Connect with us

Business

A Fight Over America’s Energy Future Erupts on the Canadian Border

Published

on

A Fight Over America’s Energy Future Erupts on the Canadian Border

RADISSON, CANADA — Tons of of ft under a distant forest close to the Hudson Bay, Serge Abergel inspected the spinning generators on the coronary heart of the largest subterranean energy plant on the planet, an enormous facility that converts the water of the La Grande River right into a present of renewable electrical energy sturdy sufficient to energy a midsize metropolis.

Mr. Abergel, a senior government at Hydro Quebec, has for years been engaged on an bold effort to ship electrical energy produced from the river down by way of the woods of northern Maine and on to Massachusetts, the place it could assist the state meet its local weather targets.

But right now, work on the $1 billion mission is at a standstill.

Over the previous few years, an unlikely coalition of residents, conservationists and Native People waged a rowdy marketing campaign funded by rival vitality corporations to quash the trouble. The opponents received a serious victory in November, when Maine voters handed a measure that halted the mission. Following a authorized struggle, proponents appealed to the state Supreme Court docket, which can hear arguments on the case on Could 10 about whether or not such a referendum is authorized.

At stake is multiple transmission line. The fiercely contested mission is emblematic of fights happening across the nation, as plans to construct clear vitality infrastructure run into opposition from residents immune to new improvement, preservationists and different corporations with their very own financial pursuits at stake.

Advertisement

“On the finish of the day, everybody would possibly need extra transmission for renewable vitality,” mentioned Timothy Fox, vp at ClearView Vitality Companions, an unbiased analysis agency. “However nobody desires it of their yard.”

The mission in Maine, referred to as New England Clear Vitality Join, or NECEC, is the sort of large-scale, clean-energy infrastructure that shall be required if the USA is to shift away from fossil fuels — a transition scientists say is urgently wanted with a purpose to forestall additional catastrophic local weather change. In accordance with a serious examine by Princeton College, the nation should triple its transmission capability by 2050 to have an opportunity at reaching its aim of not including any extra carbon dioxide to the environment by that time.

For years, all the pieces in Maine was going in accordance with plan.

State and federal regulators carefully studied the mission and gave approvals at each stage. Governors in Massachusetts and Maine had been on board.

And Hydro Quebec and Avangrid, its accomplice on the mission that may function the transmission traces and gear within the U.S., spent lots of of thousands and thousands of {dollars} readying building and putting in the primary 78 of greater than 832 new high-voltage transmission poles that might enable vitality produced in northern Canada to maintain the lights on in Boston.

Advertisement

However there was resistance to the mission virtually from the beginning. Maine residents, annoyed by years of poor service by Central Maine Energy, a neighborhood utility owned by Avangrid, discovered widespread trigger with environmental organizations skeptical of hydropower.

These native teams discovered deep-pocketed supporters in three vitality corporations that function pure fuel and nuclear crops within the area and which stood to lose cash if cheaper hydropower entered the New England grid.

After opponents received a referendum query in regards to the mission on final November’s poll, each side threw cash on the concern, spending greater than $100 million — a file for a Maine initiative — on a slugfest that tied the transmission mission to scorching button points like gun rights and the Inexpensive Care Act.

Although Hydro Quebec and Avangrid outspent the opposition by a margin of three to 1, residents weren’t offered on the deserves of the mission. On Election Day, 59 p.c of Maine voters authorized a measure that introduced work on the NECEC to a screeching halt, not less than in the intervening time.

If the Maine Supreme Court docket sides with Hydro Quebec and Avangrid, work on the mission may resume and electrical energy might be flowing from the reservoirs of Canada into the New England grid as quickly as 2024.

Advertisement

But when the NECEC is scrapped, it is going to characterize a serious setback for these working to wean the USA off fossil fuels, in accordance with unbiased vitality consultants. Growth of a utility-scale clear vitality mission requires money and time, and the prospect that it might be killed by voters — even after it’s vetted and permitted by authorities regulators — would inject a degree of danger that would scare away funding.

“As onerous as it’s to elucidate and defend a mission like this, it’s so simple for individuals to return and torpedo it, and so they don’t even have to inform the reality,” mentioned Mr. Abergel. “In the event you can put a cease to those long run tasks a yr earlier than they’re accomplished, it raises huge questions in regards to the vitality transition and the way we’re going to get it carried out.”

Earlier than there was a expensive and acrimonious battle in Maine, there was a easy, idealistic mandate: Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, a Republican, wished to cut back his state’s dependence on fossil fuels.

On a sunny Monday in August 2016, Mr. Baker appeared earlier than the statehouse in Boston and signed a regulation supposed to ramp up the usage of renewable vitality in Massachusetts. Hydroelectricity, he mentioned, would “play a vital function within the Commonwealth’s new balanced and numerous vitality portfolio by providing clear, dependable and cost-effective base-load, 24/7/365.”

Mr. Baker’s give attention to the always-on nature of hydroelectricity was intentional. Whereas wind farms and photo voltaic panels can now produce substantial quantities of energy, they can’t generate electrical energy when the air continues to be or the solar will not be shining. However Massachusetts occurs to be comparatively near one of many largest sources of unpolluted, constant vitality on the planet: Canadian hydropower.

Advertisement

Engineers have been tapping the Quebec area’s in depth community of rivers to provide renewable electrical energy for greater than a century. Immediately, Hydro Quebec’s 61 hydropower crops produce 95 p.c of all electrical energy within the province, and costs are decrease than wherever in the USA.

Hydro Quebec has additionally been exporting energy to the USA and different Canadian provinces for many years. 5 traces run from the corporate’s grid into New York, Vermont and Massachusetts, and one other main transmission mission is within the works to convey hydropower into the New York grid.

“We had been blessed with a geology that’s wealthy with water,” mentioned Sophie Brochu, the corporate’s chief government, sitting in her workplace in downtown Montreal. “The electrical energy is aggressive and clear.”

So when Mr. Baker set a aim of drastically decreasing Massachusetts’ emissions, Hydro Quebec appeared like an apparent alternative.

And whereas Massachusetts was paying for the mission, prospects elsewhere, together with in Maine, stood to profit. Each states draw vitality from the ISO New England energy grid, a community of energy crops and transmission traces that serves the northeast United States. Decrease vitality costs from hydropower would scale back prices for residents from Connecticut to Vermont.

Advertisement

By final yr, work on the mission was properly underway. Hydro Quebec was clearing forest the place it could set up about 60 miles of transmission traces in Canada. Foliage had been cleared alongside many of the 145-mile-long transmission route by way of Maine. And in Lewiston, Maine, land had been ready for a $330 million facility that might plug the electrical energy from Canada into the American grid, and ship substantial tax revenues to town.

Altogether, the mission delivered what its backers believed was an unassailable mixture of advantages. “That is an environmentally vital discount in carbon emissions, and it additionally supplies an enormous quantity of infrastructure that may allow new renewable era,” mentioned Thorn Dickinson, chief government of NECEC. “You’ve gotten the roles, you might have the property taxes, you might have decrease charges, all with no price to Maine.”

Many Mainers noticed it otherwise.

Sandi Howard was rafting by way of a picturesque gorge on the Kennebec River in Could 2018 when she first heard about plans to construct transmission traces close by. Whereas a lot of the world across the river is crisscrossed with logging roads and cleared of timber, additionally it is a well-liked vacation spot for rafters, snowmobilers and campers.

Ms. Howard quickly emerged as one of many mission’s main antagonists. Armed with a Fb group and a ardour for the land, Ms. Howard unfold the phrase about what she mentioned was a basically flawed mission.

Advertisement

“As I began studying extra, the issues began to mushroom,” she mentioned. “There’s quite a few the reason why the mission is solely a foul deal for Maine.”

Chief amongst Ms. Howard’s worries is the impact the brand new transmission poles may have on the native surroundings.

Whereas roughly 100 miles of the brand new wire shall be strung alongside an present excessive transmission hall that shall be widened, the mission will even require a lower by way of 53 miles of largely uninhabited forest close to the Canadian border. Metal poles shall be erected close to streams the place brook trout spawn, and in places that would disrupt scenic vistas.

These issues, together with questions on whether or not the mission would really scale back greenhouse fuel emissions, persuaded outstanding environmental teams, together with native Sierra Membership and the Pure Assets Council of Maine, to oppose the mission. Critics of hydropower contend that the large-scale flooding required to create reservoirs results in emissions of methane, a potent planet warming fuel.

And so they say the general local weather advantages shall be minimal as a result of Hydro Quebec wouldn’t be producing new clear vitality for the New England grid, simply decreasing the quantity of hydropower it sells to different markets. A greater answer can be the set up of rooftop photo voltaic throughout New England, the Pure Assets Council of Maine mentioned, whereas different Maine residents level to what they are saying is a superior proposal to convey Canadian hydropower into the U.S. by way of an underground line in Vermont.

Advertisement

Native American tribes in Maine and Canada additionally joined the opposition, protesting the truth that companies stood to “make billions of {dollars} in earnings with out consulting or compensating the First Nations on whose ancestral territories its electrical energy is produced and thru which it will likely be transported.”

In a letter to President Biden, the Chief of the Penobscot Nation in Maine, Kirk Francis, mentioned that, “the U.S. Military Corps of Engineers ignored its accountability — and our requests — to seek the advice of with us and gave the NECEC its stamp of approval with blinders on.”

Yet one more level of competition was the truth that many residents harbor deep animosity towards Central Maine Energy and Avangrid. A historical past of poor customer support has made Central Maine Energy one of many least in style utilities within the nation, in accordance with a examine by J.D. Energy.

Advertisement

As if all that weren’t sufficient, there was the truth that Avangrid is owned by a Spanish firm, Iberdrola. That, together with Hydro Quebec’s involvement, led to claims that the mission amounted to a international takeover of America’s vitality infrastructure.

Earlier than lengthy, resistance had calcified, and lots of the cities that originally voiced approval for the mission started combating it.

“I wished to imagine this mission was a internet profit to the world with respect to local weather, in addition to a internet profit to Maine,” mentioned Seth Berry, a consultant within the Maine legislature and local weather advocate. “However the extra I appeared into it, the extra I spotted it was neither.”

Although a various group opposed the plan, it wasn’t in any respect clear how they may cease a mission that was already underway and had the assist of senior state and federal officers. However Ms. Howard and her allies quickly discovered well-funded companions that shared their agenda: three vitality corporations that function pure fuel and nuclear crops within the space and would probably take successful to their earnings if the NECEC mission had been to be accomplished.

The businesses — NextEra Vitality, Vistra Vitality and Calpine — had been quickly funding a marketing campaign to defeat the mission, spending a complete of $27 million on the trouble, in accordance with state filings.

Advertisement

Vistra and Calpine didn’t reply to requests for remark. NextEra mentioned it was against the NECEC for a wide range of causes, together with the truth that finishing it could require an costly improve at considered one of its nuclear energy crops in New Hampshire.

By final yr, ads for and in opposition to the NECEC mission had been flooding the Maine media market, unleashing a dizzying collection of claims and counterclaims that blurred the traces between truth and fiction. Battles raged over whether or not the mission would end in total greenhouse fuel emissions, how extreme the environmental results can be, and the way a lot Maine would profit. Opponents of the mission falsely claimed that hydroelectricity was dirtier than coal, whereas supporters tried to influence voters that passing a retroactive regulation would possibly in the future jeopardize their gun rights.

The debates performed out on the town corridor conferences, TV advertisements, unsolicited mail and social media. The Fox Information host Tucker Carlson, who has a house in Maine, produced a phase bashing the mission. Vitality Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Twitter touted the mission’s potential to cut back carbon emissions and decrease vitality costs.

Hoping to win over skeptical Maine residents, Hydro Quebec and Avangrid modified the brand new transmission poles so they might additionally carry excessive pace web cables, and supplied the state a reduced charge on some vitality.

It didn’t matter. On Election Day, Maine residents authorized a fastidiously worded poll measure that, if upheld by the state Supreme Court docket, will successfully kill the NECEC.

Advertisement

“This was the voters saying they don’t need tasks like this in Maine,” mentioned Tom Saviello, a former member of the State Senate, who grew to become a number one voice of the opposition. “We had been giving up lots, and getting nothing out of this.”

However the place Maine residents see a grass-roots victory, executives for Hydro Quebec and Avangrid, in addition to Massachusetts officers, see a bunch of rival vitality corporations stymying the event of urgently wanted clear vitality infrastructure.

“The grid goes to must get constructed out considerably to succeed in our decarbonization targets,” mentioned Kathleen Theoharides, the Massachusetts secretary of vitality and environmental affairs. “What makes me involved is the concept a mission that was totally permitted by state entities may go to the poll, and get a retroactive choice from the voters based mostly on loads of misinformation from vitality corporations that stood to lose cash from this new line coming by way of.”

After a day spent touring the producing station in Radisson, Mr. Abergel boarded a small turboprop aircraft for a three-hour flight south to Montreal and mirrored on a mission that seems on the breaking point. From the air, he appeared out on lots of of sq. miles of uninhabited land, a lot of which had been flooded a long time in the past to create the large reservoirs that energy Hydro Quebec’s subterranean generators.

“The mission would give individuals a steady supply of energy — to not point out it’s clear,” he mentioned. “Even for those who don’t care in regards to the surroundings, it is sensible.”

Advertisement

But because the Maine Supreme Court docket decides the destiny of the NECEC, it is not going to be evaluating the mission on its relative deserves, or contemplating the swirling claims and counterclaims. As a substitute, the courtroom will resolve a slender set of questions that don’t have anything to do with local weather change, specializing in technicalities reminiscent of whether or not a referendum can cease a mission that was already authorized by regulators.

“This mainly units the precedent that voters can block these actually vital infrastructure tasks,” mentioned Robin Millican, director of coverage at Breakthrough Vitality, a bunch that’s selling varied efforts to cut back emissions however will not be concerned within the mission. “That’s not good for local weather total.”

Many analysts, and even supporters of the mission, acknowledge that the courtroom may aspect with the opposition, dooming the NECEC and forcing Massachusetts again to the drafting board. That may be a state of affairs that might price Hydro Quebec and Avangrid a small fortune, and will have far-reaching implications, spelling hassle for different efforts to quickly deploy extra clear vitality throughout the nation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

4 Takeaways From the Arguments Before the Supreme Court in the TikTok Case

Published

on

4 Takeaways From the Arguments Before the Supreme Court in the TikTok Case

The Supreme Court on Friday grappled over a law that could determine the fate of TikTok, an enormously popular social media platform that has about 170 million users.

Congress enacted the law out of concern that the app, whose owner is based in China, is susceptible to the influence of the Chinese government and posed a national risk. The measure would effectively ban TikTok from operating in the United States unless its owner, ByteDance, sells it by Jan. 19.

Here are some key takeaways:

While the justices across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of both sides, the overall tone and thrust appeared to suggest greater skepticism toward the arguments by lawyers for TikTok and its users that the First Amendment barred Congress from enacting the law.

The questioning opened with two conservative members of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., suggesting that it was not TikTok, an American company, but its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, that was directly affected by the law.

Advertisement

Another conservative, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, focused on the risk that the Chinese government could use information TikTok is gathering on tens of millions of American teenagers and twentysomethings to eventually “develop spies, turn people, blackmail people” when they grow older and go to work for national security agencies or the military.

Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, asked why TikTok could not just create or buy another algorithm rather than using ByteDance’s.

And another liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said she believed the law was less about speech than about association. She suggested that barring TikTok from associating with a Chinese company was akin to barring Americans from associating with foreign terrorist groups for national security reasons. (The Supreme Court has upheld that as constitutional.)

Still, several justices were skeptical about a major part of the government’s justification for the law: the risk that China might “covertly” make TikTok manipulate the content shown to Americans or collect user data to achieve its geopolitical aims.

Both Justice Kagan and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative, stressed that everybody now knows that China is behind TikTok. They appeared interested in whether the government’s interest in preventing “covert” leveraging of the platform by a foreign adversary could be achieved in a less heavy-handed manner, like appending a label warning users of that risk.

Advertisement

Two lawyers argued that the law violates the First Amendment: Noel Francisco, representing both TikTok and ByteDance, and Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok users. Both suggested that concerns about potential manipulation by the Chinese government of the information American users see on the platform were insufficient to justify the law.

Mr. Francisco contended that the government in a free country “has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to keep Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation.” That is targeting the content of speech, which the First Amendment does not permit, he said.

Mr. Fisher asserted that fears that China might use its control over the platform to promote posts sowing doubts about democracy or pushing pro-China and anti-American views were a weaker justification for interfering in free speech than concerns about foreign terrorism.

“The government just doesn’t get to say ‘national security’ and the case is over,” Mr. Fisher said, adding, “It’s not enough to say ‘national security’ — you have to say ‘what is the real harm?’”

The solicitor general, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, argued that Congress had lawful authority to enact the statute and that it did not violate the First Amendment. She said it was important to recognize that the law leaves speech on TikTok unrestricted once the platform is freed from foreign control.

Advertisement

“All of the same speech that’s happening on TikTok could happen post-divestiture,” she said. “The act doesn’t regulate that at all. So it’s not saying you can’t have pro-China speech, you can’t have anti-American speech. It’s not regulating the algorithm.”

She added: “TikTok, if it were able to do so, could use precisely the same algorithm to display the same content by the same users. All the act is doing is trying to surgically remove the ability of a foreign adversary nation to get our data and to be able to exercise control over the platform.”

President-elect Donald J. Trump has asked the Supreme Court to issue an injunction delaying the law from taking effect until after he assumes office on Jan. 20.

Mr. Trump once shared the view that Chinese control of TikTok was an intolerable national security risk, but reversed course around the time he met with a billionaire Republican donor with a stake in its parent company.

If the court does uphold the law, TikTok would effectively be banned in the United States on Jan. 19, Mr. Francisco said. He reiterated a request that the court temporarily pause the law from taking effect to push back that deadline, saying it would “simply buy everybody a little breathing space.” It might be a “different world” for TikTok after Jan. 20, he added.

Advertisement

But there was scant focus by the justices on that idea, suggesting that they did not take it seriously. Mr. Trump’s brief requesting that the court punt the issue past the end of President Biden’s term so he could handle it — signed by his pick to be the next solicitor general, D. John Sauer — was long on rhetoric extolling Mr. Trump, but short on substance.

Continue Reading

Business

'We will not be closing.' Amid the fires, employers and employees walk a fine line between work and safety

Published

on

'We will not be closing.' Amid the fires, employers and employees walk a fine line between work and safety

When Brigitte Tran arrived Wednesday morning at the Rodeo Drive boutique where she works as a sales associate, she was on edge.

Smoke from multiple wildfires raging across Los Angeles County billowed overhead. The luxury shopping corridor usually bustling with tourists appeared a ghost town.

Tran’s co-worker texted their boss to let her know neighboring stores had closed, and described the acrid smoke in the air. But the woman, at home in Orange County, did not seem to grasp their concerns. “We will not be closing unless the mall instructs us to close,” she replied.

Tran, who, fearing professional repercussions, asked that her place of work not be named, grew more anxious as the hours ticked by. Around 3 p.m., she and the two other employees working that day mutinied. They packed up, told the security guard to head home, and locked the doors a few hours before closing time.

Advertisement

As the wildfires have raged across Los Angeles County, choking the air, closing schools and forcing tens of thousands of people to evacuate, employers and employees alike have had to manage a difficult balancing act between work and well being. Some employers responded swiftly to the crisis, shutting down offices and shifting to remote work, providing outdoor workers with masks and other protective equipment, and offering support for employees forced to evacuate. Others have been less adept, clumsy in their communications or wholly unmoved by worker concerns — sparking anger among their ranks as a result.

The fires have underscored the need for companies to have a clear plan in place to respond to emergencies, said Jonathan Porter, a meteorologist at private weather forecaster AccuWeather. The obligation, he said, goes beyond monitoring whether an office is in an evacuation zone. For example, as the current devastation unfolds, businesses should be aware of the “copious amounts of dangerous smoke that’s wafting into the air” and be prepared to provide outdoor workers with quality respirators or move them away from polluted air.

Some employers gave employees flexibility. Snap, the Santa Monica-based creator of the photo messaging app Snapchat, for example, kept its offices open on Wednesday but encouraged employees to work remotely, said a company spokesperson.

Others changed course after fielding criticism.

An announcement by UCLA that the campus would remain open for classes and regular operations on Wednesday drew anger from some instructors and students on social media.

Advertisement

Victor Narro, project director for the UCLA Labor Center and a lecturer on campus, said in a post on X he would ignore UCLA’s mandate and hold an optional class online.

“Students have been up all night panicked about sleeping through evacuation orders, winds still high, branches falling all over Westwood, power outages across city, & our new chancellor (on his 2nd day) thought this should be his first bold call…” wrote Nour Joudah, an assistant professor in UCLA’s Asian American Studies Department, in another X post.

That evening, UCLA changed course as conditions worsened, announcing it would close campus.

On Saturday, UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk released a statement saying classes would be held remotely for at least another week and campus operations would be curtailed. “We ask for continued flexibility and understanding as we all work through these difficult times,” Frenk wrote.

But for many workers, the chaos of the last few dayshas left them feeling like they are fending for themselves.

Advertisement

Tim Hernandez, a driver with Amazon Flex, an on-demand Uber-like program in which people use their own cars to deliver packages, was assigned a route Tuesday along the Pacific Coast Highway toward Malibu, which was rife with closures.

When he questioned whether making the delivery was safe, he said dispatchers at a Amazon facility in Camarillo brushed him off, leaving him to choose between concerns for his safety and worries that his rating in the Flex app would be hurt if he refused to go. He decided to try to make the deliveries, battling gusts of wind that knocked him over at one point. He lost cell signal, however, and was forced to return to the warehouse without completing the vast majority.

And when he arrived for his shift Tuesday, Alfred Muñoz, 43, an Amazon delivery driver who works out of a warehouse in the City of Industry, said he was handed an N95 mask but given little other instruction.

“It was just kind of business as usual,” Muñoz said.

High package counts and the number of stops on his assigned routes this week have made work even more difficult. On Tuesday, with wind gusts whipping debris around making it difficult to see, he had about 180 stops and 290 packages to deliver. On Thursday, the air thick with smoke and ash, he had more than 300 packages.

Advertisement

He woke up Thursday morning with a bloody nose and a sooty black crust in the corners of his eyes.

In response to a request for comment, Montana MacLachlan, an Amazon spokesperson, said the company was “closely monitoring the wildfires across Southern California and adjusting our operations to keep our employees and those delivering for us safe.”

“If a driver arrives at a delivery location and the conditions are not safe to make a delivery, they are not expected to do so and the driver’s performance will not be impacted,” she said.

At the Brentwood location of popular Italian eatery Jon & Vinny’s, staff complained of headaches and sore throats in a text message group chat. An employee, who asked not to be named fearing retaliation at work, said that on Tuesday, staff huddled around an iPad with a fire map pulled up to keep an eye on the expanding evacuation zone. From the front of the restaurant, they could see the glow of the Palisades fire.

The employee said they were frustrated management kept the restaurant open when the perimeter of the mandatory evacuation zone was just two blocks away. On Wednesday, every server scheduled to work called in to say they were not coming, the employee said.

Advertisement

A spokesperson for Joint Venture Restaurant Group, which owns Jon & Vinny’s, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During natural disasters and extreme weather, employers’ choices can sometimes mean life or death, said David Michaels, a professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health and a former assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

He pointed to recent floods from Hurricane Helene that killed several workers at a plastics manufacturer. The tragedy has drawn scrutiny from state investigators, and a wrongful death lawsuit accuses the company of requiring employees to stay on site amid flooding after they requested permission to leave.

“It’s incumbent on employers to ensure the safety of their workers,” Michaels said. “The safety of their employees must take precedence over business concerns.”

Yasha Timenovich, 48, a driver for rideshare app Lyft and food delivery platform DoorDash, is more worried about declining earnings than on-the-job safety. With many restaurants and other businesses closed and would-be customers fleeing the city, he said that rides and deliveries have been slow. Traffic patterns have been strange and unpredictable with families piling into vehicles to flee fires.

Advertisement

Timenovich, who faced an order to evacuate his Hollywood apartment with his fiance and 6-year-old daughter Wednesday night, said he planned to stay with relatives for a few days in San Luis Obispo, where he hopes business will be better.

“I’m going to get out of here because it’s too crazy with these fires,” Timenovich said.

Continue Reading

Business

Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts

Published

on

Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts

Scott Bessent, the billionaire hedge fund manager whom President-elect Donald J. Trump picked to be his Treasury secretary, plans to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and investments in preparation to become the nation’s top economic policymaker.

Those plans were released on Saturday along with the publication of an ethics agreement and financial disclosures that Mr. Bessent submitted ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing next Thursday.

The documents show the extent of the wealth of Mr. Bessent, whose assets and investments appear to be worth in excess of $700 million. Mr. Bessent was formerly the top investor for the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros and has been a major Republican donor and adviser to Mr. Trump.

If confirmed as Treasury secretary, Mr. Bessent, 62, will steer Mr. Trump’s economic agenda of cutting taxes, rolling back regulations and imposing tariffs as he seeks to renegotiate trade deals. He will also play a central role in the Trump administration’s expected embrace of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

Although Mr. Trump won the election by appealing to working-class voters who have been dogged by high prices, he has turned to wealthy Wall Street investors such as Mr. Bessent and Howard Lutnick, a billionaire banker whom he tapped to be commerce secretary, to lead his economic team. Linda McMahon, another billionaire, has been picked as education secretary, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is leading an unofficial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency.

Advertisement

In a letter to the Treasury Department’s ethics office, Mr. Bessent outlined the steps he would take to “avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confirmed for the position of secretary of the Department of Treasury.”

Mr. Bessent said he would shutter Key Square Capital Management, the investment firm that he founded, and resign from his Bessent-Freeman Family Foundation and from Rockefeller University, where he has been chairman of the investment committee.

The financial disclosure form, which provides ranges for the value of his assets, reveals that Mr. Bessent owns as much as $25 million of farmland in North Dakota, which earns an income from soybean and corn production. He also owns a property in the Bahamas that is worth as much as $25 million. Last November, Mr. Bessent put his historic pink mansion in Charleston, S.C., on the market for $22.5 million.

Mr. Bessent is selling several investments that could pose potential conflicts of interest including a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund; an account that trades the renminbi, China’s currency; and his stake in All Seasons, a conservative publisher. He also has a margin loan, or line of credit, with Goldman Sachs of more than $50 million.

As an investor, Mr. Bessent has long wagered on the rising strength of the dollar and has betted against, or “shorted,” the renminbi, according to a person familiar with Mr. Bessent’s strategy who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his portfolio. Mr. Bessent gained notoriety in the 1990s by betting against the British pound and earning his firm, Soros Fund Management, $1 billion. He also made a high-profile bet against the Japanese yen.

Advertisement

Mr. Bessent, who will be overseeing the U.S. Treasury market, holds over $100 million in Treasury bills.

Cabinet officials are required to divest certain holdings and investments to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Although this can be an onerous process, it has some potential tax benefits.

The tax code contains a provision that allows securities to be sold and the capital gains tax on such sales deferred if the full proceeds are used to buy Treasury securities and certain money-market funds. The tax continues to be deferred until the securities or money-market funds are sold.

Even while adhering to the ethics guidelines, questions about conflicts of interest can still emerge.

Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary during his first term, Steven Mnuchin, divested from his Hollywood film production company after joining the administration. However, as he was negotiating a trade deal in 2018 with China — an important market for the U.S. film industry — ethics watchdogs raised questions about whether Mr. Mnuchin had conflicts because he had sold his interest in the company to his wife.

Advertisement

Mr. Bessent was chosen for the Treasury after an internal tussle among Mr. Trump’s aides over the job. Mr. Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s transition team co-chair and the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, made a late pitch to secure the Treasury secretary role for himself before Mr. Trump picked him to be Commerce secretary.

During that fight, which spilled into view, critics of Mr. Bessent circulated documents disparaging his performance as a hedge fund manager.

Mr. Bessent’s most recent hedge fund, Key Square Capital, launched to much fanfare in 2016, garnering $4.5 billion in investor money, including $2 billion from Mr. Soros, but manages much less now. A fund he ran in the early 2000s had a similarly unremarkable performance.

Continue Reading

Trending