iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

… is that it’s a divisive distraction that pretends that immolating our environmental laws can somehow render the data center buildout as currently conceived compatible with stabilizing the climate. It can’t.

2197

There are lots of reasons to be deeply concerned about this bill if you’re a person who thinks things like clean water, healthy oceans and biodiversity are important. But one reason to be concerned if you are a "climate person" …

1146

The elephant in the room in this debate is that the speed and scale of the data center buildout itself is unsustainable. And it’s unsustainable any way you might slice it.

12111

So, yes, as Meyer says, the current system, which is stacked in favor of fossil fuels, “sucks.” But that same system allowed a tripling of renewable electricity generation over the course of the last decade and the realistic hope of phasing down fossil fuels. This was *very* recently.

193

The 60+ GW of on-grid gas plants we highlight in our post are all planned to come on-line by the end of 2030. That is, roughly four years from today. Grid reforms enacted now are not going to significantly shift that. The timing doesn’t work.

1115

The rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act and Trump’s war on renewables (which the current bill may or may not meaningfully change) certainly played roles. But the overwhelming reason is the scale and speed of the data center buildout. frontiergroup.org/resources/da...

Data centers are driving a surge in fossil fuel plants

Burning fossil fuels for electricity harms our air and water and disrupts the climate. But data centers are fueling an explosion of new natural gas plants.

12310

Tony Dutzik @frontiertony.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I appreciate @robinsonmeyer.bsky.social linking to our analysis of the recent surge in proposed gas power plants, but current permitting laws aren’t the cause of it. Three years ago, under these same laws, the U.S. was ramping down fossil fuel generation and now we're ramping up. What changed?

12712

(Of course it doesn’t always work that way in practice. Just that there are possibilities that are not yes/no and sometimes those are the most desirable ones.)

Tony Dutzik @frontiertony.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

The "build good things" vs. "stop bad things" binary is false for two reasons: 1) We need to do both. The real world is not a trolley problem. 2) Even "good" things have costs/impacts. Enviro review (and regulation generally) is largely about making good things better (and bad things less bad).

160

Tony Dutzik @frontiertony.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Higher fuel prices finally starting to show up in driving trends. The number of vehicle-miles traveled on U.S. roads fell 0.6% year-over-year in August. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinform...

fhwa.dot.gov

Traffic Volume Trends August 2026 - Policy | Federal Highway Administration

Office of Highway Policy Information

Like, I don’t know for sure either, but it’s not like these folks exactly have their fingers on the pulse of vox populi.

000

Fun to see Abundance pundits who failed to see the data center backlash coming from verrrrry far away dispensing political wisdom on how “permitting reform” is going to go down.

Frontier Group @frontiergroup.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

NEW ANALYSIS: Data center demand is driving a surge in proposals for new on-grid fossil fuel power plants. Planned solar additions are stagnating and wind power additions are down sharply. Our new data visualization has the details. frontiergroup.org/resources/da...

Data centers are driving a surge in fossil fuel plants

Burning fossil fuels for electricity harms our air and water and disrupts the climate. But data centers are fueling an explosion of new natural gas plants.

001

There does not appear to be anything in the bill specific to transit or rail. This specific provision applies to all transportation infrastructure, so it would apply to transit and rail. There are many other proposed changes to NEPA that would have bearing on transit and rail projects.

City Observatory @cityobservatory.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

And state DOTs will label all added lanes as "auxiliary" lanes. Under this rule, they can also concatenate a series of auxiliary lane projects and effectively widen an entire roadway with no environmental review.

031

It'd be fascinating to see what the courts define a "through travel lane" to mean in the context of some of these projects. While they don't have to defer to agency decision-making, I suspect some judges would.

040

it would exempt them from the definition of a "major federal action," so NEPA review would not apply, is my read, though again, I am not a lawyer.

Anyway, I am not a lawyer and so can't give you a definitive take on what this all means. But it *seems* to allow disruptive, multi-billion dollar projects to escape any detailed accounting for their impacts on the environment and communities. If that's true, that's a problem.

050

I-5 Rose Quarter Improvements

Same thing is true, I belive, of the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement project in Portland. www.hdrinc.com/portfolio/i-...

hdrinc.com

A Community-Transforming Highway Cover and Corridor Upgrades

130

For the Cape Cod bridge replacement here in Mass. for example, MassDOT describes the addition of a lane *running the entire length of the bridge* as an auxiliary lane. www.mass.gov/info-details...

mass.gov

160

There *is* an exception for highway or bridge replacement projects that add "through travel lanes," which would still be subject to review. HOWEVER, one trend we've increasingly noticed is DOTs expanding capacity through the use of "auxiliary lanes."

180

Kevin J. Kircher @kevinjkircher.com · 05/10/2026

One implication of "permitting reform" that transportation folks should be aware of: The bill eliminates environmental review entirely for repair or replacement projects in the "immediate vicinity" of existing infrastructure that do not increase capacity by >20%. www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cach...

5116

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Right. The combination of a legally binding shot clock for permitting review that defaults to "approved" when it expires, sweeping exemptions from lawsuits for projects once approved, and executive power to fire agency staff/defund agencies/dissolve agencies or agency branches.. presents some risks.

0114

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Kevin J. Kircher @kevinjkircher.com · 06/10/2026

Interesting discussion between a vocal proponent of the draft permitting bill and @ghgpolicy.org, a lawyer. The legal details could have pretty serious implications for stifling growth of clean energy. Worth bearing in mind, IMO, that a law this complex would have unforeseen consequences, some of..

173

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 05/10/2026

I thought this might be an exaggeration, but no! Despite all the talk of technology neutrality, it appears the permitting reform proposal would weaponize claims for federal damages — but in practice, only for fossil fuels.

39151

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Kevin J. Kircher @kevinjkircher.com · 05/10/2026

By energy, PJM's queue is dirtier (73% fossil) than its current generation mix (61% fossil). If the whole queue got built, PJM would get even dirtier (67% fossil). A permitting bill that sped up buildout of this stuff would sicken and kill more people from air pollution and speed up climate change.

0388

I keep imagining what a signing ceremony for this would look like in the current political moment and as a longtime backer of clean energy it makes me want to put my head in my hands.

000

If you’re looking to estimate the impact of the current deal, its impact on the politics is arguably more important than its impact on policy and wrecking the environmental coalition seems like it’d have political impacts worth factoring in.

100

Yeah. The most important stuff (politics, mainly) isn’t in the models, and modeling is seen (and sometimes portrayed as) prognostication, which is inaccurate and distracts people from what matters.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Insightful legal analysis of a highly problematic component of the Senate permitting deal (Sec. 1402) highly touted by bill proponents as a solution to Trump's War on Renewables but is in fact a major gift to all developers—in particular fossil fuels—that will hobble a future POTUS' climate action.

From attorney Matthew Littleton: "Section 1402 of the draft bipartisan permitting bill is deeply problematic. The apparent goal is to stop Presidents from imposing hard or soft bans (“pauses”) on development of certain types of energy resources. Whatever energy policy the next President pursues, however, the likely outcome of this provision is a massive public subsidy (hundreds of billions of dollars) for new fossil-energy projects, with little to no benefit for clean energy. Here’s why.

Section 1402 authorizes suits by developers for money damages against the United States in any federal district court where part of the proposed project is located. A developer must allege that the government missed one statutory deadline to decide on its application for a permit, right-of-way, etc. It’s up to the judge when the agency’s review clock began (there’s often dispute over when the permit application is complete) and when it ends (there’s often dispute over the degree of environmental review required). So even if the government acted in good faith to meet what it thought was the deadline, the judge can decide there’s a delay.

Next, the developer has to show a “pattern of disparate treatment,” meaning a substantial increase (as compared to the most recent 5 years) in the percentage of projects of this type that, in the judge’s estimation, were either delayed or “improperly denied.” Here’s where clean energy comes up short. Because the current Administration hasn’t moved those projects, an indefinite stall (including by a new President that continued it) would be no worse than the baseline. Lawsuits can’t be filed until late 2027, by which time the baseline will be dominated by Trump's practices."

Part 2 from Littleton: "Next, the judge decides whether the developer’s permit, were the agency to grant it, would be subject to cancellation for violating federal law. The question seems to be whether there is a hypothetical permit the agency could issue that would survive judicial review. That’s a low bar, given the deferential standard of review applied to agency factfinding and “public interest” determinations.

Section 1402 “entitles” a developer that wins its case to (1) “injunctive relief, as provided by applicable Federal law” (meaning an order that the agency decide on the application? issue the permit?); (2) attorneys fees and litigation costs; (3) “economic damages, including any costs associated with the applicable denial or delay, as the court determines appropriate” (what else is “included”?); and (4) “damages in an amount equal to not less than 50% and not more than 100% of the total reasonably expected cost of construction of the project.” The last of these four must be repaid if the project isn’t built; the developer keeps the rest of the money regardless.

A single claim under Section 1402 could top the total amount (~$40b) the government has paid out in all Judgment Fund claims over the last decade. This provision puts judges in real control over energy policy through the power of the purse."

26927

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Frontier Group @frontiergroup.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

NEW: Plans for on-grid natural gas plants have tripled since early 2023, and are up 40% in 2026 alone. The main culprit? Electricity demand from data centers. frontiergroup.org/resources/da...

Data centers are driving a surge in fossil fuel plants

Burning fossil fuels for electricity harms our air and water and disrupts the climate. But data centers are fueling an explosion of new natural gas plants.

016

This is a follow-on from our April analysis finding a dramatic slowdown in planned retirements of our nation's dirtiest coal-fired power plants. The end result: a dirtier grid for years to come with more air, water and climate pollution. frontiergroup.org/resources/en...

Energy transition at risk

In 2022, America was on track to eliminate dirty coal-fired power from the grid by 2040. But coal plant retirements have slowed, even amid a solar energy boom.

000

New from us at @frontiergroup.bsky.social: Planned additions of on-grid natural gas power plants have tripled since 2023 and are up >40% in 2026 alone. A main culprit: Skyrocketing electricity demand from data centers. frontiergroup.org/resources/da...

123

Of the two "analyses", one is a LinkedIn post, the other only models only two elements of the bill and not even the bill language itself.

Welp, looks like the nation's paper of record is already taking limited modeling results wildly out of context to exaggerate the emissions benefits of a bill that has not been modeled and *cannot* be modeled. www.nytimes.com/2026/09/30/c...

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 04/10/2026

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

To be clear, I'm not hating on the IRA or the people who supported it. But I am a former energy modeler and the primary reason I drifted away from that field is because the feedback loop between model-based claims and policy applications is more a political than scientific matter.

1171

... and whether the heavy trade-offs, both substantively for the environment and politically, are "worth it."

031

... which means that an analysis that finds a modest decline in emissions vs. BAU may show an increase vs. present-day. Which might leave people wondering if we're really focused on the right policy battles ...

141

To be more explicit about this: The reason to hide (or bury) business-as-usual numbers is that power plant emissions have been going sideways since 2023 and rising demand from data centers threatens to drive those emissions up ...

1103

The problem is that many analyses that have gotten play of late in energy circles are almost comically non-transparent about assumptions and even results. If someone is reporting emission reductions and not reporting their results for emissions under BAU, they’re hiding something.

1101

Kevin J. Kircher @kevinjkircher.com · 04/10/2026

One difference I’m already seeing between this and previous rounds of climate policy debates is a much greater willingness to call BS on bad modeling. Most climate policy analysts tend to be collegial and, therefore, reticent about calling other analysts out. That’s had a price.

2203

Reposted by Tony Dutzik

Think tanks will soon start releasing non-peer-reviewed modeling of how the permitting bill might affect pollution, if they haven't already. Most will secretly have lots of ideology-driven thumbs on scales. One big way to tip the scales is by ignoring pollution associated with oil and gas exports.

210931

We wrote about the horrendous modeling miss surrounding the 2015 lifting of the oil export ban here. The confidence surrounding modeled impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act was nearly as misplaced. frontiergroup.org/resources/ho...