notdevin

I don’t think it matters that the Chevron defense exists or doesn’t. Agencies in charge of the environment have flat out sucked. Scrap it and approach from another angle because regulators are not advantageous to renewable tech that has net positive impacts over existing tech.

Lawyer, Professor, other stuff too, tech is cool

www.rosariotechlaw.com

@backpack put a bank in your pocket and use your money whenever, wherever, however without permission

/backpack
/notdevin
icebreaker.xyz/notdevin

You activated my trap card! 

SUMMON @nelsonmrosario !

Aurarchitect for /opacity --
host of vibe check podcast 
▶️ https://pods.media/vibe-check
❄️ icebreaker.xyz/dawufi
👀 seemore.tv/free/fc/dawufi

In response to opp, if you didn't like regulators who were focused on one domain having deferrence, you're gonna love generalist federal judges having increased power and influence over these things.

I would like that better because the rules will be more stable and clear. In the case of dealing with DFW, DNR, USDA, etc.. it was always a lot of moving goal posts combined with opaque goals related to politically motivated initiatives that are entirely irrelevant of the stated agenda. 

I’m not saying I’ll like those rules better or not, I’m saying stability and a lack of change is more helpful to encourage coordinated development even if that starting point is dumber

Yeah that’s a valid point on the time until impact. I just have no love for activist groups, I know they can be used for good, like seatbelts and eliminating lead in fuel…so maybe actually just Ralph Nader is effective…but my experience in the renewable space they are purely the enemy of anything progressive. If this drains their funds and ties them up in courts for a decade then I’d call it a win and that alone may increase progress

I hope you're right. I don't really know what will happen other than a LOT of lawsuits from activist groups challenging interpretations. Probably take ten years to get a real sense of impact.