I think you are misreading ambition as deception. We need visionaries like AOC to set goals and point our economy in a sustainable direction. The plan will evolve and change as we move forward. No reason to think small about the environment, especially when lives depend on it.
This is a cop-out. While I do not agree with some of the more hyperbolic tactics of the climate movement, I do fundamentally agree with them this is a serious problem that we should really do something about. Climate change is very real and dangerous.
A real problem of a titanic scope and scale requires real, carefully-measured solutions. The last thing we need is an ill-conceived "aspiration" with little practical relevance and no real plan or policy underneath it towards addressing the real problem.
Plenty of people have put serious thought into this. Mark Jacobson at Stanford, for instance, has a plan for transitioning to 0% carbon by 2050, here...
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
I might not agree with Dr. Jacobson on every particular of the program, but at least there is a real plan there that deals with some of the limitations of our current technologies and the engineering and planning fundamentals of our economy and energy sector.
Instead, we get a vague, squishy, impossible proposal -- no wait, it is an "aspiration." We are way past the stage of needing aspirations at this point. Making the opening salvo and focal point of the policy conversation something that is impossible, easily mocked by its opponents, and easy to dislike and dismiss even by moderates very sympathetic to its goals, is counterproductive. Be as serious as the problem; an impossible proposal undermines the issue.
I would also keep my eye on the issue -- make your climate proposal your climate proposal. Do not append to it various "free XYZ" proposals that make it look like a bait-and-switch for the command economy wanted by the far-left long before climate change. Engels or Friedman, climate change is real. Eye on the ball. Do not make this about capitalism versus socialism.
Congress' job is to legislate, not declare dubious "national aspirations." Congress' job is to make law, set policy, and set priorities through the budget. We need doing, not wishing, and we need it from somebody ready to serious tackle the problem, not Tweet at it.
Sick burns and aspirations are not solutions to real problems.
Is demand for electricity highest in the summer and lowest in the winter because we cool our spaces with electricity while we heat our spaces with gas? Perhaps getting our heat from electricity could take better advantage of the increased wind performance during the winter.
Side note...purchased a house last year with solar panels included (already paid off). Took a little while to get the green light to sell back to the grid, but once that happened (back in October), I haven't had to pay a bill since, all while building enough credit to probably cover most of the hotter months (June, July, and August) when the AC earns its keep. It's awesome. As long as I live in the south, I don't think I'll be in a home without solar panels.
There are two reasons electricity demand is higher during the summer --
(1.) Air conditioning. As you speculated, we cool our homes with electricity and generally heat them with natural gas or fuel oil, so you need more power in the summer. If we were to transition more and more to electric heat pumps for winter heating, then load would smooth out throughout the year (though not be reduced because, obviously, you still need the AC in the summer). The exact size and scope of that would depend pretty heavily on the region of the country, though. It would not have much of a smoothing effect in Georgia or Florida, which are always going to be about that AC, but it would help in New England or Minnesota.
(2.) The economy is larger and more active in the summer than in the winter. This is why the BEA and BLS have to put large seasonal adjustments on the GDP and jobs numbers because, otherwise, every winter would look like a recession and every summer would look like a boom period. The summer has more economic activity because people travel more, there are more construction projects active, and the agricultural sector is certainly more active during the summer, and people just tend to "hunker down" during the winter. They go out to eat less, they go to fewer movies, all of that. So you are always going to have more load in the summer from the natural and normal seasonality of economic activities like these.
