The entire point of the certainty provisions in BAAJA is they *DO NOT* rely on a non-binding promise from the admin Rep Casten's view relies on a popular misconception about how the admin abuses permits: 🧵 – Lots of folks believe the Trump administration is literally ignoring the law to block renewables --> therefore, no change to the law can fix the abuse. – But this is an exaggeration. The administration is not ignoring courts (or they wouldn't be bothering to ask courts to overturn permits). – What the admin is doing is using authorities latent in existing law to abuse projects (e.g. refusing to issue permits, using pretexts to revoke permits, etc.). – The admin's tactics work where the law doesn't provide clear limits on agency behavior and/or doesn't give sponsors & courts the ability to enforce the law effectively. – This is a big difference because it means a new law (e.g. BAAJA) can fix the problem by tightening existing authorities, banning misuse, and creating new remedies for courts to enforce the law. And BAAJA does exactly that! The bill establishes: 1. Extremely tight limits on agency behavior (limits revocations, requires timeline permit decisions). 2. Creates bold new remedies for project sponsors and courts to enforce the law. – If the admin tried their current tactics under BAAJA's protections they'd be under siege by lawsuits; project sponsors would have more incentive to sue, be more likely to win, and courts would have far larger remedies to correct abuse. xitter.cf/SiegelScribe/status/21…