I thought the partisan back-and-forth debate over the nation’s energy policy was settled way back in 2008 when Paris Hilton unveiled her bold, groundbreaking “hybrid” energy policy to the nation. But here we are, nearly two decades later, with the same old either-or arguments over oil and gas vs new clean-energy technologies, etc. etc. At the NYT, Matthew Yglesias is jumping into the fray, asking why Dems don’t adopt the pro-fossil fuel policies that liberals in Canada, Mexico, Norway and Australia are embracing, sort of along the hybrid fossil/clean-energy lines that Paris so brilliantly enunciated years ago.
What about our local leaders’ energy policies? Well, Gov. Maura Healy is now caught in a contradictory energy web of her making, having opposed new natural-gas pipelines when she was AG and now seemingly backing off that uber-progressive position today amid voter anger over rising energy prices in Massachusetts. Did we mention Healey is running for re-election next year? Anyway, you can dismiss the recent Mass. Fiscal Alliance and Herald attacks on Healey’s energy policies all you want. But it’s gotten politically serious enough for the state Democratic Party to ride to Healey’s rescue on the issue, as the Herald reports. Dems wouldn’t be doing this if they thought the issue wasn’t sticking. Perceptions matter in politics, even if new pipelines wouldn’t have made much of a difference in energy prices.
Btw: It isn’t just Healey backpedaling on energy policies. Beacon Hill Dems are getting increasingly nervous about their party’s past uber-progressive energy stands. … It’s all about affordability these days.

