I wonder what the actual cutoffs are. The article is scarce on details but does seem to point to one political side or the other acting politically - either fast tracking approval for a fiscally irresponsible project, or pulling funding because they disagree with renewables.
"The "fast tracking" accusation is not credible without evidence."
It was approved in a flury of approvals between the election and inauguration. So that's not direct evidence. However, do you have direct evidence that the revocation was just based on it being renewable? Sure, there's circumstantial evidence of it. If there's circumstantial evidence for both positions, we need some hard evidence to support either one.
> It was approved in a flury of approvals between the election and inauguration.
Do you have evidence of this? Maybe a list of all LPO approvals so we can look for increased frequency after the election? It would also help to know the average LPO timeline, so we could look at when the grain belt express applied and see if it was approved unusually quickly.
> However, do you have direct evidence that the revocation was just based on it being renewable?
You could run the numbers to show if it's financially responsible or not instead of again using circumstantial evidence. We can also look at the other approved LPO grants, like the one for sustainable aviation fuel.
Here's an article about how they changed their methods to push more through due to their political concerns.
