Reps. Sean Casten and Mike Levin have put together what amounts to the Democratic coalition's consensus position on clean energy permitting. It would boost transmission but also (critics say) empower community energy opponents. I dig into it with them.
Clean energy is fine and dandy, but what about affordability? Prices have become unaffordable to many folks because the legislators in most states have succumbed to the "alternative supplier" lobbyists and allowed these scammers to exist. "Alternative suppliers" don't "supply" any energy at all. They are simply trading firms that aggregate end users, use them as no-lose trading vehicles, jack up prices, and are a blight upon the land. Once I see them banned, I'll take ideas about clean energy more seriously.
Love the pod. Listen every week. Nothing delights me more than donning my running shoes and heading out the door with a new Volts in my ears. Just one thing I can't not raise, though. Not to nit-pick, but NEPA is the National Environmental POLICY (not protection) Act. Calling it the National Environmental Protection Act is a common mistake that belies a common misunderstanding of what NEPA "does." It is a heavily procedural law. It's not about "protection," it is about disclosure of facts. Whether decisionmakers use that information for purposes of protection is up to them. NEPA itself just gives us the procedural requirements around development of the record that informs decision-making.
The more I think about this episode, the more frustrated I become. I appreciate that at least we're acknowledging that the lengthy delays in permitting are imposing a cost. But it seems like people are under the mistaken impression that if we just fund better studies and more outreach, we'll be able to reach consensus.
There are a ton of participants in these processes for whom the _goal_ is that the project not happen. Possibly they don't even admit _to themselves_ that's the goal, but it's the practical outcome of their behavior. They like the status quo, or at least they are scared of the uncertainty of allowing a change. Maybe they think more clean energy is good in abstract, but they'd like it to happen somewhere farther away from them -- there's a reason we have the term "Not In My Back Yard".
No matter how much you study the issue and no matter how hard you try to reach consensus, these people will _always_ find new things to nitpick, because ultimately, drawing out the process until the project dies is the point. If your goal is consensus, then you are in-advance granting a Heckler's Veto, and ther will _always_ be a heckler.
Really appreciate both Reps pushing back on the NIMBYism talking point that too often comes from people who do a lot of posting and not a lot of energy deployment.
Clean energy is fine and dandy, but what about affordability? Prices have become unaffordable to many folks because the legislators in most states have succumbed to the "alternative supplier" lobbyists and allowed these scammers to exist. "Alternative suppliers" don't "supply" any energy at all. They are simply trading firms that aggregate end users, use them as no-lose trading vehicles, jack up prices, and are a blight upon the land. Once I see them banned, I'll take ideas about clean energy more seriously.
Love the pod. Listen every week. Nothing delights me more than donning my running shoes and heading out the door with a new Volts in my ears. Just one thing I can't not raise, though. Not to nit-pick, but NEPA is the National Environmental POLICY (not protection) Act. Calling it the National Environmental Protection Act is a common mistake that belies a common misunderstanding of what NEPA "does." It is a heavily procedural law. It's not about "protection," it is about disclosure of facts. Whether decisionmakers use that information for purposes of protection is up to them. NEPA itself just gives us the procedural requirements around development of the record that informs decision-making.
I learned a lot from that and really appreciate the vision of the two Congress reps.
"Transmission, transmission," as Tevye said
Time to celebrate our aspirations.
The more I think about this episode, the more frustrated I become. I appreciate that at least we're acknowledging that the lengthy delays in permitting are imposing a cost. But it seems like people are under the mistaken impression that if we just fund better studies and more outreach, we'll be able to reach consensus.
There are a ton of participants in these processes for whom the _goal_ is that the project not happen. Possibly they don't even admit _to themselves_ that's the goal, but it's the practical outcome of their behavior. They like the status quo, or at least they are scared of the uncertainty of allowing a change. Maybe they think more clean energy is good in abstract, but they'd like it to happen somewhere farther away from them -- there's a reason we have the term "Not In My Back Yard".
No matter how much you study the issue and no matter how hard you try to reach consensus, these people will _always_ find new things to nitpick, because ultimately, drawing out the process until the project dies is the point. If your goal is consensus, then you are in-advance granting a Heckler's Veto, and ther will _always_ be a heckler.
Really appreciate both Reps pushing back on the NIMBYism talking point that too often comes from people who do a lot of posting and not a lot of energy deployment.
Such an important topic and progress made. Thank you for sharing it with us!