Sadly, it can be flipped off. On takes generations.

Annual Sustainable FERC dinner is Monday night!

Does the author of the bill think resource adequacy is simply adding up the nameplate of every resource?

Section 3(c) says value fossil (excuse me, "baseload") resources based on "expected deliverable energy;" Seems like a competent utility planner or PSC would simply read this as "ELCC for all"

No doubt it's motivated by malice. Still is it best to br'er rabbit this? Act like it's horrible and pretend to fight--better to direct their malice in pointless directions before they find something that actually matters to break, no? (3/3)

I kind of like the idea of anti-renewable people triumphantly marching in, holding the bill up high, declaring "Ha Liberals! Now you have to plan for the sun going down at night!" and everyone awkwardly looking at each other like "Huh? We've been doing that for 30 years" (2/3)

Looking through this, the "don't count DR part" is the only thing obviously offensive. It's pretty funny, there's a category of criticisms of renewables that boil down to "only I know the sun goes down at night." It looks like the authors of this legislation really believed that. (1/3)

There's a disturbing background thread going on of right-wingers hunting for "bias" in AIs. I'm putting FTC going after companies whose AIs don't respond with MAGA talking points on my 2025 bingo card.

Let's hope the old Marine's courage holds.

I hope you enjoy a successful career as one of those people who get to do explosive demolition projects. If that's something you'd like.

It's telling you to solve transmission siting problems by letting people name towers after their pets.