Great news: @freedomcaucus officially says Congress should “Pass a robust permitting bill to expand American energy dominance and drive down the price of fuel and electricity for families.” As I explain below, being pro-freedom requires both de-subsidizing and unleashing energy.

The 2-minute electricity case for BAAJA If we look at the overall effects of BAAJA on electricity compared to the other options on the table, it is a major improvement—above all because it helps unleash electricity supply. Republican influencers are calling for changes to BAAJA on electricity that will kill it Most Republicans acknowledge that overall BAAJA (the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act) by unleashing the freedom to build, will be great for America’s economy. But some Republican influencers are calling for House Republicans to challenge and change BAAJA—specifically its electricity transmission provisions—to help American electricity. Given the 20 days of floor-time remaining and many competing priorities, these calls for significant changes will almost certainly kill the bill. We need to compare BAAJA’s overall effects to the other options on the table The criticisms of BAAJA by Republican influencers tend to cherry-pick aspects of BAAJA that are imperfect, sometimes very imperfect. When we have a binary option—pass a freedom-to-build bill virtually as-is or not at all, we need to look at its overall effects compared to the (very bad) status quo. If we look at the overall effects of BAAJA on electricity, let alone our economy, it is a big improvement on the status quo. BAAJA unleashes cost-effective electricity, which is priority number 1 Strangling reliable electricity supply is by far the biggest problem we need to address. If we don’t, prices will skyrocket as demand rises from computing, electrification, and new industry. BAAJA unleashes supply across the board: power plants, pipelines, and power lines. BAAJA places real but incomplete limits on wasteful utility spending BAAJA includes multiple provisions designed to limit utilities’ ability to force ratepayers to pay for wasteful transmission infrastructure. BAAJA’s limits on ratepayer-financed transmission are on paper much better than the status quo, but not tightly defined enough to stop all wasteful lines. But today’s limits on wasteful spending are looser than BAAJA’s—enabling a lot of wasteful local trasmission—while strangling cost-effective transmission and electricity in general. For pro-reliability administrations, BAAJA will make our transmission situation much better—more cost-effective transmission and less wasteful spending. Given the options on the table, BAAJA is worth adopting on electricity grounds alone—and an absolute no-brainer given that it also unleashes development throughout the economy. Answering electricity objections to BAAJA Myth: BAAJA dramatically expands federal infringement on legitimate state authority over transmission. Truth: The federal government already has the (constitutionally valid) authority to overrule states on interstate transmission. BAAJA actually limits that authority by setting new, stricter standards for what lines it can be used to approve. Myth: BAAJA undermines state authority by letting FERC investigate local transmission spending—and this is unnecessary because states already oversee local utility projects. Truth: Utilities are getting away with a lot of wasteful local spending because state regulators lack the resources and expertise to scrutinize every project. BAAJA increases state authority by giving states the option to ask FERC to investigate local spending. Myth: BAAJA’s interconnection provisions give a future anti-fossil-fuel administration the power to block natural gas power plants from connecting to the grid. Truth: BAAJA adds an explicit fuel-neutrality requirement and preserves existing protections against discrimination. Myth: BAAJA favors certain forms of energy over others. Truth: It’s a remarkably technology-neutral bill that increases all forms of energy’s freedom to develop and compete. Myth: The House needs to demand major changes to BAAJA so the House “uses its voice.” Truth: BAAJA overwhelmingly incorporates ideas and language led by the House, such as the SPEED Act and the PERMIT Act.

Please share this with anyone who says "What's the rush on BAAJA? Why can't politicians just work on it next Congress?" Those people are either incredibly far-removed from the actual negotiations, or they just don't want real permitting reform to pass. If reform doesn't happen now it'll be at least 2 years. But given that comprehensive Congressional permitting reform has been failing for 46 years I'd bet on a lot longer.

Disgusting and insane that after Republicans get routed in part because of too many associations with white nationalism, someone who says “America was built by White men, for White men” is going viral as some sort of sage. America was built by freedom-loving people for freedom-loving people. There is nothing to be proud of with whiteness or any other skin color. I am grateful to everyone, regardless of skin color, who is building America right now. Which includes a ton of brilliant nonwhite immigrants without whom we’d be in far, far worse economic shape. We need pro-freedom politicians who feel and exude actual love for freedom-loving people of all skin colors—and who want more of them. Those politicians would be unstoppable.

It's so sad that AI developers are creating affordable, powerful mental assistance for everyone—and yet are afraid this is somehow going to destroy the world. "AI" is a new type of *computer*. We need to be careful how we *connect* it to high-stakes systems. That's it. "AI went rogue" amounts to: 1. Someone took a powerful, open-ended computer that they don't perfectly control (i.e., one running LLMs). 2. They deliberately reduced their control over its ability to produce potentially harmful outputs. 3. They connected the deliberately-badly-controlled computer to a high-stakes system. Whether this is done irresponsibly or as a legitimate exploration of potential risks, it does not justify doomerism. The proper conclusion to draw is that we need to responsibly develop LLM computers and be very responsible about when and how we connect them to high-stakes systems. Not that AI is some interested, conscious being that has a 10% or even 0.0000001% chance of killing us all. "AI" is a bunch of computers running an amazing new kind of software that we can and should use to be of enormous assistance to our lives. AI computers are no more self-interested or conscious than a calculator or an abacus—even though their outputs do a great job of mimicking interests and consciousness. While there is a real threat of people accidentally misusing AI assistance to do a lot of damage, that threat is always going to be limited by the humans who ultimately direct AI computers and can literally unplug them. The biggest AI threat by far is bad actors deliberately using AI assistance to do a lot of damage. To prevent this threat, as well as to reduce the damage of accidents, we need good actors, above all in the US, to proudly lead in this technology. Not to indulge in fear-mongering based on metaphysical nonsense.