Really appreciated this deep dive, David and Daniel! What stands out to me is how much the manager’s amendment reflects serious engagement with the concerns raised about the original bill. The improvements to permit certainty, tribal consultation, transmission planning, and data center cost allocation really are substantive and reflect a desire to improve on the initial legislation. I also appreciated Daniel's points around why the modeling likely misses some of the longer-term benefits of unlocking clean energy deployment, and why the political calculus of waiting for a better deal is really really far from straightforward. None of this makes BAAJA perfect, but it makes a compelling case that this is a meaningful opportunity to remove structural barriers for clean energy and climate progress while laying the groundwork for even more ambitious policies down the road. Thanks for bringing so much nuance and substance to part two of the conversation!
This post has flipped me back to at least neutral on the bill. The baseline permit arguments here are important. The political stuff, at least credible enough to be a draw. I needed to be convinced that this bill doesn't help datacenters. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I'm at least back to genuinely unsure. I'm more or less trusting everyone here that this bill won't lead to a huge spike in FF installation. if it does, well, don't have to say it. I know we need to build a ton of clean energy, but we also can't afford another giant surge in locked in FF, because no one in this country has the balls to turn any of that off.
Great deep dive on the permitting bill, I am glad to see it passed the vote and then saw this article https://www.commondreams.org/news/senate-advances-permitting-reform that states that it was a big give away to big oil. It quotes Sen. Jeff Merkley who came out against the bill. It would be interesting to have him on the pod to hear his concerns and what solutions that he may have instead.
People keep calling this a compromise, but it's hard to tell what Republicans are giving up. Progressive Dems seem to be giving up hard won environmental protections, and indigenous people's are giving up sovereignty. Perhaps it's those that care about the climate and clean air and water the most that tend to stand in the way of building things. Time will tell if this bill helps or harms those without a voice.
In addition to laying out what happened in the manager's amendment and helping to clarify what is in the current bill, I am thoroughly impressed by the level of knowledge and acumen that Daniel brings to this discussion. Not only does he display his policy chops, but the way he seemingly speaks so effortlessly about these technical details and arcana in a huge bill is astonishing to me. A tip of the hat to his prowess conveying this area of Congressional lawmaking to those of us in the general public!
Daniels frame of reference for what the political legislative possibilities are are shaped by his limited historical experience. He cites presidencies and congresses that were narrowly decided as justification for the radical weakening of environmental protections and public transparency. But we have just had a blue Tsunami on the scale of Johnson's 1964 victory. Johnson did not use that political power he won to play it safe, he passed 14 major ground-breaking pieces of legislation spanning civil rights, environment, health care, social safety net, labor protections! He would have done much more had he not allowed himself to be distracted by Viet Nam. Democrats need to show they are passing legislation that helps people and their environment and not oil companies and tech bros. Failure to do so is the biggest threat to the prophesied additional legislative victories Daniel cites.
Johnson defeated Goldwater by a margin of 486 to 52. Johnson won 44 states, compared to Goldwater's six. Voters also gave Johnson the largest majorities in Congress since FDR's election in 1936—a Senate with a 68–32 majority and a House with a 295–140. In short, Johnson was fillinuster proof, and veto proof. Neither of those is true for Dems currently.
You are correct, but this election was the biggest shift since that era. Watergate was as well. My point is if you win political power, you must use it. Voters will become disillusioned if you do not.
One thing on transmission. You've made the point about how so much transmission runs at low capacity factors. Lots of chatter about using "VPPs" to manage that. But on the supply side it seems the best way to better utilize existing transmission is with this "connect and manage" dispatch strategy used in ERCOT. Which also gets wind, solar and batteries through "the queue" faster.
I'm pretty sure "permitting reform" doesn't address that. It's more like FERC-ISO-RTO and some state PUC reform. Sigh. I really don't want to permit and pay for new transmission that is parallel to lines with 20% utilization.
And of course ERCOT is in TX, where solar farms and wind farms are a property owners use-by-right state-wide on ag farmland. That would be permitting reform I could love.
I’ve really enjoyed the two deep dives on BAAJA. What strikes me is that opposition to the bill doesn’t take into account is what happens if the status quo continues for the long term. Opposition also takes a very myopic view of the rest of the world outside of one narrow interest. Truly an example of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Really appreciated this deep dive, David and Daniel! What stands out to me is how much the manager’s amendment reflects serious engagement with the concerns raised about the original bill. The improvements to permit certainty, tribal consultation, transmission planning, and data center cost allocation really are substantive and reflect a desire to improve on the initial legislation. I also appreciated Daniel's points around why the modeling likely misses some of the longer-term benefits of unlocking clean energy deployment, and why the political calculus of waiting for a better deal is really really far from straightforward. None of this makes BAAJA perfect, but it makes a compelling case that this is a meaningful opportunity to remove structural barriers for clean energy and climate progress while laying the groundwork for even more ambitious policies down the road. Thanks for bringing so much nuance and substance to part two of the conversation!
This post has flipped me back to at least neutral on the bill. The baseline permit arguments here are important. The political stuff, at least credible enough to be a draw. I needed to be convinced that this bill doesn't help datacenters. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I'm at least back to genuinely unsure. I'm more or less trusting everyone here that this bill won't lead to a huge spike in FF installation. if it does, well, don't have to say it. I know we need to build a ton of clean energy, but we also can't afford another giant surge in locked in FF, because no one in this country has the balls to turn any of that off.
Great deep dive on the permitting bill, I am glad to see it passed the vote and then saw this article https://www.commondreams.org/news/senate-advances-permitting-reform that states that it was a big give away to big oil. It quotes Sen. Jeff Merkley who came out against the bill. It would be interesting to have him on the pod to hear his concerns and what solutions that he may have instead.
People keep calling this a compromise, but it's hard to tell what Republicans are giving up. Progressive Dems seem to be giving up hard won environmental protections, and indigenous people's are giving up sovereignty. Perhaps it's those that care about the climate and clean air and water the most that tend to stand in the way of building things. Time will tell if this bill helps or harms those without a voice.
In addition to laying out what happened in the manager's amendment and helping to clarify what is in the current bill, I am thoroughly impressed by the level of knowledge and acumen that Daniel brings to this discussion. Not only does he display his policy chops, but the way he seemingly speaks so effortlessly about these technical details and arcana in a huge bill is astonishing to me. A tip of the hat to his prowess conveying this area of Congressional lawmaking to those of us in the general public!
Daniels frame of reference for what the political legislative possibilities are are shaped by his limited historical experience. He cites presidencies and congresses that were narrowly decided as justification for the radical weakening of environmental protections and public transparency. But we have just had a blue Tsunami on the scale of Johnson's 1964 victory. Johnson did not use that political power he won to play it safe, he passed 14 major ground-breaking pieces of legislation spanning civil rights, environment, health care, social safety net, labor protections! He would have done much more had he not allowed himself to be distracted by Viet Nam. Democrats need to show they are passing legislation that helps people and their environment and not oil companies and tech bros. Failure to do so is the biggest threat to the prophesied additional legislative victories Daniel cites.
Johnson defeated Goldwater by a margin of 486 to 52. Johnson won 44 states, compared to Goldwater's six. Voters also gave Johnson the largest majorities in Congress since FDR's election in 1936—a Senate with a 68–32 majority and a House with a 295–140. In short, Johnson was fillinuster proof, and veto proof. Neither of those is true for Dems currently.
You are correct, but this election was the biggest shift since that era. Watergate was as well. My point is if you win political power, you must use it. Voters will become disillusioned if you do not.
OK, I admit I couldn't listen to much.
One thing on transmission. You've made the point about how so much transmission runs at low capacity factors. Lots of chatter about using "VPPs" to manage that. But on the supply side it seems the best way to better utilize existing transmission is with this "connect and manage" dispatch strategy used in ERCOT. Which also gets wind, solar and batteries through "the queue" faster.
I'm pretty sure "permitting reform" doesn't address that. It's more like FERC-ISO-RTO and some state PUC reform. Sigh. I really don't want to permit and pay for new transmission that is parallel to lines with 20% utilization.
And of course ERCOT is in TX, where solar farms and wind farms are a property owners use-by-right state-wide on ag farmland. That would be permitting reform I could love.
I’ve really enjoyed the two deep dives on BAAJA. What strikes me is that opposition to the bill doesn’t take into account is what happens if the status quo continues for the long term. Opposition also takes a very myopic view of the rest of the world outside of one narrow interest. Truly an example of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.