaign contributions and the influence peddling it buys. According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Arizona has roughly three electric utility lobbyists for every state legislator. Not surprisingly in 2022 after Green Mountain Energy applied to offer customers cleaner, cheaper renewable energy within APS territory, legislators—also urged by Salt River Project (SRP)—passed HB 2101. This essentially repealed a 1998 law that said, “It is the public policy of this state that a competitive market shall exist in the sale of electric generation service.”

 Money— former ACC Commissioner Sandra Kennedy documented $9 million / year—also buys APS friends, and the backing of organizations statewide when it seeks rate increases like it did last April. Of that, the Energy and Policy Institute reported, “Over 2,000 people submitted comments to the ACC…many expressing frustration and anger with the utility’s proposed $460 million rate hike. But at least 16 groups that hold ties to APS…— including charitable contributions from the utility, board positions, and memberships — submitted comments in support.” Notable here: the Prescott Chamber of Commerce, and a church group (prominent in Prescott) The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which got $500,000 from APS in 2021.

Given high utility bills, APS doesn’t score well in residential customer satisfaction surveys, which SRP typically dominates. A recent Arizona Mirror story suggests why: “In 2023, the three [ACC] commission-regulated electric utilities (APS, TEP and UNS) charged a total price 28% higher than SRP, which the commission does not regulate” —and 52% higher than New Mexico’s rates. It asserts, “The corporate greed of investor-owned monopolies is costing Arizonans over $1 billion extra annually.”

Technology can be defined as what humans do to gain some control over the natural environment, and the knowledge, tools, and means they employ to provide goods and services for sustenance and comfort. Whereas technology initially developed via trial and error, by the 20th century most significant technological advances were founded on scientific understanding. Technology began with tool-making and advanced to use sources of energy besides food. This began with humans learning to make wood-fueled fires, and—one might argue—culminated roughly 500,000 years later with photovoltaic (PV) solar panels.

I began raving about this technology fifty years ago as a student in a UCLA engineering class, arguing that small government subsidies could drive improvements, spur mass production, dramatically lower costs and usher in a clean, solar energy-based future. Today, solar panels are nearly twice as efficient as when my household use of them began in 1980 and so cheap that shipping can be the greatest expense in procuring them. Alas, those with vested interest in dirty fossil fuel energy are fighting back. In lobbying for utility-scale solar in Yavapai County, I’ve stayed busy rebutting false claims.

A RECENT COURIER RANT labeled this technology “bird-killing.” COMMENT: On the (audubon.org) website of the world's foremost science-based group supporting birds you’ll find: “Audubon strongly supports properly sited photovoltaic solar power.”

A RECENT COURIER RANT suggested looking at PV panels could be dangerous, warning “Don’t gaze too long as optical glare can cause headaches and / or reduce visual performance. If irradiance is severe or prolonged, the glare can damage the retinas.” COMMENT: The above claim is false, but like many conspiracy theories it builds on a grain of truth: glare from solar panels can complicate landing airplanes. That concern is addressed in “Research and Analysis Demonstrate the Lack of Impacts of Glare from Photovoltaic Modules” on the National Renewable Energy Lab (nrel.gov) website. It states, “PV modules exhibit less glare than windows and water. Solar PV modules are specifically designed to reduce reflection, as any reflected light cannot be converted into electricity. PV modules have been installed without incident at many airports.”

The “damage the retinas” reference reminds us that we should never stare at the sun. But rather than classify solar energy as a “technology that wounds”—a reference to an anti-technology rant: the 1990 book When Technology Wounds by Chellis Glendinning— we should appreciate solar as what makes life on Earth possible.

NEWS ITEM: Robert F. Kennedy Jr (RFK Jr) is Trump’s nominee to lead the Health and Human Services Department. COMMENT:  Human life as we have known it over the last two centuries has greatly benefitted from scientific advances in understanding the role of micro-organisms / germs / viruses in disease and in the development of vaccines. RFK Jr’s anti-vaccine fear-mongering is anti-science at its worst. Vaccines have been called “one of humanity’s great achievements”. See “The Staggering Success of Vaccines” in Scientific American (November 2024 issue) for graphs documenting hundreds of millions of lives—mostly children’s— saved by vaccines administered in the last 50 years. For a debunking of one widespread false claim see “Basic Science: Vaccines do not cause autism” on the nationalacademies.org website.

NEWS ITEM: Trump says the world’s richest man / tech entrepreneur Elon Musk will head a new, suspiciously-named “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). COMMENT: Not surprisingly this news boosted the price of the DOGE bitcoin Musk has long promoted. I have no use for bitcoin. I see it as a “money game” played by wealthy elites, given it’s based on complex mathematical puzzles that computers solve to validate bitcoin mining transactions. I don’t see any “upside” —only the “downside” environmental impact of massive electricity use by (and water for cooling) computers. The recent article “Why the US Needs a Crypto Tax to Combat Bitcoin’s Environmental Toll” on the forbes.com website suggests one solution. 

NEWS ITEM: In August the European Union Commissioner charged with enforcing its Digital Services Act warned Elon Musk—a free speech extremist­ whose X (formerly Twitter) platform is where people increasingly make false claims / broadcast fake news —of its rules against spreading disinformation. COMMENT: This battle has important ramifications for artificial intelligence (AI) — a technology with great promise for problem solving, and creations exhibiting intelligent behavior or emulating human behavior. Doing the latter can involve training AI models by turning them loose online to learn from what they find. Alas, if lots of misinformation is encountered, instead of artificial intelligence what I’ll call “artificial stupidity” could result! (Note: The International Monetary Fund says AI data centers and crypto mining account for 2% of global electricity use and 1% of greenhouse gas emissions.)   

Finally, a HOPE, recently expressed to Prescott General Plan authors: That decisions City of Prescott planners and leaders make are based on facts and best available information.

I love the Sun. Feeling its warmth outside on cold Prescott days is especially nice, given thinner air at our high elevation increases solar intensity.  This feeling is one of many reasons why I like hanging clothes on my clothesline. Another reason: doing that sometimes triggers thoughts of my grandchildren, just as looking at my photovoltaic solar panel array does. 

 “What do solar panels and clotheslines and have to do with grandchildren?” you wonder. I associate both with not burning fossil fuel—not putting more heat-trapping, climate change- aggravating greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The less of that we do between now and the distant year 2100—when my three granddaughters could still be alive—the more livable that future world will be. Often times, upon finishing my clothes-hanging, I think, “I just spared the atmosphere four pounds of carbon dioxide associated with the fossil fuel that could have been burned to make the 4 kWh a conventional electric dryer would have used.”

 Yes—the four pounds referred to above is minuscule and hardly worth attention. Five years ago I calculated my annual carbon footprint—what I was both directly and indirectly responsible for—as 3.49 metric tons (= 7680 pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalent pollution. For comparison, back then total annual such global pollution was 43 billion metric tons. (Note: dividing by 7.7 billion people worldwide, gives a 5.5 metric ton per person average.)  Back in 2019, climate scientists estimated future worldwide emissions must not cumulatively exceed 500 billion tons if we are to limit global warming to a safe (1.5 degree C above pre-industrial) level. Dividing by 43 billion tons per year, gave us 11.6 years to get to net zero carbon emissions.

 Urging individuals to cut fossil fuel energy use is a poor way to address this colossal problem. Nonetheless, one wonders what can individuals wishing to “think globally, but act locally” do? I suspect this motivation drove many to attend meetings or submit comments related to a recently drafted Yavapai County Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance. At these meetings I was impressed by how many people identified as “pro-solar” or said they had rooftop solar panels. But while the residential / rooftop solar part of this Ordinance was quickly approved, its utility-scale solar part stalled. Many of those “pro-solar” people had “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) reservations about projects (“solar farms”) spanning hundreds of acres.

 I was especially disturbed by false claims, misinformation and what seemed fear-mongering. As someone who likes to see decisions based on best available information, I put together an eight- page document that identified—and rebutted—twelve such claims. Two examples: 1) False claim: solar farms heat up the area they cover and surroundings. Rebuttal: There’s no significant temperature change. Physics suggests, since a significant portion (roughly 20%) of the solar energy falling on the area is removed and sent away as electrical energy, a slight overall cooling. 2) False claim: solar panels are extremely toxic. Rebuttal: Any heavy metals in solar panels are not volatile and are embedded in insoluble materials that are contained in a weather-sealed enclosure. They are less toxic than many things commonly inside houses—like flat screen TVs.

 At the most recent meeting, opponents connected solar farms with poisonous herbicide use to control weeds. I pointed out that grazing sheep can do this job nicely. And—after the seemingly most pro-solar Supervisor pointed out that nothing short of taking a sledge hammer to solar panels can release tiny amounts of toxics they contain to the environment—opponents charged that large hail stones hitting them could do that.  I pointed out that state of the art solar farms employ equipment to detect approaching dangerous thunderstorms and move panels out of harm’s way. (Note: the Ordinance could have been tweaked to prohibit herbicide use and require hail storm-detecting capability.)

 The claim that solar panels are ugly and people don’t like seeing them is harder to rebut. I can say many people like seeing these sleek, clean, modern-looking symbols of technological prowess.  And that there are worse things to look at and worse neighbors: used car lots, salvage yards, high rise buildings, dense subdivisions, race tracks, polluting industrial plants, etc. But I acknowledge that not everyone likes looking at clotheslines, or thinks of grandchildren when seeing them or solar panels.

 A final thought as to why Yavapai County should do its part in welcoming the solar future that climate scientists tell us we must embrace. It involves ethics and “The Universality Principle.” In decision-making this urges us to ask, “What would be results if everyone acted in this manner?” Applied here, I ask, “What if all USA counties took a NIMBY position and adopted essentially anti-utility-scale-solar ordinances like the one Yavapai County Supervisors voted to accept at end of their November 6 Prescott meeting?” 

November 3, 2024       Information Wars—A Report from the Local Front

by Stephen P. Cook

The term “Info Wars” was popularized by a website run by Alex Jones, one devoted to spreading fake news and baseless conspiracy theories—and making money. Founded in 1999, its notoriety grew with claims the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was “completely fake” and when followers began harassing grieving parents of murdered children. By 2015, InfoWars.com was fourth on a “Top Ten Worst Anti-Science Websites” list.

Both science and our legal system depend on facts established beyond reasonable doubt. Courtrooms are where those peddling false claims face consequences. Consider defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones, Fox News corporation, Donald Trump, Arizona would-be politician Kari Lake, and former New York mayor / Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. They all have essentially lost these lawsuits and have paid— or are wrangling over how much they will have to pay­—victims.

And facts…Jones, facing jury awards of $1.487 billion in damages, declared personal bankruptcy in 2022.  Last year Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems $787 million.  Shortly thereafter a jury found Trump liable for sexual (“forced digital penetration”) abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll. In January another jury ordered him to additionally pay Carroll $83.3 million. In late March, Lake—who recently appeared with Trump at a Prescott Valley rally— declined to defend herself and filed for default judgment in a defamation lawsuit brought by Maricopa County Recorder, Republican Stephen Richer. In the last two weeks, Giuliani, owing $150 million, was ordered to begin paying Georgia election workers he slandered. And Trump was hit with a defamation lawsuit from the Central Park 5—teenagers accused in 1989 and imprisoned for many years before they were exonerated—for lies he told about them during the September 10 presidential debate.

Many conspiracy theories have no obvious victims and their inventors have not faced courtroom scrutiny.  Two examples: 1) Jewish people were behind the 9/11/2001 attacks, and 2) the QAnon conspiracy theory. The latter involves supposed patriot Q battling “deep state,” Satan worshippers, child-molesting pedophiles, and cannibals—typically all Democrats. What do these conspiracy theories have to do with Prescott? The man widely expected to next represent us in the Arizona Senate—Republican LD1 candidate Mark Finchem——“built his brand on election fraud and other conspiracy theories ” according to Arizona Mirror reporting following the Islamist terror attacks 23^rd anniversary when he went on a talk show with anti-Semitic host Scott McKay. Note: Finchem spoke at an October 24, 2021 QAnon convention in Las Vegas.

Anti-science is not exclusively Republican territory—see a July 2023 NPR story headlined “RFK Jr. is building a presidential campaign around conspiracy theories.” My advice: “Voters beware. Electing politicians who spread baseless conspiracy theories and don’t respect facts can empower them to thwart efforts to hold law-breakers accountable.”

Conspiracy theories involving scientists and their relationship with government are often laughable and easy to debunk to well-educated audiences. But communicating reasons for skepticism to the scientifically illiterate can be challenging. One example: that supposedly NASA faked the whole 1969 lunar landing. Note: in recent years Prescott has had a special relationship with a guy promoting this —he’s been called “our town celebrity” and “enthusiastic flat-earther” See a YouTube video “Prescott’s Oddity: The NASA Is A Hoax Truck” and my June 9, 2024 column for more.

Another example: the supposed “climate hoax.” As described recently in the Courier, this involves scientists supposedly seeking to profit from “the money river from government” by continually “pushing a man-made climate change lie”.  They are “fear-mongering” since supposedly “the climate is fluctuating within a normal range.” I disagree and offer three things.

First, no one disputes that climate naturally fluctuates. Over periods spanning thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, solar energy received by Earth varies in complicated, but well understood, cycles. Second, the warming of the last 150 years cannot be understood as part of this. For details see “Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming” on the science.nasa.gov website. For a graph, see “Global Temperatures Over Last 24,000 Years Show Today’s Warming ‘Unprecedented’” on the news.arizona.edu website. This is from University of Arizona professor Jessica Tierney, a member of the world’s preeminent climate science authority: the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Third, for my responses to readers comments and more, see “Courier Climate Dialogues” on the projectworldview.org website.

Finally, two Hurricane Helene / North Carolina additions to my last column. First, PBS News reports “Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientists [preliminarily] determined that climate change caused 50% more rainfall” and “observed rainfall was made up to 20 times more likely in these areas because of global warming.”  Second, the recovery effort has been complicated by conspiracy theories. Notably, Alex Jones posted a video claiming the government aimed Helene at North Carolina—supposedly to force people out so it could mine large lithium reserves.

****************************************************************************************************************

October 6, 2024

 Passing Prop 478--Yes; Breaking up NOAA-No

Proposition 478 is a ballot measure that would establish a 0.95% transaction tax earmarked for Prescott public safety services.  NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. While voters will not vote directly on whether it should be broken up, its breakup could be one consequence of a vote for Donald Trump. Before considering that, some readers may be scratching their heads wondering, “A column linking Prop 478 and NOAA, really?” My reply: As someone who worked many years as a volunteer firefighter, I’m concerned about public safety and supporting our first responders. I know that fire fighting—and countless decisions we all make daily—depend on data the National Weather Service (NWS), which NOAA administers, provides.

Fighting wildland fires in the Sacramento Mountains in New Mexico taught me the importance of having good information as to how dry vegetation is, expected temperatures, humidity, and wind magnitude / direction. And the importance of mounting a fast response. In the years spanning 2019-2023, the Prescott Fire Department (PFD) saw its average response time increase from nine minutes forty-three seconds to eleven minutes thirty-one seconds. Increased funding from Prop 478 could help it meet its goal of six minutes 30 seconds.

Fire could destroy Prescott. Years ago, a 197 page “Community Risk Assessment” document—a joint PFD / Emergency Services Consulting International product—ranked catastrophic fire as of greatest concern. Shortly after its 2019 publication, fire destroyed Paradise, California. Prior to that, a study of 5,000 small Western cities assessed wildland fire risk on a 1 to 5 scale. Paradise rated a 3.8 score, Prescott a 3.3 score. As bad as bottle-necked Paradise was at evacuating people—something police have a key role in facilitating— at the time of that fire Prescott had 42% higher evacuation restraint ratio (measured in households per evacuation route.) Just as in fire emergencies, we depend on both police and firefighters to lead people to safety when flood, hurricane / tornado, extreme cold / snow or extreme heat disasters strike.  As I write, fresh in my mind are scenes of rescues of Hurricane Helene related floodwater victims, and Phoenix area firefighters aiding hikers overcome by late season (September 28, 117 degrees!) heat. 

As to Phoenix temperatures, readers of this column may recall my saying Phoenix’s July 2023 monthly average temperature of 102.7 exceeding the previous record by 3.6 degrees put us in “uncharted territory.” When I wrote that, I certainly didn’t expect the 2024 Arizona summer to be even worse—but by most measures it has been. Note: recent Phoenix temperatures exceeded 100 degrees for 113 straight days. The previous record was 76 days.

Not only are heat / drought / wildland fire disasters worsening with climate change, heavy precipitation / floods are as well. The Community Risk Assessment stated, “Prescott’s geographic location contributes to a significant flood risk where heavy rains can cause flash flooding and mudslides associated with remnants of tropical storms and post-wildfire conditions.” A new concern: climate change is expected to increase the precipitation dumped by atmospheric rivers. NOAA sponsored research suggests this will make managing water supplies more challenging. In a March 2023 interview, Erinanne Saffel, the state climatologist at Arizona State University, noted Arizona river basins are susceptible to atmospheric rivers. She recalled January 2010’s ten inches of precipitation falling in higher terrain east of Phoenix —causing damage the NWS estimated at $11 million.

Hurricane Helene recovery may ultimately cost over $100 billion.  Helene has drawn attention to four pages in the 900+ page Project 2025 report, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s policy blueprint for a Republican administration. PBS News reports “That part was written by Thomas F. Gilman, who was an official in Trump’s Commerce Department. The document describes NOAA as a primary component ‘of the climate change alarm industry’ and said it ‘should be broken up and downsized.’” My comment: this is a childish, “shoot the messenger,” anti-science response. Some may prefer blissful ignorance, but if I’m about to be hit by a train, I’d like to know it’s coming!

September 22, 2024

Imagine Prescott Embracing Creative Destruction and Antequera, Spain

Narrowly defined, creative destruction refers to a new product or innovation making something older obsolete. It’s been described as “the free market’s messy way of delivering progress.” Perhaps the Prescott Preservation Commission was thinking of this when it voted to recommend demolishing the old City Hall Building and replacing it with a four-story hotel multi-purpose development?

 More broadly, creative destruction involves “as something dies, something else is created.” Beyond its original connection with economic growth benefits, a wide range of diverse happenings can be linked to creative destruction. Two examples: 1) the dinosaur-killing asteroid impact 65 million years ago that eventually allowed mammals to flourish; 2) European conquest of America bringing disease and guns that nearly obliterated native culture. Note: a shirt picturing Native American “Homeland Security” proclaiming “Fighting Terrorism Since 1492. Prescott, AZ” says something about the ongoing recovery.       

 I bought that shirt on Montezuma Street not far from old City Hall. Local historian Parker Anderson wanted to preserve that 1962 building, built on the site of Prescott’s first (1864) private lot sale.  He has scorned what would replace it, claiming, “The only people who will use this complex are wealthy tourists with six and seven digit bank accounts.” Previously he’d asked, “Why does everything have to be restaurants and stores? Wouldn't it be a nice tribute to our historic downtown to convert City Hall into some kind of viewerie with exhibits that pay tribute to Prescott's history…?”

 City Council can still stop the proposed development but doing so would leave it vulnerable to charges like those made by authors of the recent book Why Nations Fail. They point to “the willingness of ruling elites to block creative destruction” as a leading cause of economic stagnation. Since the beautiful new building will no doubt look better than the ugly old one, significant opposition has not materialized. Still, project developers / City planners ought to be sensitive to the concerns of those who value area history, and do what they can to address them.

 I’d like them to do three things: 1) incorporate into building plans a publicly accessible area with historic exhibits as Parker suggests, 2) strengthen our city’s connection with its iconic Thumb Butte landmark, and 3) forge a sister city connection with Antequera, a similarly sized city / tourist destination in Spain.  It features an underground tomb called Menga Dolmen, which draws attention to distant “Pena de los Enamorados” — Spanish for “Lover’s Rock” This is tied to a story in which a couple engaged in “forbidden love” leap to their deaths to escape persecution. Even without the story, the landmark can be tied to death—and creative destruction.

Part of a World Heritage site, 5,700 year old Menga Dolmen is the only megalithic structure in Europe that points to a terrestrial, not celestial, landmark. I believe this honored a survival strategy: learning to kill herds of animals by driving them off the cliff. Lover’s Rock was already famous when Columbus set sail on his 1492 voyage, after being funded by Spain’s Ferdinand and Isabella. In the voyage’s log he likens a landform seen in Cuba to Pena de los Enamorados.

I believe William H. Prescott—our city’s namesake, 19^th century historian, and leading authority on Ferdinand and Isabella—would be pleased if Prescott and Antequera became sister cities. Note: Ferdinand was great grandson of Ferdinand I of Aragon—also called Ferdinand of Antequera. Yavapai Indians might like that, just as they once named Thumb Butte “Nymit-gi-yaka” meaning “Mountain Lion Lying Down,” Spaniards liken the Lover’s Rock profile to a reclining American Indian. Note: we don’t know of a Yavapai equivalent of the lover’s leap story, but can document one (1910) Thumb Butte associated suicide.

Thumb Butte could be celebrated on the roof of the proposed downtown Prescott building. Imagine…an area on the three-story end of this otherwise four-story structure. Looking west you see Thumb Butte and are drawn to telescopes offering closeup views. Looking north you see a colorful mural on the building wall. Its center, a descriptive section titled the Prescott—Antequera Connection, is flanked by pictures of Thumb Butte and Lover’s Rock.  Looking south you see the (familiar, now elevated) sculpture honoring the rodeo, and platform-mounted placards documenting the long-gone 1876—1959 Howey’s Hall majestic building, the Goldwater family connection to the spot, and City Hall era. 

August 25, 2024              What’s the Fight Over?—It’s a Gas!

By Stephen P. Cook

 Who’s fighting? People who value individual freedom vs. those who value protecting consumers and the environment.  Those who value living for today vs. those also concerned about future generations’ quality of life. Corporations wanting to make a profit vs. people working to enforce laws governing their operations. Elected officials, government regulators, lobbyists—often based in government offices or corporate boardrooms—vs. those with ties to the land. Dispassionate folks who value science-based decision-making vs. emotional culture warriors…I know: drawing battle lines like this is incomplete and too simplistic!  For example, “What box do you put someone who values the freedom to make informed, responsible, caring choices in?”

 Consider the fight in Arizona over issues tied to methane gas. Many call this—typically extracted by oil and gas company drilling—natural gas (= 96% methane,) and use it to heat their homes, water, and for cooking. Utilities like Arizona Public Service (APS) increasingly want to use it to generate electricity elsewhere in the state. Their critics ask, “Why not use solar?” 

In Yavapai County, some are questioning why methane produced by micro-organisms feeding on carbon-rich material under anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions in the Waste Management (WM) remote Gray Wolf Landfill is not being put to good use? Instead the “landfill gas” collected from wells drilled into the waste mass is being burned producing a bright “candlestick” flare—with resulting light and air pollution.  At other landfills, WM uses gas it collects to generate electricity and power its trucks. Will this eventually happen at Gray Wolf? I’d like Prescott officials—given our city’s contract with WM—to ask! 

 Why does WM no longer let the methane to escape into the atmosphere? Answer: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules established in 2016 require its collection. These rules reflect growing concern about global warming and recognize that methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that needs to be controlled.  Fortunately, methane vented to air lasts at most 20 years—in contrast to better known GHG carbon dioxide, which can last 1000 years. But, over those 20 years, methane is 84 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat that would otherwise escape to space. According to EPA, “the largest sources of methane emissions in the US are oil and gas systems, livestock enteric fermentation, and landfills.” Many feel that fixing pipeline and other leaks—which new technology make easy to locate—is the “low hanging fruit” in the battle against climate change. And, given methane’s short atmospheric lifetime, that each cow annually belches about 220 lbs. of it is of less concern. Of greater concern is long-lasting carbon dioxide generated by burning methane.

 That concern led over 100 cities—beginning in 2019—to ban gas hookups in new home construction. In response, Governor Ducey signed “the nation’s first prohibition on building gas bans” to make sure Arizona cities could not do this. I see both sides of this issue. According to a March 2022 Pew Research Center poll, 69 % of Americans “favor the US taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050.” It’s not hard to imagine that methane, as currently produced by oil and gas industry, will have no place in a fossil fuel free future. It’s also been linked to indoor air pollution related health effects. But many—me included— much prefer cooking with gas to cooking with electricity. I would hate to see people not have that choice. 

 I feel “win-win” solutions can be found. Rather than abandon nearly 80 million residential methane gas customers and 2.2 million miles of gas pipelines that serve them, I’d like to see a renewable biogas industry develop as fossil fuels are phased out. Landfill gas could be part of this—although ideally people would put food waste in compost piles they maintain, rather than sending it to landfills. There are two more promising Yavapai County routes to biogas. First, rotten hay, cornstalks, etc. can feed cellulose digesters, and—with proper pretreatment— wood waste also used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion. A wood-chip derived biogas market could help spur thinning Prescott National Forest in response to wildfire concerns. Second, ranchers can use cow or horse manure to make methane for their own use, or to sell.

Speaking of local ranchers: they have a stake in a current battle over whether expensive gas or much cheaper solar is used to generate electricity. These owners of altogether over 800,000 acres of Yavapai County land should contact the County Board of Supervisors (before September 4 meeting vote.)  Urge them to NOT limit acres for solar development to a mere 12,000. This not needed regulation could cause a potential big $ revenue stream for ranchers—solar land leasing—to dry up before it gets started!  I feel sheepish saying this, but grazing livestock and solar panels can coexist.

 ************************************************************************************************************

July 21, 2024               Prescott Girl’s Legacy with ACC Threatened

By Stephen P. Cook

 If this was a sports—not a science-related—column, from the headline one might guess that a star Prescott High School graduate’s college basketball scoring record in the Atlantic Coast Conference is about to be broken? But while our tale does begin with a PHS student winning a scholarship, it was the prestigious Flinn Scholarship, not a basketball scholarship. The “girl” involved is Kris Mayes—currently Arizona Attorney General; the “ACC” is the Arizona Corporation Commission.  

 The ACC, sometimes called Arizona’s fourth Branch of Government, is most importantly tasked with ensuring Arizonans have safe, reliable, and affordable utility services. Ideally its decision-making—weighing consumers’ interest in its setting lower utility rates versus the interest of profit-seeking, public service monopoly utilities it regulates in wanting higher ones—should be done in professional, fact-based, unemotional, science-based fashion. Done fairly—without political or self-interest based prejudice. One would like to imagine that the ACC more or less operated like this during Mayes’ 2003 to 2010 tenure.  During that time—as an ASU web site (where she subsequently found employment) put it — “Professor Mayes… helped co-author [in 2006] the Arizona Renewable Energy Standard (REST), which requires that by 2025 utilities must generate 15 percent of their overall energy portfolio from renewable sources…The Standard contains the most aggressive distributed generation [i.e. rooftop solar] requirement in the country…”

After she left, the ACC became increasingly political. An NPR Marketplace (October 10, 2022) program would later document how a utility the ACC is charged with regulating, APS, secretly financed a $10.2 million 2014 election racially twinged smear campaign to defeat pro-solar Commissioner Sandra Kennedy. By 2018, four of five Commissioners  (Bob Burns excepted) were backed by APS campaign contributions. Critics called it “The Arizona Corruption Commission.” Wanting to build on her legacy, increase Arizona electricity coming from renewable sources from 15 to 50 percent, and bypass the ACC,  Kris Mayes turned to 2018 election voters. She authored ballot provision Proposition 127. APS worked hard to defeat it.

 First, Attorney General Mark Brnovich—reportedly beneficiary of $450,000 from APS—changed the language in Mayes’ draft so that the version of Prop 127 that went on the ballot was more to APS’ liking. Second—as the Arizona Republic reported on January 17, 2019 —APS spent $37.9 million in its attempt to defeat this clean energy ballot measure. And defeat Prop 127 it did—but voters also elected new ACC Commissioners, including Sandra Kennedy. She, Burns, and others eventually produced a bipartisan “Clean Energy Rules” package. As preliminarily approved on October 29, 2020, this required regulated utilities to be 100 percent carbon free by 2050, and meet benchmarks—including a 50 percent renewable energy standard by 2035. Incredibly however, after three years of work on these rules, key Commissioners changed their minds and by mid-2022 voted to kill the entire package!

 The ACC increasingly operates as a “rogue” agency. Last month, in overturning a 9 to 2 vote of the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee, it authorized methane gas-fueled power plant expansion without environmental review. In personnel matters, the mid-2023 firing of Robin Mitchell, long-time legal division head, triggered allegations that three Republican commissioners were systematically attempting to remove non-white staff members from leadership positions. They replaced Mitchell with a less qualified attorney whose political resume—showing he’d worked for Sarah Palin and Paul Gosar—they liked. And in decisions that have made consumer advocates cringe, by typical 4 to 1 vote— with Democrat Anna Tovar dissenting—they put utility company “fair profit on investment” considerations first. They did this six times in 2023, according to a 12 News independent analysis—disregarding what the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO), a state agency that represents the interest of consumers at the Commission, recommended. 

 Most insulting to Mayes: a February ACC vote to repeal the 2006 REST mandate she’d crafted. Thus today, unlike most states, Arizona has no renewable energy standard: not 15 percent by 2025, not 50 percent by 2035, but zero. Why not? They cost consumers money, Republican opponents say. ACC Chair Jim O’Connor claimed that REST cost ratepayers $2.3 billion. Granted in 2006 solar electricity could not compete with methane gas, but today in sunny Arizona it handily wins that competition. Conservative Republicans interested in helping Arizona ratepayers know this.

 In an April 1, 2022 Arizona Capital Times article, David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, reported Arizona wholesale prices of new solar generated electricity paired with storage were but one-third those of methane gas generated electricity. For the USA as a whole, an August 2, 2023 National Public Utilities Council report put unsubsidized levelized per MWh costs of electricity from (onshore) wind at $24 to $75, from utility scale solar with battery storage at $42 to $102, from (baseline) gas / steam turbines at $39 to $101, and from (peaking) quick response gas turbines at $115 to $221. 

 Sadly, Arizona ratepayers are not benefitting from abundant sunshine and the technology that can turn it into reliable, cheap electricity.  Rates continue to rise. Why? Many feel a rogue ACC—beholden to investor-owned utilities it’s supposed to regulate—is the problem. (For the record, CEO Jeff Guldner has pledged APS “will neither directly or indirectly participate” in any election of ACC Commissioners.) One obvious solution: Arizona voters can educate themselves and vote out ACC Commissioners deemed irresponsible. Kris Mayes would be pleased.  

**************************************************************************************************************

  June 23, 2024 

Challenging Bashar, Sedona’s UFO Cult Guru

It is hard to find a more anti-science statement, one more devoid of common sense, than what Bashar, a Sedona-based favorite of the UFO religious cult folks, has said, "Miracles are not the exception to the rule. They are the natural, true order of the things." He claims his teachings are  “based on the laws of physics” and are “not just a nice New-Age philosophy.” I am skeptical.

 A Best Western “Travel Zone” website describes Sedona as “the New Age Capital where people come to explore, meditate… and receive professional psychic guidance.” Occasionally, Sedona offers them Darryl Anka who channels Bashar—supposedly an enlightened extraterrestrial from the planet Essassani 500 light years away who lives in a flying saucer parked above Bell Rock. Does seeing it provide another reason—besides its supposed vortex—to visit this colorful landmark? No—you can’t see it since it supposedly exists in an alternate dimension. But you can pay to experience Bashar and—if you’re lucky—ask him a question. $425 will get you into a September 2024 two-day channeling / moonlight meditation event, and enter you in an “Ask Bashar Raffle.” 

 No doubt Darryl Anka is a great entertainer and does a good job impersonating an extraterrestrial interested in humanity’s spiritual development. He has brought us Bashar since 1983. But should we value Bashar’s wisdom, or that coming from other channeled entities such as Seth, channeled by Jane Roberts, or Ramtha channeled by J.Z. Knight?  “No!” say scientists like Carl Sagan in “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection” chapter in his 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World.

Sagan says that propositions that cannot be tested and shown to be false are not worth much. He urges us to look for logical inconsistencies in arguments made by those pushing beliefs and to consider what really motivates them.  For example, we should be skeptical, he says, of the tobacco industry’s “Smoking does not cause cancer” argument given billions of dollars of profits at stake. The chapter ends with “Gullibility kills.”

 I’ll add, “A fool and his money are soon parted.” I recently was urged to engage in foolish behavior at a New Age Sunday service and, to be polite, I did put two dollars in the collection plate.  But I rejected the message (summarized in song by the guest speaker couple) paraphrased as “Walk by faith, not by sight. Let the North Star be your guide.” There’s a logical fallacy here: without your eyesight you can’t see the North Star.  As I left, I avoided the table where the couple was selling CDs. Outside, faced with crossing the street, I recognized that literally taking their advice could kill me, so I kept my eyes open. 

Contributing to such not being grounded in reality is the New Age belief  “you create your own reality.” Darryl Anka says that our  “friend from the future” Bashar “clearly explains in detail how the universe works, and how each person creates the reality they experience.” I say, “Nonsense. Bashar lives only in Darryl Anka’s imagination.”

 Anka has family roots in Syria. The similarity between names Bashar of Essassani and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, raises two questions. First, if the consciousness Darryl channels is from the future, it should have known in 1983 that the name Bashar would—three decades later—become associated with a war criminal. So, if he wants the message to help humanity, why does the messenger’s name closely resemble that of a monster? Second, did each of the millions of suffering people in war-torn Syria create that hell on Earth reality for themselves?

Thinking about Bashar’s “helping us” capability raises additional questions. Other well known channeled spirits—Seth, Ramtha, Abraham, Jesus—all lived in the past. From the future, Bashar has causality / “Grandfather Paradox” limitations. Suppose back in the 1980s he shares future-based knowledge with audiences. He describes a plane loaded with terrorists, ready to die for Allah, taking off from Logan Airport in Boston on the morning of September 11, 2001. 3,000 people will die at the World Trade Center unless they’re stopped.  Suppose the warning is heeded, the attack never happens. This—like the guy who goes back in time and kills his grandfather — exposes a big logical contradiction making the whole scenario impossible. Namely, if it never happens, where did his original concern come from?

 In November 2023, I got a report from someone who followed Anka from Sedona to a "Stairway to the Stars" Las Vegas event—which also offered a tour of (UFO infamous) Area 51 for $200. This turned out to be a big rip-off since there was nothing to see.  By then I was disgusted with New Age celebrities who seemingly value money more than practicing values associated with the fair and just world they supposedly long for. I decided to act. In a certified letter, along with previously posed questions, I asked Darryl Anka, "Why does Bashar hide behind a pay wall?” and “Is it true you’re worth $15 million?” The letter ended with a final question,  “To address charges that Bashar is not who he claims to be, why doesn’t he simply fly his triangular UFO from its long-time location above Bell Rock, a few miles from ‘Sedona—The InterDimensional City’ as he calls it—and land where people can see it?” He has not replied. 

****************************************************************************************************************