I don't think we've ever spoken, but I know some of his former co-workers well and have confidence in his legal expertise from those connections. His post is what caused me to look into section 1402 of BAAJA in the first place.

** confidently, sorry, migraine

Okay I’ll take a look at that. We had a good conversation but unfortunately she didn’t follow up to compare notes about likely effects.

Again not a “gotcha” point or anything like that. Having gone deep on some of Title IV I am very concerned about its effects, separate from the good things elsewhere in the bill. I would encourage others to give Title IV a deeper dive and plan to write some more on that.

I didn’t see any analysis of Title IV in your summary or in any of the people you cited, including my friend Jane Flegal; my impression is that people declaring a view about the net benefits of the bill have not grappled in detail with Title IV.

I was actually thinking of your work as a great example — there’s no one I trust more for insights on energy transition trends and patterns, particularly for renewables, but the specific question for me is whether smart views take account of Title IV of the bill.

To be clear I am not arguing that the absence of evidence proves a specific point, but rather to question how confidentially we can establish claims like “this will be better on balance for renewables relative to fossil fuels” at this time.

Put another way, I am not aware of any models that would address these dynamics without an explicit, intentional effort to introduce them. Am I missing anything?

Epistemic humility is key here. I have not seen any analytics confront the provisions of Title IV of the bill (the parts that lock in substantive and procedural permitting rights), which on their face will at least moderately preference fossil fuels. Would love to see any material that does.

Anyway I just had to put my cat down so if for no reason other reason please everyone try to be good to one another for a bit.

Which is why I’d emphasize trying to be kinder and in my statement above called out the ad hominem attacks on proponents in the very same breath as I pushed back on you.

I am not a DC insider and won’t pretend to have some secret ability to read the tea leaves on what is or isn’t possible, or to what extent taking the filibuster as given is the right way to make big decisions as we contemplate the road ahead.

On the substance, I will add that several insiders have suggested to me that a “take it or leave it” outlook isn’t the only possibility here and in any case I think it’s essential to better understand the consequences of action and inaction. Others may disagree, that’s life.

I do think you have oversimplified a bit but I am not arguing the merits here, just reacting as friends turn on one another unnecessarily. Doing my best to uphold some dignity here for all in the not-fascist camp and remain open to critiques of when I fall short on that count.

Friend, I will try to take my own advice here more often, but in general it is good to avoid being divisive where unnecessary. The suggestion that opponents of this bill are acting in bad fair is just as ad hominem as claims that proponents are.

Dave, there is about as much rigor in that claim as there is wisdom in attacking the personal motivations of the Dem senators who negotiated the bill.

Plus that looks like a nice fall day outside, no?

The Senate will take up permitting reform in early November, so it's time to grapple w what Dem negotiators gave up to streamline permitting for clean energy. @jeremysymons.bsky.social finds that the provisions won by the fossil & tech lobbies would cause lasting damage to our climate & clean air.