iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

Tony Dutzik @frontiertony.bsky.social · 17h

… 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.

2187

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Damn man I'm really sorry. Judging by the insane amount of patience and kindness I've seen you display in discussions on this site, I am positive your cat benefited greatly from having you as their owner.

010

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

The people who immediately came out and declared it an emissions lowering win for climate are going to look really stupid by the end of all this.

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

About half of the new gas power coming online by the end of last year was already for behind the meter data centers not on the grid. This provision INCENTIVIZES this to increase! That part of BAAJA is not a good thing and yet people are out here acting like it is.

earthjustice.org

The AI Gas Rush: How “Bring Your Own Power” Evades Regulation and Drives Deadly Pollution

A new report examines the risks and consequences of “Bring Your Own Power” for AI data centers.

010

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

You can read about the work that was illegally stopped (for now) by these administration and EPA actions. There are a lot of groups nationwide that remain committed to getting this work done and we look forward to the day when we're able to do just that. storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/dfe6...

storymaps.arcgis.com

Stolen Futures: Communities Betrayed by Funding Clawbacks

Stories from the frontlines of communities impacted by the Trump administration’s clawbacks of critical Justice40 investments.

010

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Looks like the GAO released a finding yesterday that the EPA violated the Impound Control Act when they illegally cancelled Community Change Grants. "We find that EPA violated the ICA" Those of us in the impacted organizations have known about this from day one.

gao.gov

U.S. GAO - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Application of Impoundment Control Act to the Administration of Community Change Grants

Congress appropriated amounts to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants...

123

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

John Kostyack @kostyack.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

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.

substack.com

This is not the permit reform deal that was advertised

Dangerous provisions would hand Trump broad powers to block future presidents from acting on climate change and restoring the Clean Air Act

23416

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I do think that is a valid point to make. Frontlines communities will suffer in the meantime with or without the bill. But it does beg the question, given that, why are there no frontline community based orgs that back this bill. Why are those with the most at stake in opposition?

050

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

@rephuffman.bsky.social knows what's up. Here, he doesn't speak to the specific negotiating mistake that @whitehouse.senate.gov & @heinrich.senate.gov have made relative to the Trump side deal, but rather the legislative deal, but does reinforce how Senate Dems have made negotiating mistakes.

293

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I'm not a lawyer, but nothing I've read about sections 1401 and 1402 had made me comfortable about counting on a captured judiciary to interpret this provision in a way that will help anyone but oil and gas. In fact, quite the opposite.

000

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

“At least 26 senators, more than a quarter of the chamber, hold data center-linked investments … Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island whose data center investments total between $2.1 million and $8.6 million, takes the number one spot.” 👀

forbes.com

The 5 Senators—Including Maine's Susan Collins—With The Biggest Investments In Data Centers

Forbes examined financial disclosures for every sitting Senator. We found 26 Senators with at least $7 million in investments tied directly to the data center buildout, including Sheldon Whitehouse an...

1015790

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Last time we had a fall hurricane ramanent low I saw two tornados in Maryland sooooo

110

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Just realized we're only about 2 weeks away from the start of the NBA regular season and man that made me happy. Lord knows I need some Wemby to district me from the general state of everything.

static.klipy.com

Victor Wembanyama in Spurs Jersey

ALT: Victor Wembanyama in Spurs Jersey

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Feel like this video of me petting Waffles is a perfect encapsulation of me trying to protect my mental health and the world inserting chaos. Sound on.

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

It's a huge assumption to make as this bill likely has huge LNG implications. This could make things worse for the global south not only from climate change, but also the burning of this gas. We need a comprehensive and ROBUST approach here which I have yet to see (and didn't see with EPRA etc)

010

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

And to an extent this plays into the 2nd part of your response here, alluding to the global south. The idea that we are selling out EJ communities in the US for the benefit of the global south is a really problematic argument to make on many fronts, but I'm also not sure the global south benefits!

130

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

But the environmental history of our country and its people clearly shows that is not the case becuase it is always the same group of people that are the ones who pay the price for the advancement, health, safety, and lives of another.

130

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Ultimately I think there is a huge burden of proof here for proponents of the bill to reckon with this. It requires an accounting that has largely been absent from the discussion. It assumes all people are a monolith and the trade offs to one portion of our population can be offset by another.

130

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

But the value judgement you are making is is the trade off for this worth it. And as you stated in the quoted post, to you it is. I don't particularly think that's your judgement to make and I think that line of thinking a textbook example of these communities literally being sacrifice zones.

130

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Fundamentally the questions here should be: have they been useful to communities and are communities worse off without them? The clear answer here is that these laws HAVE helped, and that communities are worse off without them. You don't seem to disagree with these points, but correct me if wrong.

110

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

So several thigns here. NEPA, ESA, and CWA come around ~1970. EJ communities like cancer alley are the hallmarks of environmental racism and redlining - which far predate NEPA. How was NEPA supposed to prevent that? A very perplexing point to make here. But have CWA/NEPA/ESA helped these areas?

110

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Nah this is just crazy. I can't live like this in DC and I only drive maybe once a week. I will vote for whomever protects my right to honk at people looking at their phone at the light when it turns green.

020

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

I would invite @dananuccitelli.bsky.social to move to Cancer Alley or the industrial areas of Houston if this is a trade off he is willing to make. I'm guessing they do not live in a community experiencing these levels of pollution but if this is truly how they feel they should act like it.

251

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

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 Manuel Salgado

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

Anyway, maybe don't let the fossil fuel industry write your legislation next time.

3314

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

David Roberts @volts.wtf · 05/10/2026

Holy shit.

700260888608

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I have the entirely of US energy policy to show that these communities are treated as sacrifice zones. This is not an assumption but verifiable fact based on every metric we have for pollution and where the infrastructure is sited. What in BAAJA changes that status quo?

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

If you want to frame it more along the lines of asking about the impacts from the fossil section in environmental justice communities, then fair enough, but I don't think that has to be a moral issue but one of comprehensive analysis of who this bill affects and how.

110

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I don't think its a moral posturing, though! It's about the appropriate accounting of the bills impacts to these communities. If there is a data driven case to be made on how this bill will avoid more O&G infrastructure in same communities I'm open, but the bills language tells me its built in.

110

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Yeah I don't know about this. A further fossil fuel buildout is not something that "could" harm communities, its something that will continue to harm the SAME communities it already disproportionately harms. Especially with a bill prioritizing existing fossil right of ways.

030

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I'm looking forward to your pod and I'm sure it will be informative, but I think its important to think about why this is is being framed in this way when it is a very important aspect of the discussion. If we're going to continue to sacrifice these places, we should be open about it

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

When you say "its not productive" to ask this, productive to who and to what? Is it productive to the passage of the bill? Probably not. Is it productive to the people who want their lives accounted for properly? I very much believe so.

210

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I get that its an uncomfortable discussion question but to the residents of front line communities who are desperately trying to get clean air to breathe its an important one and, IMO, it is clear that any fossil fuel build out - which this bill will have - impacts these communities.

130

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I don't trust anyone who doesn't exhibit an appropriate amount of pettiness. Not too much, but most certainly not too little.

static.klipy.com

Ryan Howard (BJ Novak) Taking Notes

ALT: Ryan Howard (BJ Novak) Taking Notes

140

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Bolts just flat out does an amazing job breaking down what you should be paying attention come election day. Really grateful to all the work these folks do.

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

This blog from NRDC is excellent and makes the exact points that need to be made right now. Re: clean energy winning "Accepting that outcome would require me to disregard what is happening in plain sight..."

000

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

It would also be one thing if their input assumptions had been proven robust re: previous polcies/legislation, but the exact opposition has happened. We keep having real world scenarios where they failed to anticipate political actions that completely undermine their assumptions.

110

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

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

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

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I have some in the freezer! The DC UNM Alumni Group hosts a roast on the mall each late August and I always order some. It's not quite the same but it carries us over until we make it back to NM. I haven't been this year yet, but hoping to get back to see friends this winter.

100

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

The things I miss most from NM other than the land: Green Chili on pizza from Backroad in Santa Fe and Green Chili in any breakfast burrito but especially Golden Pride burritos.

110

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) @doctorvive.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

The sooner the Democrats understand that there is no more free market, that growth and supply and demand has been incontrovertibly perverted by domestic anti-democratic politics, the better off we’ll be.

1255

Manuel Salgado @manuelsalgado.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

I've gotten to the point where I do not believe people associated with The Argument are working in good faith. They've been dishonest AF speaking on us in the past, and I don't think messages like this fit a really dishonest pattern.

020

Reposted by Manuel Salgado

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

A reminder of the political instincts of the folks championing the permitting deal: they loved Trump’s appointment of Doug Burgum to the cabinet. And it is Doug Burgum who is the architect of Trump’s War on Renewables. Do not trust these people.

0133