iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

James Neckbeard III @qsalt.bsky.social · 7h

Yeah, I don't think the permitting reform advocated for by the American Petroleum Institute is good.

072

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

DC Council @councilofdc.bsky.social · 11h

This is clearly not acceptable

62476942585

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 10h

Maybe try defending America's rich immigration heritage by not centering it on Nerd Reich fascist Elon Musk who helped bring the federal government to its knees and other billionaires. Just a thought. 🤷🏼‍♂️

051

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

And that's really what's at stake in the permitting fight. It's not about climate. It's not even about energy. And it's certainly not about good policy b/c the bill is a turd grenade. It's 💯 about power.

020

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

All I ask is that when folks run their mouth against progressive NGOs, understand the political and social landscape that's been set in bad faith to carry water for the Nerd Reich. And consider whether you want to be a tool of that effort or fight it.

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

Remember, too, that Derek Thompson, a co-author of Abundance, joined Richard Hanania on his podcast literally the day before Abundance was released to the public. Do folks really think this was just a coincidence? I don't.

110

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

We forget so quickly that Abundance has provided a platform to some of the worst, most noxious folks given platforms by Abundance. Remember "deportation abundance" at the 2025 Abundance conference?

121

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

And re: my reference to the Nerd Reich above and its relationship to Abundance, can folks consider that it's not a conspiracy requiring a crazed imagination but our everyday lived reality?

152

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

Reporters also uncritically forget that the Abundance movement driving permitting reform, while barely penetrating the public's consciousness, is largely just a giant astroturf campaign designed to create a permission structure for Dems to betray progressives & surrender to fossil fuels.

152

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 11h

Meanwhile, reporters uncritically carry water for this turd grenade of a permitting deal by noting hat "clean energy" groups like American Clean Power Association are behind it without noting they've been co-opted by fossil fuels.

144

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 12h

Let's remember, too, that the permitting fight reflects contested visions of the Dem Party. The Dem centrist vision is contingent on Republican power, w/the political logic of moving the "bipartisan" permitting deal grounded in an attempt to steamroll progressive Dems in Congress in the lame duck.

130

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 12h

The latest round of attacks on progressive NGOs for opposing the Senate permitting deal reveal a long-running campaign to defeat the guardians of ecological systems & communities to enable the dominance of tech, energy, & finance interests that comprise key elements of the Nerd Reich.

193

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 12h

The negotiations were carried out behind closed doors, likely with a tight cohort of aligned tech, energy, & finance interests, and sidelined green groups. The only "sides" were different facets of tech, energy, & finance industry power. Mostly in service of feeding at the trough of AI capital.

140

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 12h

This dude was elevated to the Senate for precisely this purpose.

2101

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 13h

Could @zeitlin.bsky.social be any more obvious with his subjective bias? It's one thing for a reporter to have a perspective, it's another to have a perspective that drips with scorn.

280

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Country (and Western) hating Sleazeball @rsgreacen.bsky.social · 14h

Erik is doing heroic work ringing the alarm about this “permitting reform” bill that will clearcut another swathe of environmental law

196

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 14h

Let's not forget, folks: American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers told House Republicans that "This is literally what we've been asking for for over a decade, and it is a generational opportunity to get permitting reform done."

074

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 14h

I welcome thoughts from @ghgpolicy.org, others. Still trying to grok all this & its interactivity with other provisions w/humility. Key, here, is thinking from perspective of fossil fuel, industry lawyers & how they will leverage the deal's provisions, like Sec. 1402. And when I do, I am alarmed.

110

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 5.1: The deal's lack of clarity, plethora of contested words/provisions, is a function of my own plain reading but also intel that bill negotiators themselves had very different, contesting meanings & just kicked the can to the courts to resolve. That's bad and, here, reckless policy. /fin

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 5: All this reveals the permitting deal's core flaw: lots of words w/contested meanings that will incite litigation, create unpredictability, w/deal tilting the judicial playing field against the public, NGOs, & any future POTUS with an iota of robust climate & conservation ambition.

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 4.5: Put differently, what Flegal thinks doesn't matter. What a Trump appointed-judge (& Trump's SCOTUS) thinks will matter & prove dispositive. And as much as folks whine about NGO litigation, fossil fuels wields litigation very effectively. It's why we exist: to counter their bullshit.

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 4.4: And by contested, I mean fossil fuels *WILL* weaponize this provision to hobble a future POTUS' efforts to transition *FROM* fossil fuels *TO* renewables, asserting capacious definitions that, again, will wreck havoc. Esp. b/c they'll bring those lawsuits in courts w/Trump appointees.

130

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 4.3: Flegal contends this is not the case, alluding to Section 1402(d)(1)(B)(ii)(II), but she proffers a meaning that will be contested. I mean, I've practiced envtl law for 25+ years & I don't really know what "unrelated to the permitting" includes or excludes!

130

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 4.2: The supporting evidence used to demonstrate that "pattern," set forth in Section 402(d)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(bb), will wreck havoc, chilling ability of a future POTUS to speak freely & articulate robust policy that provides a clear signal and predictability to developers and the public alike.

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 4.1: Instead of careful inquiry, Section 1402(b)(3)(A)(iii), coupled w/dumb "empirical' metric, provides that a court would look at whether changes in permit timing or denials were a function of an "intentional course of action undertaken by the Federal Government to create such pattern."

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 3: Section 1402(3)(A)(ii) *will also be weaponized* to further lock in fossil fuels by hobbling ability of a future POTUS to *deny* permits by letting Trump 2.0 set the baseline for what is or isn't "disparate treatment," w/o regard to careful inquiry into the basis for permit denials.

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 2.2: More specifically, Section 1402(b)(3)(A)(i) *will be weaponized* to hobble ability of a future POTUS to remedy rushed Trump-era permitting, categories of harm Trump has swept aside but demand analysis that takes time, & Trump's dismantling of agency capacity.

151

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 2.1: What does Flegal mean by "slow-walk"? Well, the "empirical" metric for "disparate treatment" in Section 1402(b)(3)(A)(i) is dumb, sweeping aside decision-making complexities & agency capacity. Note "unreasonably" isn't normative; it's just a circular reference to the metric.

130

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Point 1: "tech neutrality" cedes power to markets & hobbles Fed govt's power to set a clear mission to phase out fossil fuels, transition to renewables, & use all the tools at its disposal, procedural & otherwise, to do so. That's bad policy. Setting that aside, Flegal's also analytically wrong.

141

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 15h

Over on X, Jane Flegal has a thread about Title IV of the permitting deal, namely Sec. 1402. It's largely a retread of arguments re: distinct demand-side (what Flegal advocates for) vs. supply+demand (what folks like me argue for) climate strategies masked as legal analysis. x.com/JaneAFlegal/...

x.com

Jane Flegal (@JaneAFlegal) on X

Some climate folks are warning that BAAJA’s Title IV (the permitting certainty stuff) is a gift to fossil fuels. I’ve read the text closely, and while nothing is perfect and some concerns are worth taking seriously, many, especially about Sec. 1402, misrepresent the bill. 🧵

142

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

But the permitting deal includes myriad provisions eroding the very laws we’d rely on in that fight. And tips the litigation scales, considering the aggregate, in favor of Trump obstruction. Folks also need to internalize that Section 1402 is a profound, long term threat and terrible policy!!!

030

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

… shifts the burden to states, tribes, & public interest NGOs (like mine) to litigate to move the ball forward. As well as Trump/Vought ability to be “creative” w/their agenda.

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

… bogus “tech neutral” policies that operate to justify decisions to block renewables projects like DOI Sec. Or. 3438. While that SO is enjoined (for now … though not precisely sure of that case’s status), it illustrates risk this bill just …

doi.gov

SO 3438 - Managing Federal Energy Resources and Protecting the Environment | U.S. Department of the Interior

SO 3438

120

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Legit risk, but acute independent of the passage of this bill. Largely because I don’t see how this bill closes down Trump/Vought pathways to block renewables projects. E.g., renewable lease buybacks contingent on redirecting capital to fossil, but also …

120

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich @riogranderift.bsky.social · 06/02/2026

The AI data center "buildout is overwhelmingly powered by natural gas." Despite claims re: alternative generation, "the equipment actually being installed in 2025 and 2026 is almost entirely gas-fired. Renewable capacity, where committed, is scheduled for 2028 or later. Nuclear is a decade away."

Per report executive summary, "Press releases for these projects say one thing. But the 35+ permit documents, site plans, and equipment deals we found tell a much different story. Nearly 75% of the generation equipment we could identify (23 GW) was natural gas-powered." Image includes data chart underpinning finding, showing 22,799 MW of gas-fired power, 6,400 MW nuclear, 1,1317 fuel cells, and 355 batter storage per publicly-disclosed equipment.

32924

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

Exhibit 67 in the Case that the Permitting Deal is an AI Data Center Expansion Bill.

071

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

Are ratepayer protections an obstacle to data center development? No. They just protect ratepayers. The bill’s other provisions provide myriad concessions that boost the buildout of, specifically, fossil gas powered data centers. E.g., no environmental review for fossil gas pipelines.

020

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Murshed Zaheed @murshedz.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

“By reducing ESA [Endangered Species Act] considerations to a “nice to have,” undercutting the applicability of state and Tribal Clean Water Act provisions, and slicing up timelines for challenging bad projects, the new permit reform bill is yet another massive handout to oil and gas and Big Tech.”

storiesofkinship.substack.com

Ep. 8: Utopian Blueprint or Deal with the Devil? (Federal Permit Reform)

52 mins | In its current form, federal permit reform legislation jeopardizes environmental safeguards while gaining little in return. How do we counter dangerous deregulation with progress rooted in k...

0103

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Murshed Zaheed @murshedz.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Reckless political malpractice by Congressional Dems.

2185

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Murshed Zaheed @murshedz.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

How delusional Sen. Dems like Whitehouse and Heinrich who are pushing a deregulatory “permitting reform” bill boosting data center, big oil industries (for some clean energy project) be? They are depending on the word of Trump regime orchestrated by Russ Vought? 😳 From @punchbowlnews.bsky.social

“Democrats want W.H. to go public on permitting

For the future of the energy project permitting deal in the Senate, White House silence isn’t golden for Democrats.
Senate Democrats are starting to lay out additional expectations for the Trump administration to fulfill its commitment to end its blockade of wind and solar project approvals.
The demands involve administration officials publicly committing to quickly start approving projects upon enactment of the bill.
That’s a step the White House hasn’t taken so far — and one it appears reluctant to take.
We asked the Trump administration if it was willing to soothe Democrats’ nerves with a statement affirming what congressional negotiators said was agreed to in private negotiations. A White House aide reiterated the administration’s support for the deal, but said this about Democrats’ desire for a public statement on renewable energy projects:
“The Senate should vote on the actual text of the legislation and stop trying to litigate new terms through the press.”
The issue is a critical hurdle in securing the Democratic votes needed to advance the bill when the Senate takes it up in the lame-duck session.
President Donald Trump surprisingly offered to ease his administration’s holdup on renewable projects — including wind, his least favorite energy source — a key concession to unlocking the deal.
But the Trump administration has never acknowledged the specifics of its vague promise, which isn’t a part of the bill text, perhaps to avoid inciting the president.”

24517

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) @doctorvive.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

repeating for the 39th time that BAAJA has no mandate that data centers be connected to the grid, so these provisions are avoidable if the tech companies perfer

2123

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Brad Johnson @climatebrad.hillheat.com · 08/10/2026

"Why limit these safeguards just as the country faces another major wave of industrialization? And why make it even harder to protect endangered species at a time when their peril was never clearer?"

0102

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Brad Johnson @climatebrad.hillheat.com · 08/10/2026

#BAAJA "would also hamstring states and Tribes from using another Clean Water Act authority to protect their waters from spills and contaminated runoff from oil and gas pipelines."

194

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Brad Johnson @climatebrad.hillheat.com · 08/10/2026

"We are also being asked to ignore that the oil and gas industry has currently and entirely rigged the system in its favor. The bill weakens some of the strongest tools available to stop harmful projects."

193

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Brad Johnson @climatebrad.hillheat.com · 08/10/2026

Goldfuss on #BAAJA backer assertions that the Trump administration would respect its all-of-the-above energy neutrality: "Accepting that outcome would require me to disregard what is happening in plain sight and once again trust that market forces alone will enable clean energy to prevail."

173

Reposted by Erik Schlenker-Goodrich

Brad Johnson @climatebrad.hillheat.com · 08/10/2026

@nrdc.org ED Christy Goldfuss brutally critiques #BAAJA: "We have repeatedly accepted modeling and analysis in the past that showed clean energy would prevail, which is why we accepted compromises that gave the fossil fuel industry another leg up in the system that is already rigged in its favor."

nrdc.org

Hard Questions About the Permitting Bill

Before celebrating the benefits of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, we need an honest accounting of its tradeoffs, especially how much additional fossil fuel development the...

22013