Sure, and maybe there are good arguments for getting rid of nuclear, too. But I want it explained clearly and rationally to me why tackling climate change should be a secondary priority to (why it should wait for) addressing these other local issues FIRST. Because that’s implicitly what’s going on. And claim all you want that “we can do both simultaneously,” and I’ll be happy, but WHERE in the bill is it written to eliminate any fossil fuels on that grid at the same time as turning off these dams? And I’m not just talking about replacing the dam’s electricity. That is simply going nowhere from a climate perspective (ie it isn’t reducing emissions relative to inaction).

Are the hydro dams literally going to be turned off simultaneously (the same day) with shutting off all connected fossil fuel plants? Because if not, then it isn’t actually simultaneous.

> tackling climate change should be a secondary priority to (why it should wait for) addressing these other local issues FIRST

That is very much situational. A big part of why climate change is bad is because it will cause complete ecosystems to collapse. If dams or anything else accelerate that faster than climate change, there is an argument to be made that they should take higher priority. In the case of the Kennebec River that's exactly what happened.