Mar. 05, 2021 09:30PM EST
Financial fallout from the Texas deep freeze
Texas has thawed out after an Arctic freeze last month threw the state into a power crisis. But the financial turmoil from power grid shock is just starting to take shape.
Why it matters: In total, electricity companies are billions of dollars short on the post-storm payments they now owe to the state's grid operator. There's no clear path for how they will pay — something being watched closely across the country as extreme weather events become more common.
<p><strong>Catch up quick: </strong>There was a "cascading failure of infrastructures" in the wake of the statewide cold front, says Josh Rhodes, a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin's Webber Energy Group.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>"Our gas, electricity and water grids failed," while millions went without power and water. Officials are <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/full-death-toll-from-texas-storm-could-take-months-to-determine-11614107708" target="_blank">still tallying</a> how many died.</li><li><strong>One example of the massive money effect</strong>: Wholesale power prices rose from roughly $50 per megawatt hour to $9,000. As the costs for electric companies rose, resident bills also soared.</li></ul><p><strong>What's happening:</strong> Electricity providers can't pay the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates the state's power grid, for the power they used.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>So ERCOT is now short on what it has to pay power generators.</li><li>Think of the ERCOT like a clearinghouse. It collects money from electricity providers. It then pays the companies that produce power.</li></ul><p><strong>The domino-effect fallout</strong> from the massive price spike is still taking shape. Just this week ... </p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><strong>Brazos Electric Power </strong>— the state's oldest and largest power company — couldn'tpay $1.8 billion of its ERCOT bill and filed for bankruptcy, the first to come as a direct result of the crisis. </li><li><strong>Entrust Energy</strong> became the second electricity provider to be barred from Texas' power market by ERCOT. It can't pay its bill, either. </li><li><strong>Another</strong> — Energy Monger — is preparing for the same fate and started offloading customers this week, per <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-04/a-second-power-provider-defaults-after-texas-energy-crisis" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>.</li><li><strong>The unpaid bills</strong> to ERCOT, in total: over $2.2 billion.</li></ul><p><strong>Also this week</strong>: Heads started to roll at the top decision-making bodies. </p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The chair of the state's top energy regulator Public Utility Council, which oversees ERCOT, is <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/03/01/texas-power-outages-public-utility-commission-resigns/" target="_blank">out</a>. So is <a href="https://www.axios.com/texas-power-grid-outages-ceo-ercot-c7889a02-ba81-4707-8667-2b9ca0cd1e65.html" target="_blank">the head of</a> ERCOT. </li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>Regulators said today they aren't going to retroactively reprice electricity costs — even though a watchdog said they overcharged companies by as much as $16 billion, the Texas Tribune reported.</p><p><strong>What to watch ... </strong>The worst-case scenario: Residents on the hook for decades.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The cost could be passed along to Texas customers as a surcharge. But current laws limit how much utilities can charge you extra per month.</li><li>"With billions of dollars in short pay, you're talking decades to clean that up," Rhodes says.</li></ul></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 09:00PM EST
Chamber of Commerce decides against widespread political ban following Capitol insurrection
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce revealed Friday it won't withhold political donations from lawmakers who simply voted against certifying the presidential election results and instead decide on a case-by-case basis.
Why it matters: The Chamber is the marquee entity representing businesses and their interests in Washington. Its memo, obtained exclusively by Axios, could set the tone for businesses debating how to handle their candidate and PAC spending following the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
<p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>The Chamber's use of selective donations frees it to continue supporting some high-profile legislators who earned its endorsement and financial support in prior elections.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The organization has previously backed all eight of the senators who voted against certifying President Biden's Electoral College win — including Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas — through either endorsements or contributions from its political action committee.</li><li>While it hadn't formally paused its political activity following the attack, the Chamber had conducted a review that resulted in its current donation policy.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>"We do not believe it is appropriate to judge members of Congress solely based on their votes on the electoral certification," the Chamber's Senior Political Strategist Ashlee Rich Stephenson wrote in the recent memo.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>"There is a meaningful difference between a member of Congress who voted 'no' on the question of certifying the votes of certain states and those who engaged and continue to engage in repeated actions that undermine the legitimacy of our elections and institutions."</li><li>"For example, casting a vote is different than organizing the rally of January 6th or continuing to push debunked conspiracy theories. We will take into consideration actions such as these and future conduct that erodes our democratic institutions."</li></ul><p><strong>What to watch: </strong>At the end of the first quarter, the Chamber will announce which members it plans to continue supporting and those from whom it plans to withhold it.</p></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 08:16PM EST
Scoop: CDC lets child migrant shelters fill to 100% despite COVID concern
The Centers for Disease Control is allowing shelters handling child migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border to expand to full capacity, abandoning a requirement they stay near 50% to inhibit the spread of the coronavirus, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: The fact the country's premier health advisory agency is permitting a change in COVID-19 protocols indicates the scale of the immigration crisis. A draft memo obtained by Axios conceded "facilities should plan for and expect to have COVID-19 cases."
<ul class="ee-ul"><li>The document goes on to recommend detailed ways to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in shelters.</li><li>It encourages operators to continue giving COVID-19 tests to newly arrived children, follow 14-day quarantine guidelines, wear masks, improve ventilation and ensure they save room for isolating any child who tests positive, among other actions.</li><li>There "is no 0% risk scenario" given the coronavirus, so "facilities should plan for and expect to have COVID-19 cases," the memo states.</li><li>A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>The memo, drafted on CDC letterhead and set for imminent delivery, said the "only available options" for housing minors who cross the border without their parents are "prolonged stays at (Customs & Border Protection) facilities operating significantly above COVID-19 capacities."</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The other alternative is increasing capacity at other shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services above what their own coronavirus protocols allow.</li><li>The CDC says there is an assumed higher risk of migrant kids getting the virus at Border Patrol centers, and alludes to other safety concerns with those facilities. It concludes the HHS shelters are the safer option, even with increased capacity.</li><li>The CDC says these facilities, operated by HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement, "may temporarily increase capacity to full licensed capacity ... while implementing and adhering to strict COVID-19 mitigation measures."</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines:</strong> The memo also spells out the dire problem.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>As Axios has reported, shelters have been getting an average of <a href="https://www.axios.com/biden-child-migrant-border-hhs-leaked-99e6d9a2-20f7-415e-b75c-c23d5c417914.html" target="_blank">321 children per day</a> — up from 47 per day the first week of January — and expect to need <a href="https://www.axios.com/biden-immigration-child-migrant-border-aeaf0231-02d3-4c96-b139-68069c0c1189.html" target="_blank">20,000 beds</a> to accommodate an anticipated record number of child migrants.</li><li>"At this time, CBP does not have adequate space for physical distancing, quarantine of persons exposed to COVID-19 or isolation of ill or infected persons," the memo says.</li><li>"As of March 1, 2021, four CBP sectors are over COVID-adjusted capacity."</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines:</strong> The memo also comes amid a ferocious national debate over whether and when to reopen schools.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>While it states in its opening paragraph that children have been less affected by the coronavirus than adults, the memo makes clear its recommendations are only in response to rising numbers of migrant children — and don't apply to other group settings.</li><li>The memo was drafted in a response to requests for guidance from the Office of Refugee Resettlement.</li></ul></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 07:42PM EST
8 Senate Democrats vote against adding $15 minimum wage amendment to COVID relief
Eight Democratic senators on Friday voted against Sen. Bernie Sanders' amendment to ignore a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian and add a $15 minimum wage provision to the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package.
The state of play: The vote was held open for hours on Friday afternoon — even after every senator had voted — due to a standoff in negotiations over the next amendments that the Senate is set to take up.
<ul class="ee-ul"><li>Senate Democrats had struck an agreement on an amendment that would shrink supplemental unemployment benefits from $400 per week to $300, while extending the program until September and making $10,200 of the benefits non-taxable.</li><li>But Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) appeared to be undecided as of 2:30 p.m. and was considering voting for a dueling amendment by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), which would cut the benefit to $300 per week and see it expire in July.</li></ul><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>Sanders' $15 minimum wage amendment was virtually guaranteed to fail, as it would have required 60 votes. But the defection of eight Democrats shows that support for hiking the minimum wage to $15 an hour as part of COVID relief may be weaker in the Senate than many progressives believed.</p><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong>The Senate parliamentarian <a href="https://www.axios.com/senate-parliamentarian-minimum-wage-15-relief-e490591a-c668-4be9-af75-5e2408fe8f34.html" target="_blank">ruled last week</a> that the provision violated budget reconciliation rules, which allow major legislation to be passed with a simple majority if they affect the government's finances, and should be removed.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>President Biden had supported raising the $15 minimum wage as part of COVID relief, but said he would accept the ruling of the parliamentarian. Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, pushed for the Senate to overrule the parliamentarian.</li><li>It's possible that the Democrats who rejected Sanders' amendment support a minimum wage hike, but voted "no" because they oppose it as part of COVID relief or respect the parliamentarian's ruling. Biden and other Democrats have expressed support for a standalone bill to raise the minimum wage.</li></ul><p><strong>Details ... </strong>Democratic senators who voted against the provision include: </p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Joe Manchin (W.Va. )</li><li>Jon Tester (Mt.)</li><li>Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.)</li><li>Angus King (I-Maine, caucuses with Democrats)</li><li>Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)</li><li>Tom Carper (Del.)</li><li>Chris Coons (Del.)</li><li>Maggie Hassan (N.H.)</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>"If any Senator believes this is the last time they will cast a vote on whether or not to give a raise to 32 million Americans, they are sorely mistaken. We’re going to keep bringing it up, and we’re going to get it done because it is what the American people demand and need," Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1367893419771785224" target="_blank">tweeted</a> after the vote.</p><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>Senators who didn't stand behind the increase on Friday are likely to be targeted by progressives.</p></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 07:39PM EST
CDC: Easing mask mandates, re-opening restaurants led to higher COVID cases, deaths
Easing mask restrictions and on-site dining have increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, according to a study out Friday from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Why it matters: The report's findings converge with actions from governors this week easing mask mandates and announcing plans to reopen nonessential businesses like restaurants.
<ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.axios.com/cdc-restrictions-warning-variants-56fcf18e-0439-417c-a6db-7b3f06732739.html" target="_blank">Top health officials </a>over the past few weeks have repeatedly warned that the stagnant weekly case counts and the emergence of the new variants, stand to reverse any progress the U.S. has recently achieved.</li></ul><p><strong>The state of play:</strong> Mandating masks was associated with more than a 1% decrease in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates after 20 days of implementation, the report says.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in 0.9%, 1.2% and 1.1% daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–100 days after implementation and an increase in daily death growth rates 61–100 days after implementation.</li></ul></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 04:01PM EST
Exclusive: GOP Leader McCarthy asks to meet with Biden about the border
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has requested a meeting with President Biden to discuss the rising numbers of unaccompanied migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border, in a letter sent on Friday.
Why it matters: Biden is facing criticism from the right and the left as agency actions and media reports reveal spiking numbers of migrant children overwhelming parts of the U.S. immigration system. Recent data shows an average of 321 kids being referred to migrant shelters each day, as Axios reported.
<ul class="ee-ul"><li>"I feel compelled to express great concern with the manner in which your administration is approaching this crisis, but with hope that we can work together to solve it," McCarthy wrote in the letter addressed to Biden.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>The House minority leader criticizes Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for telling migrants earlier this week from the White House, "we are not saying don't come, we are saying don't come now."</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>"To be clear — there is never a 'right time' to enter the country illegally and violate the laws of the United States. Signaling otherwise is reckless and will make the situation worse," McCarthy writes, contrasting Mayorkas's words with those of the former DHS Secretary under Obama, Jeh Johnson, during the 2014 crisis.</li></ul><p><strong>The big picture: </strong>This comes as other congressional Republicans and some <a href="https://www.axios.com/border-immigration-democrat-cuellar-biden-febc20c6-0db9-4648-8e12-79ff21d83646.html" target="_blank">border</a> <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/border-dems-warn-biden-border-214828392.html" target="_blank">Democrats</a> are raising the alarm.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Ranking members of both the House <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-03-04-GOP-Imm.-to-Lofgren-re-border-hearing.pdf" target="_blank">Judiciary</a> and <a href="https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-republicans-call-for-hearing-on-bidens-border-crisis-and-child-container-facilities/" target="_blank">Oversight</a> committees sent letters this week with other Republican members demanding hearings about the border situation. </li></ul><p><strong>The latest: </strong>The White House confirmed Thursday evening that Biden has asked some of his top officials to visit the border "to provide a full briefing to him on the government response to the influx of unaccompanied minors."</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The president and Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei agreed on a call Thursday evening for their teams "to meet in the coming weeks to develop an effective and humane plan of action to manage migration," according to the White House readout. Guatemala is one of the top countries of origin for people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.</li><li>U.S. agencies charged with border enforcement and the care of migrant children have been moving to rapidly open overflow shelters to hold the rising number of migrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's family detentions center are also <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/texas-family-detention-centers-changed/2021/03/04/6a0bfa8a-7b6f-11eb-b3d1-9e5aa3d5220c_story.html" target="_blank">being revamped</a> to more quickly release migrant families into the country. </li></ul></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 03:00PM EST
Public desire for vaccine increases to 69%, but with partisan divide
69% of the public intends to get a COVID vaccine or already has, up significantly from 60% in November, according to a report out Friday from the Pew Research Center.
Yes, but: The issue has become even more partisan, with 56% of Republicans who say they want or have already received a coronavirus vaccine compared to 83% of Democrats.
<p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>High rates of vaccine hesitancy among any group threatens collective progress against the pandemic, meaning that it's just as important to reach <a href="https://www.axios.com/republicans-coronavirus-vaccine-hesitancy-023bf32f-3d68-4206-b906-4f701b87c39f.html" target="_blank">white Republicans</a> as it is to reach other hesitant groups.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The overall 30% who are disinclined to get a COVID vaccine cited concerns such as side effects, a sense the vaccine was rushed and a desire to know more on how the vaccines work.</li><li>The U.S. racial divide in vaccine intent has shrunk overall since November. 61% of Black Americans now say they plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine or have already received one, up sharply from 42% in November. </li></ul><p><strong>The big picture:</strong> The public continues to be dissatisfied in how top health and state officials have responded to the pandemic, the report says. But people are more optimistic than ever, however, that President Biden's policies and vaccination efforts will effectively contain the outbreak.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>81% continue to view the pandemic as a major threat to the economy, and a growing 77% think vaccinations will benefit the U.S. economy. </li><li>Support for additional restrictions on public activity has declined — 27% say there should be more restrictions on public activity in their area, down from 44% in November. 41% now say the number of restrictions in their area should stay about the same.</li><li>85% of Americans see requirements to wear face masks for travelers as necessary, but far fewer say the same about limiting restaurants to take-out service or closing K-12 schools to in-person learning. </li></ul><p><em>Methodology: The report was based on a survey of 10,121 U.S. adults conducted online between Feb. 16-21. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.</em> </p><p><strong>Go deeper:</strong> <a href="https://www.axios.com/republicans-coronavirus-vaccine-hesitancy-023bf32f-3d68-4206-b906-4f701b87c39f.html" target="_blank">Republicans are least likely to want the coronavirus vaccine</a></p></div>
Keep reading...
Show less
Mar. 05, 2021 02:59PM EST
China's highly anticipated 5-year plan is hazy on climate
China's highly anticipated 5-year plan revealed on Friday provides little new information about its climate initiatives, leaving plenty to discuss in multinational meetings this year and lots of blanks for China to fill in later.
Driving the news: The top-line targets for 2025, per state media, aim to lower energy intensity by 13.5% and carbon emissions intensity by 18% — that is, measures of energy use and emissions relative to economic output.
<ul class="ee-ul"><li>It also aims to have its share of energy from non-fossil fuels at 20% by 2025.</li></ul><p><strong>Yes, but:</strong> Greenpeace's Li Shuo, who tracks Chinese policy carefully, called the plan an "indecisive signal" that simply incorporates China's <a href="https://link.axios.com/click/23122313.40069/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXhpb3MuY29tL2NoaW5hLXVudmVpbHMtbmV3LWVtaXNzaW9ucy1jbGVhbi1lbmVyZ3ktcGxlZGdlcy1hYWUzYWNiOC04NTkyLTQ0NWUtYmFhNC0zMGFlZTdhZDAyNTQuaHRtbD91dG1fc291cmNlPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXImdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249bmV3c2xldHRlcl9heGlvc2dlbmVyYXRlJnN0cmVhbT10b3A/5cee9cc47e55544e860fbf4eBf6435734" target="_blank">existing intentions</a>.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>"These targets represent the intention of the Chinese government to implement the climate announcement made by President Xi Jinping at the Climate Ambition Summit last December. But they do not go further than that," he said in a brief analysis.</li><li>"The plan also defers key questions of how China intends to accelerate its decarbonization into the future," Li wrote.</li><li>"We were hoping for more answers on climate issues, but what we got are more questions," he <a href="https://link.axios.com/click/23122313.40069/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZnQuY29tL2NvbnRlbnQvYjc5MDlmNmItYjUyOC00Zjk1LTliMjctY2U4ZmZhYzU4OGFhP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9bmV3c2xldHRlciZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXdzbGV0dGVyX2F4aW9zZ2VuZXJhdGUmc3RyZWFtPXRvcA/5cee9cc47e55544e860fbf4eB81321009" target="_blank">told the Financial Times</a>.</li></ul><p><strong>Why it matters:</strong> China is by far the world's largest carbon emitter.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The country pledged in September to have its emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, but concrete steps toward those goals remain hazy at best.</li><li>And, as <a href="https://link.axios.com/click/23122313.40069/aHR0cHM6Ly9hcG5ld3MuY29tL2FydGljbGUvbGVnaXNsYXR1cmUtYmVpamluZy1jbGltYXRlLWNsaW1hdGUtY2hhbmdlLWxpLWtlcWlhbmctYTBlYTI4ZDE0YjJlMWEzNDA1N2UyMjMxNzBlZWJmOWU_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NnZW5lcmF0ZSZzdHJlYW09dG9w/5cee9cc47e55544e860fbf4eB4e6bcb48" target="_blank">AP notes</a>, the plan "did not mention any ban on new coal projects, which experts say would be a significant step."</li></ul><p><strong>What we're watching:</strong> The relative absence of new info raises the stakes of Biden administration moves to secure stronger efforts in forthcoming diplomacy — including the climate summit the White House is convening next month.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Li, meanwhile, said he's watching for more detailed documents to follow, such as "sectoral" 5-year plans and a climate-specific plan.</li></ul></div>
Keep reading...
Show less