Disability rights activist pushes government to let him participate in society

• September 5, 2024

Tony Leys | (TNS) KFF Health News

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Garret Frey refuses to be sidelined.

Frey has been paralyzed from the neck down for more than 37 of his 42 years. He has spent decades rejecting the government’s excuses when he and others with disabilities are denied the support they need to live in their own homes and to participate in society.

The Iowan won a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999, after his school district refused to pay for the care he needed to continue attending high school classes in Cedar Rapids. He recently scored another victory when a complaint he lodged with federal officials pressured Iowa to agree to increase Medicaid payments for caregivers to stay overnight with Frey so he won’t need to move into a nursing home.

“These are civil rights issues,” he said. “They are human rights issues.”

Frey makes his points a handful of words at a time. The cadence of his speech follows the rhythm of a mechanical ventilator, which pushes air into his lungs every few seconds through a tube in his throat.

His voice is soft, but he makes sure it’s heard.

Frey was paralyzed in an accident at age 4. He uses sip-and-puff controls to drive his wheelchair into courtrooms and through the halls of the Iowa Statehouse and the U.S. Capitol, where he demands policies that allow people with disabilities to live full lives.

“We’ll get there. It takes time, but I’m not going to just let things go or let things slide,” he said in an interview on the sunny patio of his Cedar Rapids home.

Frey emphasizes that anyone could find themselves needing assistance if they suffer an accident or illness that hampers their ability to care for themselves. He encourages other people with disabilities to cite his victories when seeking services they’re entitled to under federal law.

Activist Garret Frey confers with Nancy Baker Curtis, president of The Arc of Iowa, in July during a state board meeting of the disability-rights group in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (Tony Leys/KFF Health News/TNS)

He has served on numerous local, state, and national boards and committees focused on protecting disability rights. He composes emails and updates his website using voice commands and a sticker on his chin that can interact with his computer’s camera.

His activism has drawn admirers nationwide.

“People like Garret are critically important, because they are the trailblazers,” said Melanie Fontes Rainer, director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In June, Fontes Rainer’s office announced an agreement with the state of Iowa to settle Frey’s complaint that Medicaid pay rates were insufficient for him to hire and retain overnight caregivers at his home.

Frey said he filed his federal complaint after being rebuffed by state officials. The resulting agreement increased his workers’ pay from about $15.50 to $22 an hour, the federal agency said. It also made other changes designed to allow Frey to continue living in the home he shares with his mother and brother.

Fontes Rainer said state officials cooperated with her office in settling Frey’s complaint. She said she hopes other people will take notice of the result and report problems they have in obtaining services that help them remain in their communities.

The federal administrator said she gets emotional when she sees how hard Frey and others fight for their rights. “You shouldn’t have to advocate for health care,” she said. “When I think about all that he’s been through, and that he continues to use his voice, I think it is so powerful.”

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on Frey’s case. But spokesperson Alex Murphy said the department is “committed to ensuring access to high-quality behavioral health, disability, and aging services for all Iowans in their communities.”

This summer, Frey and his mother visited Washington, D.C., where they participated in a 25th anniversary celebration of the Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. In that landmark case, the justices declared that people with disabilities have a right to live in their own communities, instead of in an institution, if their needs can be reasonably accommodated.

Frey was reminded during the ceremony that others are still buoyed by his own Supreme Court case, Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

In 1999, Garret Frey won a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled that the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, school district had to provide him with the nursing care he needed to attend high school classes. That same year, the teenager was greeted at a Cedar Rapids event by Vice President Al Gore. (Frey family/TNS)

The 1999 case focused on the Frey family’s contention that the school district should pay for help Garret needed to safely use his ventilator so he could continue to attend classes. School district leaders said they shouldn’t have to pay for such assistance because it was health care.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, described Frey as “a friendly, creative, and intelligent young man” who had a right to services enabling him to attend school with his peers.

At the recent Washington ceremony, a California teenager approached Frey. “He said, ‘You’re Garret F? Thank you. Without you, I’d never have been able to go to school,’” recalled Frey’s mother, Charlene Frey.

The 13-year-old fan was James McLelland, who breathes through a tube in his throat because of a genetic issue that impedes his windpipe. His breathing apparatus needs constant monitoring and frequent cleaning by a nurse.

His mother, Jenny McLelland, said she shows printed copies of the Garret F. court decision to school officials when she requests that James be provided with a nurse so he can attend regular classes instead of being sent to a separate school.

Because of the Supreme Court precedent, “we didn’t have to litigate, we just had to educate,” she said in an interview.

James, who is entering eighth grade this school year, is thriving in classes and loves playing percussion in band, his mother said. “James has had the life that people like Garret had to fight to get,” she said. “These are the kinds of rights that are built brick by brick.”

Frey said he found inspiration from earlier advocates, including Katie Beckett, a fellow Cedar Rapids resident who, four decades ago, drew national attention to the plight of children with disabilities who were forced to live away from their families. Beckett, who was partly paralyzed by encephalitis as an infant, was kept in a hospital for about three years. At the time, federal rules prevented payment for Beckett to receive care in her home, even though it would have been much less expensive than hospital care.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan denounced the situation as absurd and told administrators to find a way to let the young Iowan go home. The Republican president’s stance led to the creation of what are still known as Katie Beckett waivers, which make it easier for families to get Medicaid coverage for in-home care for children with disabilities.

Frey knew Beckett and her mother, Julie Beckett, and admired how their outspokenness prompted reforms. He also drew inspiration from meeting Tom Harkin, the longtime U.S. senator from Iowa who was the lead author of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

Harkin, a Democrat, is retired from the Senate but keeps tabs on disability issues. In an interview, he said he was glad to hear that Frey continues to push for the right to participate in society.

Harkin said he is disappointed when he sees government officials and business leaders fail to follow requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. To maintain the law’s power, people should speak up when they’re denied services or accommodations, he said. “It’s important to have warriors like Garret and his mother and their supporters.”

Iowa’s agreement to increase Medicaid pay for Frey’s caregivers has helped him hire more overnight workers, but he still goes some nights without one. When no outside help is available, his mother handles his care. Although she can be paid, she no longer wants to play that role. “She should be able to just be my mom,” he said.

At a recent board meeting of The Arc of Iowa, a disability rights group, Frey told his friends he’s thinking about applying for a civil rights job with the federal government or running for public office.

“I’m ready to rumble,” he said.

___

(KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs of KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.)

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register 

Don’t know what to do with your old clothes? California may require the fashion industry to take them back from you — for free

• September 5, 2024

In California, it’s relatively easy to recycle aluminum cans, newspapers or glass bottles. But for one of the most commonly used household products — clothes — options are few.

Every year, tons of unwanted shirts, jeans, dresses, jackets and other garments end up in landfills across the state. Almost none are recycled. Some are donated to thrift stores, but thrift stores often re-sell to companies that ship them to developing nations, such as Ghana and Chile, where they are piled in mountains as high as 50 feet in deserts and along rivers.

On Friday, state lawmakers sent a bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk that would require companies to set up the nation’s first mandatory take-back program for unwanted clothes.

If Newsom signs the bill, SB 707, as expected, companies that make clothing and other textiles sold in California, including drapes, sheets and towels, will be required to create a non-profit organization by 2026 that would set up hundreds of collection sites at thrift stores, begin mail-back programs and take other steps in all of California’s 58 counties to take back and recycle their products by 2030.

“All across America, there are closets full of clothing that never gets worn,” said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, an environmental group based in Sacramento that supports the bill. “It is surrounding us. Look around your house. It’s the biggest waste problem that we’re ignoring.”

The accumulation of clothing waste is being made worse by “fast fashion,” a trend in which clothing companies make low-cost clothes intended to be worn only a few times as fashions shift.

“We have no use for things that aren’t in fashion, or don’t fit, or are worn out, and they often have no place left to go but the landfill,” Murray said.

The numbers are daunting.

In 2021, roughly 1.2 million tons of clothes and textiles were disposed of in California, according to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, known as CalRecycle. While 95% of them are reusable or recyclable, only 15% currently are.

The bill is the latest in a trend of California lawmakers requiring companies that make difficult-to-dispose-of products to take responsibility for recycling and reusing them, rather than leaving the cost and challenge up to local city and county governments.

One example: Under state law since 2018, consumers are charged $10.50 when they buy a new mattress in California. That money helps fund an industry-led program, the Mattress Recycling Council, that has opened 240 collection sites and now recycles 85% of old mattresses in the state.

Similar “extended producer responsibility” programs with paint and carpet have been put in place in recent years. Newsom signed a landmark law in 2022 that will require the packaging industry to take back plastic packaging in the next few years.

The idea is to shift the burden away from consumers and government — which have to pay to expand and build landfills — to industry, which profits from selling the products in the first place, said State Sen. Josh Newman, a Fullerton Democrat, who wrote the clothing recycling bill.

“If I produce something as a manufacturer, I have a responsibility to participate in the full life cycle of that product, with the goal of minimizing the impact on the environment,” Newman said.

Lawyer Paulin Silva shows clothes dumped in the desert, in La Pampa sector of Alto Hospicio, about 10 km east of the city of Iquique, Chile, on November 11, 2022. – Hills of clothes from the United States, Asia and Europe; used cars from Japan or Korea and thousands of tires contaminate extensive areas of the immense but vulnerable Atacama desert in northern Chile, which has become the planet’s “backyard”. (Photo by MARTIN BERNETTI/AFP via Getty Images)

France, center of the world’s fashion industry, already has a mandatory clothing recycling program. Other states around the U.S. are watching California to see if this one will work.

Industry groups at first opposed the bill, led by the California Chamber of Commerce and the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which represents more than 300 large clothing companies. After negotiating some changes with Newman, including allowing the industry group to do an assessment and work with CalRecycle to set recycling targets, they shifted to neutral.

“The biggest challenge is that apparel brands are not waste-management providers,” said Chelsea Murtha, the association’s senior director of sustainability. “This isn’t their area of expertise. Building out a system that doesn’t exist in a state this big is going to be a challenge. It’s ambitious. We are hopeful we can rise to the challenge.”

Murtha said the nonprofit group the industry is required to set up will likely operate in or alongside thrift stores in big counties and set up collection bins in rural counties. The costs will be passed on to consumers in the price of the clothing, she said, adding that it’s too early to provide an estimate.

Newman said he expected the law will only add “pennies” to the cost of new clothing.

Murtha said clothes in good condition will probably be resold or recycled. Damaged or worn garments can be recycled fairly easily if they are made of wool, cotton or other natural fibers. The fibers can be reused and spun into new fabrics.

Some old clothes will be shredded and used to stuff pillows or provide insulation for other products, she said. Garments made of mixed fabrics, such as polyester and spandex, can be broken down by a chemical process in which the basic materials are recycled.

The industry has not been pleased to see many old clothes ending up in landfills or waste piles in African and South America, Murtha added.

“That’s not something that any designer or sustainability team at an apparel brand wants,” she said.

​ Orange County Register 

Future of Google search rests with judge who will strip away monopoly power

• September 5, 2024

Google’s future as provider of the world’s most dominant search engine rests in the hands of a federal court judge who last month ruled the company has a monopoly on internet search.

Related Articles

In a hearing Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Amit Mehta will start to strip Google of its monopoly power after previously finding Google’s distribution deals with companies that make Google the default search engine on devices, including Apple, violated federal antitrust law.

Federal government lawsuits against Silicon Valley’s top three technology titans and Seattle-based Amazon, which all amassed colossal market dominance and riches with little pushback from authorities, signal a shift toward bipartisan and public mistrust of the role the companies play in society and the U.S. economy.

UC Berkeley law school adjunct professor and professional mediator Christopher Hockett, an antitrust expert who has closely followed the Google search case, answered questions in an interview last month about the Google search lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department, and how it fits with the other court actions.

Q: What would search would look like if Google had competition?

A: Google has had a very high and very stable market share — since 2009 it’s been over 80% in general search service. The assumption behind Judge Mehta’s ruling is the world would be better.

Q: Why did this lawsuit come about after years of Google’s dominance in search?

A: This case was brought in the waning months of the Trump administration, in October 2020. It kind of underlines the bipartisan interest in prosecuting these claims against at least Google if not the whole Big Tech world.

On the left there’s hostility toward the tech companies because they’re led by tech moguls who have lots of money and seem to act with impunity, and at least according to that view they are presiding over monopolies that don’t have consumers’ interests at heart.

On the right the political narrative is that Big Tech players, especially social media players, are biased against conservative points of view and they’re censoring them. Although the services of most of these companies remain extremely popular, the companies and the people that run them are, with the public, somewhat less popular.

Q: Do the Justice Department’s antitrust cases against Google — over search and ads, and Apple over smartphones, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust cases against Amazon over e-commerce and Meta over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp — all signal a backlash against Big Tech?

A: At a broad level, yes. It’s particularly salient in the case of social media companies where there’s a souring public mood about their affect on society and how we get along with each other. But (the cases) are all going to run into antitrust precedent that is not particularly friendly to monopolization claims. The Supreme Court in particular has been very trusting of the market process in correcting any mistakes in under-enforcement of monopolization.

Q: What will happen Friday in the first hearing on remedies to Google’s monopoly?

A: I’d be surprised if (Mehta) got into the ideas for remedies substantively. He’s going to set out a schedule for the parties to weigh in on.

Q: What are Mehta’s options for remedies?

A: There’s been a lot of talk about a breakup of some kind. We’ll see soon, probably, whether that is something the judge is interested in and why. It could be divesting the Android operating system — he could say, “You need to sell that off, or split it off somehow” — or (divesting) Chrome or Google’s web indexing capacity. The judge found a problem with Google’s distribution agreements and it seems like it would be more straightforward to address those with . . . an injunction that says, “You can’t pay for default status.”

Q: What’s the process after Friday?

A: The Justice Department (will) come forward with remedies that it thinks are in order, then Google will respond. I would assume it would take several months.

Q: How long will it take for Mehta to issue an order intended to end Google’s monopoly?

A: My guess is a month or two. He’ll take as long as he needs because it’s an important case.

Q: Do you expect Google to appeal?

A: Yes. They won’t argue everything — it won’t be a kitchen-sink thing. One of the things they argued in the case … is that there was competition for the Apple default because Apple would open up that opportunity to providers like Google and Bing. Google got that opportunity because it offered the highest prices. I assume that that argument is going to be reiterated on appeal. This is a situation that raises the question, “Can you be liable for monopolization when 90% of users want your product because it’s the best product, and the device makers want your product?” If Judge Mehta orders remedies that (Google) doesn’t want to live with before the appeal, it will ask Judge Mehta to suspend the imposition of remedies. If he says no, they will ask the court of appeal for the same thing.

Q: How long would the appeal to the D.C. Circuit take, and could it go to the U.S. Supreme Court?

A: A year, probably. Then the D.C. circuit will take whatever time it takes. This kind of case is not guaranteed to get to the Supreme Court because they have a discretionary appeal system (but) it seems likely that unless they resolve the case by settlement while the proceedings are pending that it would go to the Supreme Court. They could reach an agreement on remedy at any point in these proceedings.

Q: If the case goes to the Supreme Court, when do you think a ruling would be issued?

A: Between two and three years from now.

​ Orange County Register 

Nutrition programs for older adults face service cuts

• September 5, 2024

Jessie Hellmann | (TNS) CQ-Roll Call

WASHINGTON — Programs that feed older, homebound adults are instituting waiting lists amid budget crunches, rising costs of food, growing demand for their services and funding cuts from the government.

Combined with the end of COVID-19 era aid, local groups are finding that they can no longer serve the same number of people, resulting in difficult decisions about next steps.

“This is a huge challenge for our network,” said Josh Protas, chief advocacy and policy officer at Meals on Wheels America, a national organization that supports local organizations delivering meals to homebound individuals, mainly older adults.

Meals on Wheels is among the groups pushing for funding increases through the appropriations process for programs funded under the Older Americans Act, a decades-old law first signed by President Lyndon Johnson to support adults as they age in their communities.

One in three Meals on Wheels programs has a wait list, with an average wait time of three months.

“The vast majority of them recognize that there are more seniors in need in their communities that they’re not able to serve, in large part because of a lack of adequate federal funding,” Protas said.

Higher demand

The population is getting older. Over the next decade, people 65 and older will represent 22 percent of the population, compared to 17 percent in 2022.

They are at a unique risk for going hungry because of fixed incomes, social isolation, lack of access to transportation and health conditions that make it difficult to cook or shop for groceries.

Almost 7 million seniors were “food insecure” — or didn’t have enough to eat — in 2022, and more than 9 million could be by 2050, according to Feeding America.

Meals on Wheels or similar programs are almost ubiquitous. Many have been around for more than 50 years, providing a source of nutrition and social contact to people who can’t leave their homes and helping them age in place. Programs served 206 million home-delivered meals and 55 million congregate meals in fiscal 2021.

But the demand has outpaced the ability of programs to serve people in their communities.

“We have 12,000 people every day who are turning 60, and as a society, we haven’t really reckoned with the changes that are necessary to address those needs,” Protas said.

Current legislation

Congress has recognized the need for more funding for the programs. But budget pressures have made that difficult.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — on a bipartisan basis — approved in July a reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, recommending to appropriators an increase of 20 percent each for the home-delivered and congregate meal programs.

Still, the Senate Labor-HHS funding bill, advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee in August, would level-fund those programs in fiscal 2025. Meanwhile, the House appropriations bill would cut the nutrition programs by 1.6 percent.

The Older Americans Act funds several different programs intended to help older adults age in place, but its most well-known ones are related to food services: one for home-delivered meals, another for meals served in congregate settings, like senior centers, and the Nutrition Services Incentive Program, which allows programs to purchase fresh, local produce, dairy or proteins for meals.

While home-delivered meals and congregate settings received increases in fiscal 2024, the nutrition services incentive program received a cut, surprising advocates.

The program is intended to incentivize states to serve more meals because the amount of money it gets is based on how many meals it served the previous year.

“If you’re discouraging incentives, you’re actually lowering meal counts at the end of the day,” said Robert Blancato, president of the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs.

Overall, funding to the nutrition programs was cut by 0.8 percent in fiscal 2024 and states received about $10 million less in appropriations from the federal government in fiscal 2024 than in fiscal 2023.

That cut, plus growing demand for services, cuts to state budgets, the end of COVID-19 aid and inflation has put pressure on local service providers and the people who count on them.

The 2021 COVID-19 rescue package alone nearly doubled the amount the government typically spends on home and congregate meals, allowing organizations to reach people they couldn’t before.

Local programs

Now that the money is gone, groups have to make difficult decisions about who to remove from their programs or dropping the number of meals people receive per day, or creating wait lists.

“During the pandemic, the demand definitely shot up, and so did government funding… but then that funding went away, and the demand didn’t,” said Adam Porter, director of Sound Generations Meals on Wheels based in Seattle.

The organization has had a wait list since February 2023. It currently has 1,423 people on it, more than the number receiving meals through the program.

Food costs have also increased by 25 percent from 2018 to 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“It continues to go up and funding isn’t, so we’re reducing the number of meals we can serve,” Porter said.

In Pennsylvania, the Monroe County Area Agency on Aging, which is responsible for doling out Older Americans Act funding to local partners, has had a freeze on new clients entering the program since July 2023.

Its primary partner — Monroe County Meals on Wheels — had to seek out a grant to avoid instituting a waitlist after the state passed flat funding for senior services programs.

The organization enrolled people on the waiting list into its private pay program, which is based on a sliding fee scale, to ensure people weren’t going without needed meals. It received a grant to cover the costs of the meals for people who can’t afford it.

“We’ve been dependent on community support and grant funding to try to fill that gap because the alternative is a waiting list of our own,” Alyssa Koeck, executive director of Monroe County Meals on Wheels in Pennsylvania.

“We’re working very, very hard to make sure that we do our best to prevent that from happening because we know, especially with the cost of living, that having nutritious, affordable meals is so critical to our clients.”

___

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. Visit at rollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register 

American entrepreneurs must be freed from excessive permitting requirements

• September 5, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris thinks U.S. Steel should not have the right to sell its business to Japan’s Nippon Steel. Previously, some Republican senators thought they too should have the ability to kill the deal between private companies. And it doesn’t stop there. During the pandemic, airlines had to get the government’s permission to hand out hand sanitizer to passengers. Energy projects are subjected to years of permitting processes. And, of course, in most places, Americans aren’t allowed to build what they want on their own property without subjecting themselves to government authorization.

Welcome to the permission-slip economy. It shouldn’t be this way.

Permitting reform isn’t just bureaucratic minutiae; it’s a critical, deeply moral issue for anyone who believes in free markets, individual liberty and economic progress. Our permitting regime is a web of red tape that stifles innovation, slows growth and leaves Americans poorer, less free and increasingly frustrated with a government more interested in regulating than enabling prosperity.

This isn’t some esoteric topic for policy wonks; it’s about the real, tangible effects of overregulation on Americans’ daily lives. Housing costs, job availability, energy prices and technological advancement all hinge on how our government handles permits. And right now, it’s failing miserably.

Take housing. Some areas like California and New York City face a crisis largely due to onerous permitting processes. Builders must navigate a Kafkaesque labyrinth of regulations just to break ground, assuming they are even allowed to build. These delays add years to construction and inflate costs by tens of thousands per unit.

This isn’t mere inconvenience; it’s a genuine disaster for middle- and low-income families priced out of the market. The American dream of homeownership is being strangled by red tape. Worse yet, Americans are priced out of lucrative labor markets because rents are so artificially inflated in job-rich cities.

But that’s just the beginning. Permitting processes are choking the energy sector. Important infrastructure — pipelines, wind farms, grid modernization — is being held up for years by endless environmental reviews, public comments and lawsuits. Now, two judges have signaled to developers that permits which took years to obtain could be canceled on a whim if subjected to pressure from the climate activists.

This isn’t just bad policy; it’s economic sabotage resulting in higher prices, less reliable supply, and missed opportunities for cleaner, more efficient energy.

What about other infrastructure? Roads, bridges and transit systems fail to get fixed when approval for repairs takes years or sometimes decades. An outdated, bloated process prioritizes procedure over results, making some projects obsolete before they begin. Meanwhile, the government wastes massive amounts of money on infrastructure subsidies when all we need is to allow people to build.

The free market thrives on innovation and speed, allowing swift responses to societal needs. The current system is its antithesis — slow, cumbersome and designed to prevent change rather than facilitate it.

It’s not just harming businesses; it’s harming everyone. Imagine what we could achieve with reform: affordable housing, more jobs, lower energy prices, modernized infrastructure. We could unleash a new wave of American innovation and growth. Yet these reforms are repeatedly blocked by bureaucrats protecting their turf, politicians appeasing special interests, or activists who believe halting progress is virtuous.

The time for permitting reform is now. Every delay means lost opportunity for Americans who deserve better: a government facilitating progress, not impeding it; a truly free market, not one shackled by bureaucracy; a future where prosperity trumps paperwork.

The good news is that there are many permitting reform ideas out there. Of course, in an ideal world, building and innovating should generally be permitted by default. Short of this, creating a “one-stop-shop” federal permitting agency to reduce redundancies — a single point of contact for applicants to coordinate between different agencies — should be a priority. This would be coupled with strict timelines for permit reviews, including a “shot clock” mechanism where permits are automatically approved if no decision is made by the deadline.

Related Articles

Environmental reviews should be streamlined by radically reforming the National Environmental Policy Act process, setting page limits on environmental impact statements and allowing for more categorical exclusions for routine or low-impact projects. State-level reforms should be encouraged through federal incentives, and a “presumptive approval” system should be implemented for routine projects.

This isn’t just good policy; it’s a moral imperative. Permitting reform is about restoring a healthy power balance between government and individual and ensuring that America remains a place where innovation thrives, entrepreneurs succeed and opportunity is universal. It’s about reclaiming the principles that made this country great.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

​ Orange County Register 

Analysis: 7 US House races shift on divided battlefield

• September 5, 2024

Nathan L. Gonzales | (TNS) CQ-Roll Call

WASHINGTON — The House battleground continues to take shape two months before Election Day. While a handful of the top Senate races have been engaged for months with torrents of television ads, most House races are just now doing the same. And with the uncertainty at the top of the Democratic presidential ticket, the down-ballot fight was in a holding pattern for much of the summer.

Until his departure from the race on July 21, President Joe Biden was headed for defeat by former President Donald Trump and threatened to torpedo Democratic chances of winning the House and holding the Senate. Now, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, the party’s congressional candidates have a better, albeit still slim, chance of holding the Senate and are firmly in the fight for the House majority.

The path to a majority has been slightly easier for Republicans throughout the cycle. While Democrats have needed to win nine of the 10 races rated as Toss-ups by Inside Elections to get to 218 (as long as they win all of the races rated as Solid, Likely, Lean and Tilt Democratic), Republicans needed to win just two rated as Toss-up.

The silver lining for Democrats has been that Biden finished ahead of Trump in nine of the 10 Toss-ups in 2020 in an era with minimal ticket-splitting. But Biden was on track to finish behind Trump in the Toss-up districts, as well as many in the Tilt and Lean categories and probably some in Likely Democratic. That was a death sentence to Democrats’ chances in the House and fueled the pressure for Biden to drop out of the race.

Now, public and private polling shows Harris is matching or exceeding Biden’s 2020 performance, pulling close in the presidential race and improving Democrats’ chances of gaining the four seats they need.

The seven recent rating changes are split nearly evenly between the two parties.

Democrats’ chances improved in four races: California’s 45th (GOP Rep. Michelle Steel) from Lean Republican to Tilt Republican, Nebraska’s 2nd (GOP Rep. Don Bacon) from Tilt Republican to Toss-up, Pennsylvania’s 17th (Democratic Rep. Chris Deluzio) from Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic and Washington’s 8th (Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier) from Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic.

Republicans’ chances improved in three races: Michigan’s 8th (Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee’s open seat) from Tilt Democratic to Toss-up, New York’s 17th (GOP Rep. Mike Lawler) from Toss-up to Tilt Republican and Virginia’s 7th (Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger’s open seat) from Tilt Democratic to Toss-up.

The changes are a microcosm of the overall battle for the House. GOP incumbents such as Steel and Bacon are more vulnerable with Trump doing poorly in their districts, while Democrats are going to have a tough time defending open seats like the pair in Michigan and one in Virginia.

With the latest rating changes, the House battlefield comprises 82 districts (45 currently held by Democrats and 37 currently held by Republicans) and the path to 218 still looks easier for Republicans. They need to win just two of the dozen Toss-ups, while Democrats need to win 11 of 12. But that understates Democrats’ opportunity. If Harris continues to perform well at the top of the ticket, Democratic prospects will improve.

The next couple of weeks will bring more clarity to the fight for the House with a slew of private polling, as party strategists make critical campaign spending decisions, and some public polling. Inside Elections just released its third House battleground poll on Wednesday, in partnership with Noble Predictive Insights. The survey of Oregon’s 5th District follows polls in Michigan’s 7th and Ohio’s 9th districts.

Inside Elections’ House projection is still a range of a Democratic gain of five seats to a Republican gain of five seats, with control contained within. That means every seat will matter, and it could be weeks before we know which party controls the chamber because of multiple competitive races in California, New York and Pennsylvania, where it can take a while to count ballots.

Moved toward Democrats

California’s 45th (Michelle Steel, R) from Lean Republican to Tilt Republican
Nebraska’s 2nd (Don Bacon, R) from Tilt Republican to Toss-up
Pennsylvania’s 17th (Chris Deluzio, D) from Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic
Washington’s 8th (Kim Schrier, D) from Likely Democratic to Solid Democratic

Moved toward Republicans

Michigan’s 8th (Open; Dan Kildee, D) from Tilt Democratic to Toss-up
New York’s 17th (Mike Lawler, R) from Toss-up to Tilt Republican
Virginia’s 7th (Open; Abigail Spanberger, D) from Tilt Democratic to Toss-up

_____

Nathan L. Gonzales is an elections analyst with CQ Roll Call.

___

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register 

Stagecoach 2025: Zach Bryan, Jelly Roll and Luke Combs top the bill

• September 5, 2024

Stagecoach Country Music Festival, after teasing fans the past few days on its social media pages, has revealed the lineup for its 2025 bill.

For its 17th year, the three-day fest will be headlined by Zach Bryan, Jelly Roll and Luke Combs.

Stagecoach will return to the Empire Polo Club in Indio on April 25-27, 2024 following back-to-back weekends of its sister Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.

Friday will be topped by Bryan, along with Brothers Osborne, Lana Del Rey, Carly Pearce, Whiskey Myers, Sierra Ferrell, Dylan Scott, Tucker Wetmore, Nikki Lane, 49 Winchester, Bryan Martin, Drake Milligan, Alana Springsteen, Tigirlily Gold, Tanner Usrey, Avery Anna, Drew Parker, John Morgan, Noeline Hofmann, Abi Carter and Mae Estes. Jelly Roll’s headlining night on Saturday will also show performances from Sturgill Simpson, Nelly, Ashley McBryde, Shaboozey, Koe Wetzel, Dylan Gossett, Niko Moon, Tommy James & The Shondells, Dasha, Crystal Gayle, Louie TheSinger, George Birge, Annie Bosko, Tiera Kennedy, The Castellowsand more.

Combs, who debuted at the festival back in 2022, will close the event on Sunday with Midland, Sammy Hagar, Flatland Cavalry, Scotty McCreery, Goo Goo Dolls, Tracy Lawrence, Conner Smith, Chayce Beckham, Austin Snell, Treaty Oak Revival, The Bacon Brothers, Alexandra Kay, among others.

Returning headliner Combs shared his excitement in a recent press release saying, “Super pumped to be coming back to headline Stagecoach. It was one of the most memorable parts of the year when we did it in 2022, so really glad they’re having us back for round 2. We’re gonna have a blast.”

First time headliner Jelly Roll also said, “Last year I got to play Stagecoach for the first time and it was incredible. And I didn’t just get to play. I got to hang out as a fan of artists I love and take my daughter to see some of the best entertainers in our format. Coming back to headline Stagecoach this year is a dream, but I’ll be attending as a fan this year as well, so get ready. See you in April.”

Additionally, EDM superstar Diplo will take over Late Night in Palomino for after-party performances in which rapper T-Pain, rockers Creed and the iconic boy band of the ’90s, Backstreet Boys, will perform. Diplo is also set to curate the talent inside the Honky Tonk Dance Hall once again.

Restaurateur and TV personality Guy Fieri will be back with his Stagecoach Smokehouse, too. There will be new chefs, pit bosses and barbecue vendors, as well as cooking demos with special guests and more. For a fourth year, Compton Cowboys will also be bringing in their horses and showing off the skills they’ve learned at Richland Farms in Compton.

Related Articles

Passes go on sale starting at 11 a.m. Friday, Sept. 13 at stagecoachfestival.com.

Three-day general admission passes start at $579; three-day Rhinestone Saloon passes start at $974; three-day Desert Diamind VIP packages start at $4,023.85; Gold Rush VIP packages stat at $2586.35; corral reserved pit passes start at $1,199; corral standing pit passes start at $1,999. Various shuttle packages, RV and tent camping options are also available on the official Stagecoach website.

​ Orange County Register 

Netflix wants to shrink your favorite TV show’s carbon footprint

• September 5, 2024

Michelle Ma | Bloomberg News (TNS)

There’s a soft, afternoon glow suffusing an intimate scene between the plucky protagonist and her wood-chopping, flannel-shirted love interest’s mother on the Vancouver set of the Netflix Inc. show, “Virgin River.” A soapy drama centered on a nurse practitioner in a small, northern California town, “Virgin River” is the kind of show that reliably delivers buried secrets, thwarted villains and reunited lovers. That fake sunlight— the combined power of two massive 18,000-watt lights running on a giant battery — is how Netflix wants to clean up the dirty business of Hollywood productions.

On most film and television sets, illumination is powered by loud, clunking diesel generators. “Virgin River” is one of a number of Netflix’s productions replacing generators and fossil fuel-based transportation with greener alternatives. In Atlanta, “Stranger Things” is dabbling with solar-powered trailers, and just outside London, “Bridgerton” has tested a hydrogen power unit.

It’s all part of Netflix’s plan to cut its emissions roughly in half by 2030. Yet, Netflix’s progress has been marginal in the three years since it began focusing on sustainability in 2020.

Its emissions in 2022 increased compared to 2019, the year the company chose as its baseline year. (Emissions dropped dramatically in 2023, the company’s latest reported year, but that was largely attributed to work stoppages during the Hollywood strikes.)

“Part of it is that we don’t have direct operational control,” says Emma Stewart, whose job as sustainability officer includes driving down emissions. Focusing on film and TV production is key, since those activities are typically responsible for over half the company’s emissions. Aside from one studio in Albuquerque, Netflix generally doesn’t own any of the equipment or studio space for its productions. (In that studio, the company has invested in geothermal water loops, solar and battery storage systems and EV fast chargers.) While the company could mandate emissions-reducing behavior from its vendors, landlords and productions, Stewart believes “creating carrots that we think are as big as sticks” is a better approach.

From left to right: Luke Newton as Colin Bridgerton and Nicola Coughlan as Penelope Featherington during their wedding scene in Season 3 of “Bridgerton.” (Liam Daniel/Netflix/TNS)

Since its black and white beginnings, the film industry has spawned a thriving but distributed global ecosystem of local vendors who supply its specialty gear: lights, cameras, trucks, cables and generators. Getting all of these disparate units to change how they do business is not an easy task, even with big carrots.

If Netflix persuaded its suppliers to buy low-emissions equipment, it could prompt an industry-wide change. Netflix’s emissions are broadly in line with its industry peers, and its challenges are the same. The same shops that rent lights, portable power sources and vehicles tend to service productions across the various studios, and so more green tech for Netflix means more all around. And if the company succeeds in communicating to the makers of this equipment that a buyer exists, that would help de-risk the investment and encourage more adoption industry-wide.

Doing so would be a considerable feat. Though the entertainment industry’s carbon footprint is generally small compared to more emissions-intensive sectors like technology and aviation, its societal influence is arguably greater. Hollywood’s mark on culture and norms is one that can’t be overstated and could inspire a larger shift in how corporations at large prioritize sustainability.

Netflix is not alone in struggling to meet its lofty climate ambitions. At the beginning of the decade, major corporations across the globe voluntarily started setting climate goals to great fanfare. As 2030 looms closer, companies have started to backslide. Microsoft Corp. and Alphabet Inc. have seen their emissions shoot up amid the rise of energy-intensive artificial intelligence, making their climate targets harder to reach. Shell Plc, BP Plc and Amazon.com Inc. have all scaled back or dropped parts of their climate goals.

Some companies that haven’t dialed back their ambitions use questionable methods to appear sustainable while they continue emitting. Netflix relies on tools like renewable energy certificates (RECs) and carbon credits of contested value to claim sustainability while it slowly scales up efforts like those taking place on the “Virgin River” set. Studies have shown that those efforts do more for greenwashing than getting the world closer to net zero.

Netflix is testing whether it’s possible to grow audiences and ambitions while cutting greenhouse gases. What it’s revealing is that prioritizing aggressive revenue growth and maintaining its spot as the world’s top streamer make it hard to reach its climate goals; its sustainability efforts take a backseat to the will and vision of Netflix’s creatives, who literally run the show.

“Getting the shot is still paramount, and that’s often not an environmentally efficient or responsible way to approach it,” says Hunter Vaughan, a University of Cambridge researcher and the author of Hollywood’s Dirtiest Secret: The Hidden Environmental Costs of the Movies. “Without challenging these ideological foundations, the real positive change isn’t going to happen.”

It’s hard to overstate the scope of Netflix’s growth and influence. Since its start in 1997 as a DVD mailer, it has reshaped the entertainment industry. Today, Netflix accounts for about 8% of TV viewing in the U.S.; it’s a leading network in most of the world’s major markets. The company estimates its audience numbers at over a half a billion. It’s on track for almost $40 billion in sales this year.

Related Articles

As the company strives to make hits and please investors, Stewart has to cut emissions, overhaul onset norms and encourage a tech transition. Stewart joined the company in 2020, when Netflix started its sustainability work. Since that time, Netflix has had two years of regular business activity, unimpeded by a global pandemic or industry-wide strikes. Those circumstances resulted in artificially-lowered emissions. During the normal years, 2021 and 2022, Netflix increased its Scope 1 and 2 emissions (that’s emissions directly related to its business or energy consumed by its operations), compared to 2019. Carbon-cutting progress has been outpaced by the company’s growth.

“The number of productions changes from one year to the next,” Stewart says. The company’s goal is to “decouple [the] number of productions from our company-wide carbon footprint.”

What that means is that, in an ideal world, even as the number of productions go up, emissions go down. “We’re definitely not there yet,” Stewart says.

Unlike the consumer goods business, growth for streaming companies doesn’t have to depend on the number of things produced, points out Albert Lin, a professor at the University of California, Davis’ School of Law who specializes in environmental law. A content company can theoretically gain more subscribers without increasing the number of shows. “You could also imagine growing slowly but better,” he says.

Of course, arguing for slow growth is a hard case to make to investors of any company, and it’s unlikely that Netflix or any other Hollywood studio will seriously consider this strategy. For now, the streaming giant is focused on the individual changes it can make on each production.

On the set of “Virgin River,” while everyone else is mostly oblivious to the energy transition taking place around them, Jeff Harvey is in the heat of it.

Harvey is “Virgin River’s” rigging gaffer, which means he oversees all the power and lighting. But now, he’s more like a logistics manager. He writes up a “battle plan” that includes where every battery has to go, when it has to be there and what it needs to power, factoring in charging time. “We spend a little less time on setting up, and I spend more time on the front end organizing,” Harvey says.

For Rob Fairbridge, whose role as transportation coordinator involves managing a fleet of vehicles, integrating electric cars and trucks on set has involved new daily hurdles. He test-drives each new vehicle for two weeks before production begins to anticipate his drivers’ pain points. A car will charge more slowly when it’s nearly done, so drivers need to factor that extra time into consideration. Electric trucks typically have a lower clearance than gas-powered trucks because the batteries are often located on the bottom of the vehicle, so drivers have to consider that when entering or exiting certain driveways to avoid bottoming out. And a lesson learned the hard way: Sometimes the manufacturer’s listed range is much higher than reality.

Back at the production’s basecamp, or where trucks and trailers are parked in between sets, Fairbridge’s drivers are eating lunch. It’s a quiet break before they have to drive all the equipment to another location in Burnaby, a neighboring Vancouver suburb, where they’ll be filming that afternoon. These are mostly union crews more used to diesel trucks and gas stations than chargers and Teslas, Fairbridge says. That means he’s added another role to his list of responsibilities: driver therapist. He spends a lot of one-on-one time now coaching them through broken chargers and range anxiety.

“It’s not something we can shove down their throats,” Fairbridge says. “It’s got to be a gradual change.”

Their anxiety is not unfounded. One time, Harvey’s batteries went down for about 12 minutes after filming ran long. “It all crashed and burned,” he recalls. They quickly brought in a diesel generator and got the lights back up, but every minute of filming lost is money down the drain.

Crews face a huge supply problem. The city of Vancouver, where the show is filmed, only has seven of the largest production-ready batteries, and as many as 50 productions are filming in the city at any given time. In order to secure the greener equipment and get ahead of competition, Netflix reserved all the clean tech it needed to start filming Season 6 of “Virgin River” months before production began, a highly unusual move. The week prior, another local production called Harvey and “begged” him to spare them one of his batteries. He acquiesced only because he had reserved more than he needed.

A behind-the-scenes photo of “Stranger Things” from the third season, shot in metro Atlanta. Shown are Shawn Levy, Noah Schnapp and Finn Wolfhard. (Tina Rowden/Netflix/TNS)

There’s a reason this equipment is hard to find. For vendors, investing in a battery, solar panel or EV is taking an expensive leap of faith that it will be embraced by production crews.

Bhugesh “Ben” Patel runs a transportation company called BI Production Works based in Madison, Georgia, serving Atlanta-area film and television shows, including Netflix productions like “Stranger Things.” He also has fleets in New York, California, New Mexico and Texas and overall has invested over $30 million so far to convert BI’s trailers to run on solar power rather than diesel generators, as well as $100 million in manufacturing new solar trailers.

Building a solar-powered trailer costs over 50% more than it would an equivalent diesel trailer, Patel says, but he offers the trailers at a competitive price, so that he’ll get the first call from studios looking to go green. Plus, these trailers require less maintenance than their fossil fuel-powered predecessors.

What works in Vancouver or Atlanta, though, might not work elsewhere. British Columbia has plenty of renewable energy, particularly hydropower, and the local government has offered a slew of green film incentives, such as discounted location fees for productions that use clean energy. In New York, solar trailers don’t work as well because of cloudy days and sunlight-blocking high-rise buildings, so Patel’s trailers there are typically paired with backup generators.

The payback period for a trailer is about seven to 10 years, so it’s a risky investment. He was willing to make it because the studios, including Netflix, made it clear to him they were willing to use his equipment.

“Because it’s new technology, people have to accept it,” Patel says. “It’s been a slow start, no question about that.”

Though it’s the most visible, decarbonizing film and TV production has been a small piece of Netflix’s emissions reduction work. Electric or hybrid vehicles and clean mobile power– like batteries and hydrogen systems– made up 5% of the company’s overall avoided emissions in 2022, and 2% in 2023.

The bulk of Netflix’s emissions reductions came from purchasing renewable energy, either through its landlords or from local utilities directly through the utilities’ green tariff programs. It’s not as clear-cut as it might seem.

A green tariff program allows larger utility customers to pay for renewable energy from a specific project like a solar farm. Though details may differ state to state and utility to utility, the goal is to help customers meet their energy goals and for utilities to reduce the financial risks associated with building new projects. Stewart says Netflix pays a premium to opt into renewable energy.

Despite their aims, some green tariff programs don’t actually result in meaningful emissions reductions; rather, they just shift around the ability to claim ownership of the energy. Experts have found that they sometimes fail to accelerate clean energy development, as well.

The efficacy of the program depends on the age of the asset it’s attached to and where it’s located. If the project is recently built or not yet online, investing in that green tariff could be a credible claim of emissions reduction. If the project is an existing clean energy plant that opened more than three years ago, “that is essentially having no positive impact on decarbonization,” says Killian Daly, executive director of EnergyTag, a nonprofit focused on electricity accounting standards.

Additionally, a number of US states have adopted clean-energy standards requiring a certain percentage of utilities’ electricity be carbon-free. So if a company participates in a green tariff program in one of those states, it’s possible that the renewable energy being procured would have been built regardless of the investment, and so the green tariff attached to that project is also rendered meaningless.

“Since Netflix currently only owns one studio property globally, and is a relatively small electricity user in any location, we don’t typically invest in onsite renewable energy projects, instead paying a premium to opt into certain utility green tariff programs,” a company spokesperson wrote in an email.

For the rest of its emissions that it isn’t able to avoid or reduce, Netflix purchases carbon credits. The company bought more than a million credits in 2021 and 2022; last year, it was a little over 800,000. It’s been widely documented that many credits advertise positive climate impacts that never materialize. “We won’t pretend that this entire market is perfect, nor is any market perfect, but what it requires is good oversight, good guidelines and principles and accountability,” Stewart says.

Related Articles

The company also does the same with non-renewable electricity that it uses by purchasing renewable energy credits, or RECs. These tools come into play when a company buys certificates from clean power providers instead of switching power sources. Companies use RECs to claim 100% clean power, despite skepticism from environmental critics. These credit purchases often have lower impact because, similar to low-quality green tariff programs, they don’t always result in bringing new renewable energy to the grid.

“Unbundled RECs are not what we’d like to be procuring forever,” Stewart says, while pointing out that Netflix has few options to change energy supplies at rented facilities it doesn’t own. The company is weighing alternatives like power purchase agreements made directly with renewable developers; it also invests in a type of REC aimed at supporting projects in developing countries.

“We’re continuing to evaluate what might make sense,” Stewart says.

For Netflix to increase the credibility of its claim of supporting global net-zero goals, there’s much more it could do. For one, it could invest in more durable carbon removal technologies, like machines that remove carbon from the air, says UC Davis’ Lin. It’s something that other large companies like Stripe, Alphabet and JPMorgan Chase & Co. have invested millions into already. Purchasing credits from companies that offer these types of removal are “much more expensive, but [offer] greater certainty with regards to the actual storage and permanence of carbon removal,” he says. Although Netflix doesn’t disclose how much it pays for its credits, the kinds of projects it’s investing in are typically cheaper by an order of magnitude compared to higher quality carbon removal credits.

Taking responsibility for more streaming-related emissions is another step Netflix could take. Currently, its carbon accounting excludes the emissions associated with video streaming on its site, as well as the electricity used by devices to watch its content. Stewart says that Netflix looks to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for guidance on how to account for indirect internet- and device-related emissions, and it doesn’t specify exactly how the entertainment sector is supposed to treat those emissions, so it chooses not to include them.

But some experts believe that Netflix should count those emissions.

“It’s a generous omission of accountability,” says Vaughan, who points to the large share of global bandwidth that content providers like Netflix hold, which one report puts at nearly 15% of global downstream internet traffic.

Netflix recognizes that more needs to be done to accelerate the adoption of green tech on sets. The company is making investments to try to boost the green equipment supply chain for its productions. Netflix, Walt Disney Co. and nonprofit RMI started the Clean Mobile Power Initiative last year. The program gives startups access to a $100,000 convertible note (a loan that is repaid with equity in the company rather than principal and interest), as well as introductions to potential investors and “sandbox days” on the studios’ sets, where they can test out their equipment. It also helps train union members on the new technology. It launched with 10 startups, ranging from a mobile nanogrid developer to a green hydrogen supplier, to help get their technology production-ready. The 18-month accelerator is still in its early days, and so it’s too early to see program results, says RMI’s Caroline Winslow, who helps run the program.

Another on-set action that would result in meaningful emissions reductions is setting a carbon budget for each show, capping both the number of productions as well as how much each production is allowed to emit. Currently, producers can be forced to cut a helicopter shot due to financial constraints; with a carbon budget, they would have to nix it if it’s too emission-intensive.

But at Netflix, the will of the creative side supersedes such priorities. “We really like to be creator-led,” Stewart says.

While Netflix has experimented with mandates on a few productions, it’s more interested today in coaxing sustainable change on-set through financial incentives, she says. Productions that want to incorporate sustainable swaps are given a “sustainability allowance” that can be used towards sustainable swaps like batteries and electric vehicles and can’t be reallocated to other parts of the budget.

Vaughan believes that more mandates would force a positive shift within the industry’s culture. “Creativity flourishes under constraints,” he says.

After already having swapped diesel for batteries and added more time for EV charging, production workers might embrace new rules.

“I don’t mind change,” says Fairbridge, the transportation coordinator on Virgin River, whose reality is a constant juggle of new restrictions. “And I think the world is going that direction.”

—With assistance from Ben Elgin and Lucas Shaw.

©2024 Bloomberg News. Visit at bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register