10 August 20
We can’t provide service to a readership of this size without a budget. From this group we get the highest demand and the least assistance.
We have to move you. We have done it with readers for nearly 2 decades but, not this group.
Very unfortunate all ways round.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
10 August 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Seriously. White House Asked if Trump Could Be Added to Mount Rushmore
Peter Wade, Rolling Stone
Wade writes: "In 2019, White House aides reached out to the governor of South Dakota and asked about the process of adding additional presidents to Mount Rushmore, a Republican official familiar with the conversation told the New York Times."
READ MORE
Department of Homeland Security officers. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/Getty)
ACLU Director Anthony D. Romero | Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security. Its Tactics Are Fearsome
Anthony D. Romero, USA Today
Romero writes: "In recent weeks, the actions of federal agents have shown us all that the Department of Homeland Security isn't capable of acting consistently with the Constitution, and should no longer exist in its current state."
The very premise of a 'homeland security' bureaucracy is chilling. It's a loaded weapon that sits on the proverbial coffee table in the Oval Office.
s an organization dedicated to civil liberties, civil rights and the rule of law, we at the American Civil Liberties Union believe that the government has both the authority and responsibility to enforce its laws — laws that promote justice, equality and the general welfare. In recent weeks, the actions of federal agents have shown us all that the Department of Homeland Security isn’t capable of acting consistently with the Constitution, and should no longer exist in its current state. The scenes unfolding in Portland, Oregon, and elsewhere are a reminder of the red flags many have raised about DHS throughout its history: that its powers are too great, and that it lacks the oversight and management to be effective. We can preserve our freedoms and our security better by dismantling DHS and beginning anew.
People across the political spectrum watched in disbelief as federal agents were deployed to American cities — despite objections by mayors and governors — to escalate violence against protesters. Paramilitary forces abducted people exercising their constitutional rights in Portland, placed them in unmarked vehicles and took them to undisclosed locations.
The tactics deployed by DHS agents are unlawful and shocking, but they are no surprise: Back in 2002, we at the ACLU called the initial blueprints for the behemoth bureaucracy “constitutionally bankrupt.”
Dire warnings become DHS reality
And for nearly 20 years, we have seen many of our warnings about DHS become tragic realities. We objected to a knee-jerk plan that failed to respond to the intelligence law enforcement failures that contributed to the tragedy of 9/11. We believed that DHS would use the veil of “security” to target communities of color and immigrants, and urged greater civil liberties oversight.
Now, of course, we know that DHS has surveilled Black Lives Matter activist circles; descended into mosques and community centers to infiltrate Muslim communities; shot and killed foreign nationals across the border; and monitored protests using fusion center intelligence sharing hubs.
DHS is also responsible for separating children from their parents at our borders — a tragedy we continue to litigate.
The short history of DHS has been filled with violence, the stoking of fear and a lack of oversight. The department’s horrific tactics are being used in cities across the country.
The fearsome tactics of DHS are well known to the communities against whom they are used. Its dysfunction is one of the Beltway’s worst kept secrets. DHS’s overbroad mandate and unchecked powers have turned it into a tinderbox, now ignited by a president willing to trample on the constitutional limits of presidential powers. While calls for reform have been loud and clear for years, new signals are now coming from the highest levels of the DHS diaspora.
Tom Ridge, the first secretary of Homeland Security, said recently that DHS “wasn’t designed to become the president’s personal militia.”
Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asserted that President Donald Trump’s deployment of agents to U.S. cities is “damaging to the department.”
And Richard Clarke, who served on the National Security Council for Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, has called for dismantling DHS.
Nearly 20 years of abuse, waste and corruption demonstrate the failure of the DHS experiment. Joining 22 agencies with conflicting missions — including border security, disaster relief and immigration enforcement, among others. Many insiders knew DHS to be an ineffective superagency, but President Trump has converted DHS into our government’s most notable badge of shame.
Break DHS into parts
Dismantling DHS, breaking it apart into various federal agencies, and shrinking its allocation of federal dollars will allow for more effective oversight, accountability and public transparency. The spun-off agencies will have clearer missions and more limited functions. A behemoth of a federal agency too easily hides its problems and failings. Congressional oversight can be more readily divided among various congressional committees. Smaller agencies with clearer mandates will make the Cabinet-level jobs more attractive to top-notch professionals.
There is also the added benefit that breaking up DHS will provide a larger number of Cabinet posts to reflect our country’s diversity.
Most important, the very premise of a “homeland security” bureaucracy is chilling and ought to be questioned. Defense of the “homeland” became a rallying cry for hawks and some doves in the aftermath of 9/11, but this frame betrays the broader values that ought to infuse our democracy. Why, for example, is an agency responsible for citizenship and immigration under a threat-oriented department? Immigrants are not a threat to the “homeland.”
Years of chaos and impunity make a clear case for the dismantling of DHS. President Trump’s use of DHS as his personal militia should be enough to start a meaningful bipartisan debate about DHS’ future. If there is one thing we have learned from the authoritarianism on display in Portland, it’s that we have to remove the loaded weapon that sits on the proverbial coffee table in the Oval Office.
Donald Trump should not be allowed to provide a precedent for future presidents with authoritarian tendencies to repeat the injustices we are enduring. Dismantling DHS into its component parts would restore greater balance to our system of checks and balances. And rather than tolerating misinterpretation of “homeland security,” we need our government to advance a “more perfect union.”
A USPS mail carrier during the COVID-19 pandemic. (photo: Paul Sancya/AP)
Is Trump Sabotaging US Postal Service Ahead of Election as Part of His Attack on Mail-In Voting?
Democracy Now!
Excerpt: "Democratic lawmakers say the Trump administration is sabotaging the United States Postal Service ahead of the November election, when a record number of votes are expected to be cast by mail."
READ MORE
Stuffed animals inside of the Trinity Mission Center in Forest, Mississippi, on August 9, 2019. In the wake of large scale raids by ICE agents on food processing facilities across Mississippi, the center became a hub for those looking for help contacting their loved ones. (photo: CNN)
Swept Up in Historic Mississippi ICE Raids a Year Ago, These Undocumented Workers Are Now 'Essential'
Ray Sanchez, CNN
Sanchez writes: "One year after he was swept up in the United States' largest single-state immigration crackdown, a 42-year-old undocumented worker from Guatemala is grateful."
EXCERPT:
For the first time in his 18 years in the US, he's been able to spend time with his five children in Carthage -- a small town in central Mississippi.
And he was able to attend his daughter's 15th birthday quinceañera, sharing the traditional first dance with her -- with a government-issued GPS monitor strapped to his ankle.
"It's really the first time in all the years I've been here that I've been ... at home," said the immigrant worker, who requested anonymity because he doesn't want to risk being separated from his family. "When we come to this country all we do is work. Family is not always the first priority."
In tiny Mississippi towns traumatized by the string of raids at poultry processing plants, immigrants and activists held vigils this weekend to remember that August 2019 summer day when hundreds of armed federal agents rounded up 680 undocumented workers.
In communities hit hard by the pandemic, they wore masks and stood apart from each other. The locations were announced last minute and only within a close-knit network, for fear of more detentions by agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Many appeared online, especially undocumented workers who were deported or who self-deported after the raids. Benigno, who had been a longtime resident of Morton, Mississippi, joined the vigil via a livestream from the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. He was surrounded by his US-born, English-speaking children.
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the subcommittee investigating the government's purchase of Philips ventilators. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
The White House Paid Up to $500 Million Too Much for Ventilators, Congressional Investigators Say
Patricia Callahan and Sebastian Rotella, ProPublica
Excerpt: "A House panel says 'gullible' White House negotiators overpaid for Phillips ventilators, and it has asked the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to investigate evidence of fraud in the deal.
iting “evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse,” a congressional subcommittee investigating the federal government’s purchase of $646.7 million worth of Philips ventilators has asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to launch its own investigation of the deal.
The House subcommittee launched its review after ProPublica stories in March and April showed how a U.S. subsidiary of Royal Philips N.V. received millions in federal tax dollars years ago to develop a low-cost ventilator for pandemics but didn’t deliver it. Instead, as the coronavirus began spreading around the globe and U.S. hospitals were desperate for more, Philips was selling commercial versions of the government-funded ventilator overseas from its Pennsylvania factory. Then in April, despite having not fulfilled the initial contract, the Dutch company struck a much more lucrative deal to sell the government 43,000 ventilators for four times the price.
Under this new deal, ventilators that the Obama administration had agreed to buy for $3,280 each suddenly cost $15,000. When the deal was announced in April, neither HHS nor Philips would say how the more expensive ventilators differed from the cheaper ones.
It turns out that they were “functionally identical,” according to investigators with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, and the “waste of taxpayer funds” may have reached $500 million.
The investigators reviewed thousands of pages of emails and other records obtained from Philips and concluded that “inept contract management and incompetent negotiating by the Trump Administration denied the country the ventilators it needed.” And the subcommittee’s report, which it shared with the inspector general’s office, named names: Peter Navarro, President Donald Trump’s director of trade and manufacturing policy, was the administration’s point man on the deal. In addition, Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and HHS Secretary Alex Azar participated in calls with Philips’ executives.
In a letter to the inspector general, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the subcommittee, wrote: “The Subcommittee requests that you immediately open an investigation into this apparent waste of taxpayer funds, how it was able to happen unchecked, and how to prevent it in the future. Moreover, the Subcommittee requests that your office’s review include an assessment of the reasonableness of the price of the contract and the amount of excess profits received.”
He attached the subcommittee’s 49-page report of its investigative findings.
In a written statement, Philips said that it has been transparent about its ramp-up plans, pricing and allocation policies, and that it cooperated with the subcommittee. “We do not recognize the conclusions in the subcommittee’s report, and we believe that not all the information that we provided has been reflected in the report,” Philips CEO Frans van Houten said. “I would like to make clear that at no occasion has Philips raised prices to benefit from the crisis situation.”
White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere called the House investigators’ report “a stunt that is only meant to politicize the coronavirus.”
“Because of the president’s leadership, the United States leads the world in the production and acquisition of ventilators,” Deere said. “No American who needed a ventilator was denied one, and no American who needs a ventilator in the future will be denied one. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for this misleading and inaccurate report.”
An HHS spokesperson said the department moved with “deliberate and determined speed” and followed federal contracting rules in reaching the deal. She noted that some of the Philips ventilators are already being used to treat patients with COVID-19.
The federal government’s quest for a cheap, durable ventilator that could be stockpiled for emergencies began a decade ago during the Obama administration. The first deal fell apart after a small California ventilator manufacturer was bought by a much larger competitor, which dropped the project. Philips in 2014 struck a $13.8 million deal with HHS’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority to develop a low-cost, portable ventilator that would be easy to use by people with limited medical training. (In their report, the congressional investigators wrote that Philips later was granted an additional $547,000 to develop the ventilator.) The original deal included an option to purchase 10,000 of the ventilators for $3,280 each with delivery by June 2019.
HHS under the Obama administration granted one extension, and then the Trump administration allowed several more. When Philips finally won Food and Drug Administration clearance for the stockpile ventilator in July 2019, it also got the green light to sell a commercial version, which the company sold at far higher prices. The government didn’t exercise the option to buy the stockpile ventilators until September 2019. Under the timeline in the original contract, there would have been four waves of deliveries starting in June 2020 and ending in June 2021 and the government would have the power to increase its order in times of need, the House investigators wrote in their report.
Among the most surprising findings of the investigation was an email communication between the company and the government on the day the U.S. reported its first coronavirus case. On Jan. 21, a Philips manager sent a news story about that case to an HHS contracting officer and asked “how we could help out or if you may expect a need to accelerate any shipments.” Yet nobody from the federal government responded to Philips for six weeks, the investigators found.
On March 4, the HHS contracting officer told Philips managers in an email that Azar’s office had directed him to “expedite production of the ventilators.” Philips responded the same day suggesting a contract modification “to allow for the earlier shipments.”
Rather than speed up delivery, though, the modification Philips suggested gave the company until September 2022 to deliver any of the stockpile ventilators. Still, HHS signed off on the deal, the investigators found.
“Philips appears to have duped the Administration into thinking that this amendment, which permits a lengthy delay, was necessary for it to expedite production,” the congressional investigators wrote.
That same month, as the administration sought to cut a new deal, a Philips executive shared with Azar the slide deck he planned to present to Navarro. In the presentation, Philips described the government-funded stockpile ventilator design as “the best solution to confront exactly the pandemic we are facing.”
However, Philips soon steered Navarro and his colleagues to a more expensive option, the $15,000 Trilogy EV300, saying in one email to an associate director in Navarro’s office that this hospital ventilator had “more clinician friendly screens.”
Yet, the House investigators found the screens of the pricier model were identical to the less-expensive stockpile version. “The Administration’s willingness to spend hundreds of millions of extra dollars for non-existent ‘more clinician-friendly screens’ constitutes waste,” they wrote.
The White House negotiators were “gullible,” the investigators wrote, “and conceded to Philips on all significant matters, including price.” The contract called for Philips to make monthly deliveries between April and December 2020 with more than half arriving in the final three months.
Philips spokesman Steve Klink on March 28 told ProPublica that the company had only made the stockpile version of the ventilator in small batches and didn’t want to ramp up production on a model it had never mass produced. Rather, he said, the company wanted to “stick with what we have and ramp up and not lose time because we cannot afford to lose time.” HHS echoed that sentiment in a written statement at that time, saying the agency was purchasing “what was immediately available.”
But the congressional investigators wrote that the records Philips turned over showed that was false. Philips did not have a long track record making the $15,000 Trilogy EV300; the company did not start making that version until March, the month the federal negotiators agreed to buy them. And the White House knew this, the investigators wrote.
“In a March 18, 2020 email to the White House, Philips explained that the Trilogy EV300 was a new product being introduced and that it would take time to build up inventory,” they wrote. “By selecting the $15,000 model, the Administration demonstrated that it either failed the most basic duty of reading what Philips sent it or that it was not concerned about overpaying.”
Navarro and his colleagues never tried to lower the $645 million price and agreed to pay an additional $1.7 million for circuits and filters, the investigators found.
In its statement, Philips said the list price of the EV300 ventilator, stand and accessories that HHS selected is “over $21,000,” so the final price does reflect a discount “while taking into account part of the higher costs for the expedited delivery schedule.”
The records Philips turned over to the congressional subcommittee showed that before May 27, Philips sold 5,339 other Trilogy EV300 ventilators in the U.S. No buyer paid more than HHS did. One Missouri purchaser bought a single ventilator for $9,327, records show.
“It would stand to reason that a purchaser of 43,000 units would be able to negotiate a better deal than a purchaser of a single unit,” the House investigators wrote.
The ranking Republicans on the House committee and subcommittee said they disagreed with the findings of the investigation. In a prepared statement, James Comer of Kentucky, who sits on the House committee, and Michael Cloud of Texas, who sits on the subcommittee, accused the congressional investigators of failing to take “the most basic investigative steps to ensure they get the facts right.”
“Democrats read a few documents produced by the cooperating company and made a bundle of assumptions,” they wrote. “They received no briefings, conducted no transcribed interviews or depositions, and did not try to engage with the Administration to understand their side of the story.”
Krishnamoorthi, the subcommittee chairman, sent his letter and the investigators’ report to Christi Grimm, who remains in charge of the HHS Office of Inspector General, though President Donald Trump has sought to replace her after her office in April wrote about shortages of testing supplies and protective equipment at hospitals.
Protests have erupted in Lebanon following Tuesday's blast in Beirut's port area. (photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters)
ALSO SEE: Lebanon's Entire Cabinet Resigns After Massive Protests
Lebanon's Prime Minister Announces He Will Resign Amid Large Protests Following Last Week's Beirut Blast
Louisa Loveluck and Suzan Haidamous, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "Lebanon's prime minister on Monday announced his intention to resign amid public fury over official negligence that led to an explosion so massive that it devastated swaths of the capital."
READ MORE
Fossil fuel emissions. (photo: DWalker44/Getty Images)
Does Your State Want to Cut Carbon Emissions? These Old Laws Could Be Standing in the Way.
Emily Pontecorvo, Grist
Pontecorvo writes: "Last fall, the town of Brookline, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston, tried to solve a climate change problem that's been put on the back burner in many state capitals: reducing emissions from fossil fuels burned in buildings."
The fuels burned in boilers and furnaces, hot water heaters, and stoves account for nearly a third of the commonwealth’s greenhouse gas footprint. Following the lead of many cities in California, Brookline’s government voted overwhelmingly to pass a law restricting gas hookups in new construction. With some exceptions, the bill would force the installation of electric appliances that produce zero direct emissions.
While Brookline was the first community on the East Coast to try and limit gas systems in new buildings, similar plans were also being hatched in neighboring Cambridge and Newton, and earlier this year, New York City mayor Bill De Blasio expressed interest in a building gas ban. But all new bylaws in Massachusetts have to be reviewed by state attorney general Maura Healey before they can be enacted. In late July, Healey killed Brookline’s bill, finding that it violated state law.
The decision points to an issue that Massachusetts, New York, and California — which, unlike most states, have legally binding targets to reduce their carbon emissions to net-zero — have yet to fully grapple with: outdated policies that favor fossil fuels.
Healey is known to be an advocate for climate action, and she wrote in her decision that she agrees with Brookline’s objective. Nevertheless, she found that Massachusetts towns don’t have the authority to create their own building permitting rules or to control the piping installed in buildings. The bylaw also would have stepped on the toes of the Department of Public Utilities, the state agency that regulates the sale and distribution of natural gas and has a legal duty to ensure customers receive “uniform service” from utilities.
Under Massachusetts’ utility laws, if a potential customer requests gas service, the utility that serves their area must provide it. This common provision in public service law, often referred to as a utility’s “duty to serve” or “obligation to serve,” is meant to guarantee that people have equal access to reliable gas service. Another interpretation might be that it gives citizens the legal right to burn gas in their homes. And for environmental advocates looking to speed up the transition to emissions-free buildings, it’s becoming an obstacle.
“Now that we want to phase out certain kinds of energy service, like natural gas and other fossil fuels — these provisions are going to need to be revisited,” said Amy Turner, an environmental lawyer and fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Turner said that gas companies can “subvert the intention” of these laws to push for increased fossil fuel infrastructure.
That’s already happening in New York, where the “duty to serve” provision is written in a way that seems to promote gas as a way of life. It says that gas is “necessary for the preservation of the health and general welfare and is in the public interest.”
New York utilities have cited their “obligation to serve” to defend spending millions on expansions to the gas system at a time when other state policies are incentivizing customers to reduce consumption or get off gas altogether. In the long term, as the pool of gas customers grows smaller, these investments could lead to exponentially higher rates for the customers who remain, or never be paid off at all.
Earlier this year, Con Edison, a New York electric and gas utility, successfully exploited the state’s “duty to serve” provision when it asked state regulators for permission to raise customers’ rates. Con Ed wanted the rate hike in order to, among other things, spend over $350 million to build new transmission pipelines, replace smaller pipes with larger ones, and extend the life of a liquefied natural gas plant. Environmental advocates from the Pace Energy and Climate Center and the Sane Energy Project argued to regulators that the company did not sufficiently justify why these projects were necessary, identify alternatives, or evaluate whether the investments were consistent with the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), New York’s landmark climate law.
In defending its investments, Con Edison argued that these projects were needed to meet gas demand, and that because the state had not amended or eliminated “the Company’s obligation to serve,” they were “just and reasonable.”
The New York Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates utilities and must approve their requests to raise rates, agreed. In its decision, it wrote that despite the passage of the CLCPA, “the Company’s obligation to provide service has not changed.”
“Existing law has evolved over a century of fossil fuel use and the development of existing infrastructure,” said Justin Gundlach, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, a nonpartisan think tank. “There is a lot of work to be done identifying where the CLCPA and existing law need to either be amended or reinterpreted.”
The “obligation to serve” isn’t the only part of the law in New York that’s feeding into gas expansion. There’s also the “100-foot rule,” which requires utilities to hook up new customers who live within 100 feet of a gas main for free, a subtle incentive for new building owners to choose gas. The cost incurred by the utility is subsidized by its existing customers. “This subsidy distorts the market and creates an unlevel playing field that discourages consumers from properly considering other heating and cooling alternatives,” wrote NY-Geo, a trade association that represents the geothermal heat pump industry, an electric competitor to gas heating, in a recent filing to the PSC.
California has a similar regulation that allows developers to get a discount on the cost of hooking up to the gas system based on how many new gas appliances they plan to install. “Why is that still happening?” asked Matt Vespa, a senior attorney at Earthjustice. “Those [costs] should wholly be borne by the developer. That’s a current rule that we think needs to be revised immediately.” According to Vespa, the California Public Utilities Commission has the power to change the regulation without new legislation.
California also has a law on the books called the Natural Gas Act, which requires the state’s energy planning agency to issue a report every four years that identifies “strategies to maximize the benefits” of natural gas. That rule is the basis for a lawsuit recently filed by Southern California Gas Co., the state’s largest gas utility, accusing the agency of minimizing gas in its most recent write-up.
Michael Colvin, the director of California energy policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Grist that the Natural Gas Act is just a procedural rule that requires the state to issue a report, and he didn’t think the suit held water. But he said there will need to be additional legislative action to reconcile California’s decarbonization goals and its buildings, and cleaning up that bit of legislation might be part of it.
“Obligation to serve” laws aren’t the same in every state, and Turner said that it’s worth looking at the way they are written when thinking about whether or not they’ll need to be amended. California’s provision orders utilities to provide “efficient, just, and reasonable service.” “You could argue that this is just saying that public utilities have to make sure that people have adequate energy service, but doesn’t necessarily say that you have to keep giving them gas,” Turner said.
And because California gives more authority to local governments than, say, Massachusetts does, the other preemptions that came up for Brookline’s bylaw, like the ability to create local building codes, have not been raised in the California cities that have passed restrictions on gas in new buildings. But according to Colvin, the state will still need new laws or regulations to address the myriad challenges of transitioning away from gas, like avoiding stranded assets and ensuring rates remain affordable.
Earlier this year, regulators in California and New York opened up new “gas planning” proceedings to study these questions, and the attorney general’s office in Massachusetts is urging its regulators to do the same. These proceedings offer a potential space to tackle some of the tensions between existing laws and climate laws.
Gundlach said that in New York, the issues around “obligation to serve” could be addressed by changing public service law, but they also might be fixed through regulatory changes, or on an ad-hoc basis in rate cases. “Those three are not mutually exclusive,” he said.
Environmental groups and other organizations are already pushing for regulatory reforms. In New York, the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted testimony to PSC asking whether the obligation to serve could be generalized to require utilities to provide heating and hot water, rather than gas. More than 50 organizations and businesses signed a letter demanding that the PSC find out how much the 100-foot rule costs customers. Pace submitted a new framework that the commission could adopt to strategically reduce the demand for gas, including changing the gas service application so that developers have to “adopt alternatives to gas wherever feasible.”
In Massachusetts, state legislators are testing out a different fix that would allow Brookline to reinstate its gas restriction. State representatives Tommy Vitolo and Kay Khan are working on a bill that would require the Board of Building Regulations and Standards, the agency that oversees the state building code, to create a new “Clean Heating Code” that towns could adopt. This optional code would require that all new construction and major renovations utilize electricity or fossil fuel–free technology for heating and hot water. As a state-level code, it would be on equal footing with public service law and could potentially override “duty to serve” arguments. Vitolo said the state created a similar optional building code a decade ago with stricter energy efficiency requirements, and communities representing more than 75 percent of the population have since adopted it.
Vitolo lives in Brookline and helped put together the town’s bill to limit gas in new buildings. He said the bill wasn’t going to eliminate the problem of building emissions, but it was a first step. “When you’re in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging,” he said. “The most expensive time to change your heating system is after it’s already been installed. The cheapest time to change your heating system is before you even start designing it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.