The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Pushes Back Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Regulations While Awaiting Supreme Court Ruling
No matter how the Supreme Court rules in West Virginia v. EPA, absent legislative action it is unlikely new power plant rules will be in force before 2024.
Climatewire reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pushed back the planned release of new proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. This is auspicious timing, as the Supreme Court is poised to issue an opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which will likely define the scope of the EPA's authority to issue such rules.
As the Climatewire story notes, the Biden Administration had initially planned to issue proposed rules in July of this year that could be finalized in summer 2023. At oral argument in WVA v. EPA, however, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Court that EPA expected to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by the end of the year. Now the EPA is not planning to issue a proposed rule until March 2023, which would mean that it is unlikely any rule could be finalized before 2024.
One consequence of the EPA pushing back the timetable for greenhouse gas regulations for power plants is that any legal challenge to the rule would likely be resolved after the 2024 election. Whether a potential Republican administration would defend any such rule would likely depend upon how aggressively the EPA interprets its Clean Air Act authority, and whether such interpretation pushes up against the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling in WVA v. EPA.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Any possibility that the EPA announced the delay in the implementation of the rule in hopes that a justice on the USSC would shift a vote or a DIG?
The police not only refused to save the children and teachers of Uvalde. A husband tried to save his wife with a weapon. He was detained and his weapon was seized. The police is the agent of the prosecutor. You vile, toxic lawyer scumbags have totally pussified the police. You are a garbage, toxic occupation, 1000 times more toxic than organized crime. Even a gang banger would have at least allowed that husband to go into the school.
DB, king of non sequiturs,
Nobody gives a shit about delays in garbage regulations. Waiting for know nothing book worm, Ivy indoctrinated lawyer dumbasses to make their minds is a waste of time.
Time to do away with alphabet agencies.
What is the advertised purpose of these regulations?
To destroy our economy so the Chinese Commie Party can defeat us.
Technically, it's to get in the way, to receive "donations" and other magical info so the politicians' spouses can become investment geniuses, and thus back off a little.
Divided out as a fraction, those millions are a rounding error on the hundreds of billions in costs. This makes standard corruption of a few thousand in the pocket to approve a building license positively genteel.
The "advertised" purpose is to save the planet from "Climate change" the actual purpose is to destroy the current energy sector and replace it with "green" energy.
The actual purpose is that with the Cold War over, the control freaks needed some new scary thing with which to expand the State. I imagine a lot of them freaked out over Putin and Xi trying to revive the Cold War. But I don't think it's a coinkydink that AGW became a hot issue just after the USSR broke up.
It was noted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that, as class warfare was starting to fail at the polls, environmentalism became the new drumbeat for the same old goal: control of business.
Back then, it was called ecology.
You go into government to get in the way, to get paid to get back out of the way. So you need a reason to persuade the masses. If the masses reject one reason, move on to the next.
Y’all don’t know it but you’d better hope the SC slows this stuff down. If they do you’ll be pissed, but if they don’t you’ll look back in five years and wish they had.
Biden’s fuck up on oil (and natural gas) is bad but it’s a minor bump compared to what’s coming if nobody imposes some rationality on this stuff.
We are producing record amounts of natural gas and exporting record amounts of LNG. That said I do believe Biden screwed up with Russia because the McStain acolytes in the Senate that pushed for this war don’t care about Biden’s approval ratings…and this war has exacerbated inflation.
" McStain acolytes in the Senate that pushed for this war "
What in the world are your talking about. No one pushed for this war, but Biden made matters worse by promoting the idea of regime change in Russia. As for Blinken, his eyes are shut
The Obama administration didn’t send lethal aid for fear of escalating the situation…it escalated after McStain’s acolytes started sending lethal aid. Zelensky’s mistake was not asking Senator Lady Graham if he would support $10 billion in infrastructure spending for Ukraine if Ukraine gave up the Donbas…so Zelensky needed to determine if Lady Graham supported Ukraine or just wanted to use Ukrainians as pawns to weaken Putin. I suspect Lady Graham wouldn’t support $10 billion in infrastructure spending but he obviously supports $40 billion in order to facilitate death and destruction…and now Ukraine will need hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild and they will lose the Donbas anyway and the world suffers with high energy and food prices.
"it escalated after McStain’s acolytes started sending lethal aid."
It escalated when Putin decided to invade a neighboring country. That's the beginning and end of the matter, and all you're doing is waving the flag of appeasement. At least have the decency to own up to it.
Once again—Putin has been around for over 20 years and I haven’t worried about getting nuked by Russia up until a few months ago. And Putin spent at least several hundred million dollars mobilizing his military force and so appeasing him at that point isn’t jumping the gun because most dictators don’t have a billion dollars to blow on mobilizing a huge military to get crappy land with more mouths to feed.
You would still not be worrying about getting nuked if old Loe Biden hadn't obliquely threatened Putin with regime change.
SC,
You still evaded the question, Who pushed for war? And what is with the cutesy names. If you have something honest to accuse someone of. say it in plain English or go back to complaining about the 2000 election.
You're just burbling.
It ain't a fuckup. It is more like "promises made, promises kept".
Your possibly last chance to impose rationality comes in November; don't you fuck it up.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the SC opened the door to this when they ruled that CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
Well, it IS a greenhouse gas. They ruled that the EPA could treat greenhouse gases as pollutants.
I don't think that fell within the original regulations and was an expansion of what the EPA could regulate.
Does the designation as a greenhouse gas allow for regulation of the 7 billion plus people who add CO2 to the atmosphere with each breath.
mass v epa was wrongly decided - rates up there with kelo
"mass v epa was wrongly decided - rates up there with" Dred Scott.
the distorted legal rationale rates up their with dred scott, though I dont think mass v epa will result in another civil war
CO2 is no more a pollutant than is water vapor.
The dose makes the poison.
So come up with an antidote that will work. Instead we’re emulating Germany and their disaster while fucking our poor right at the start.
Maybe force China and India to buy carbon credits since any reduction as a result of our efforts would be the equivalent of peeing on a forest fire when compared to their output.
Except here. This is sciency sounding cargo cult religion. Nothing more. Changing its name from Global Warming to Climate Change was an admission that the ACGW thesis had been falsified, and needed to be rejected. In its place, using the same sciency sounding nonsense, is non-falsifiable Climate Change. It’s non-falsifiable, because whichever way the climate goes, whether more hurricanes or fewer, higher temperatures or lower, etc, is taken as confirmation of the religion. Science, at a minimum, requires a falsifiable hypotheses. This is missing with Climate Change. Believing in it, despite it not being science, s why it is religion instead.
Yes, it began as science, because, at a very micro level, CO2 does act somewhat like a greenhouse gas, in desktop lab experiments. The problem is that these desktop experiments don’t scale because the theories and models don’t come anywhere close to taking into account all of the various feedback systems involved at a global level. What we do know, and most any astrophysicists would tell you, is that the primary climate drivers have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. Multivariate regression analysis shows that almost all of the variation in global temperature (itself a fabricated, totally bogus ethic) is a result of fluctuations in solar radiation, Earth tilt and wobble, distance from the Sun, and (interestingly) El Niño/La Niña. The latter suggests to me that we have yet to even come close to understanding the feedback effect of the oceans in the global hating/cooling cycle. Regardless, these know drivers explain maybe 99% of the variability in global temperatures. The remainder is essentially statistical noise (esp given all the issues in calculating global temperature metrics). Trying to find correlation much less causation, without fully properly taking into account these primary drivers, is a fool’s errand.
What is scary, to me, is that our economy is being destroyed, and, in particular, our ability to produce sufficient electrical and motive power, on the basis of this sciency religion. Even most of the Volokh Conspirators believe it, because they live in academia, which worships the false god of expertise. The “experts” tell us Climate Change is real. Except that requires determining which Experts to listen to, and the Experts selected to be listened to just happen to support the Marxist/Nihilist/Malthusian view so widely accepted In Academia and Elite Thought.
What we do know, and most any astrophysicists would tell you, is that the primary climate drivers have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2
Seems legit.
bernard,
Nice comeback, but not in this case.
the dose would have to be far higher to be poisonous in any way.
The concentration in diet Coke by mole fraction is more than in the atmosphere
re: "The dose makes the poison."
That is exactly correct. And if we had atmospheric levels of CO2 similar to those seen on Venus, that would be the dose actually poisonous. At the dosages in the terrestrial atmosphere? Not so much. The direct measured effect of CO2 is well-known and small. The climate change hypothesis has always depended on amplification (primarily assumed to come from increased water vapor) - a step that has been notably absent from the actual evidence.
Actually I believe it has less effect than water vapor.
Eh, not so much that it has less effect, as that such effect as it has is already largely maxed out; At low levels greenhouse gases have an essentially linear effect, but by the time they're close to completely blocking their wavelength windows, the effect with increasing concentration becomes more logarithmic. CO2 is in the logarithmic regime, small increases in it don't do much. Like the first set of drapes you hang in front of the window makes the room noticeably darker, the tenth set doesn't do squat.
Meanwhile H20 blocks a different section of the IR spectrum, and isn't maxed out, so variation in H20 concentrations has a large effect, as everybody notices: It gets cold on clear nights, the temperature hardly drops at all on cloudy nights.
The fuss about CO2 is that more water evaporates when it gets warmer, so they assume that the tiny increase in warmth from a large amount of extra CO2 increases the humidity a bit, and that increase in humidity causes substantially more warming. And that substantially more warming causes more humidity, which causes more warming.
The models presume that the Earth is subject to a positive feedback of temperature and humidity which is just barely short of thermal runaway, in order to make the changes in CO2 have a meaningful effect. All the controversy is about how large that supposed positive feedback is; The physics are too complicated to solve for it directly, so the models use empirical coefficients derived from weather records.
Were they derived right? Who knows?
“Were they derived right? Who knows?”
We do know, because the models do not yet accurately fore or hind cast actual climatic results. They inevitably run “hot”, overestimating future global temperatures (itself an extremely problematic, statistically invalid, metric). They have improved over time, as they become ever more complex. But I think that they have a long way to before they can be used as the basis for massive economic policy making.
Actually, you're correct and by far.
And yes, bernard, you can be poisoned by water
"Whether a potential Republican administration would defend any such rule would likely depend upon how aggressively the EPA interprets its Clean Air Act authority. . . ."
A potential Republican administration wouldn't want to piss off the Chief Justice by changing a position from a previous administration, right (see link)?
Or does the Chief Justice only get pissed off when the issue isn't breaking his way?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/02/when-the-solicitor-general-changes-his-position-upon-further-reflection/
"Or does the Chief Justice only get pissed off when the issue isn't breaking his way?"
As I recall that issue, it was not that the administration changed it's policy, it's that the SG changed positions/arguments in the middle of a live case.
So to get an equivalent case going the other way you would have to have a lawsuit started during the Biden administration that is still live after a Repbulican wins in 2024.
They have to push back the regulations on conventional energy production because renewable energy is turning out to be a fantasy.
German newspapers are reporting that in the last decade renewable energy has increased by only 2% as a share of global energy production, and that's counting biomass burning which isn't really renewable, or green:
"The fact that the share of renewable energy is not growing is bad enough from a climate protection perspective. It is also sobering that the 12.6 percent share of eco-energy is largely attributable to the burning of biomass, i.e., to a type of energy generation that is the subject of much environmental criticism.
The second-largest share, 3.9 percent, comes from hydroelectric plants – such as large dams – which are also highly controversial among environmentalists. In the REN21 report, solar and wind power, which are the focus of attention in Germany, together with geothermal energy, are estimated to account for only 2.8 percent of global energy production and are subcategorized under ‘other’.”
The think tank report is summarized here with links to the German newspapers:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/19/trillions-for-nothingdamning-report-green-energies-grow-only-paltry-two-percent-in-entire-decade/
Germany got up a little over 40% renewables and their grid fell apart. So they went back to nat gas from Russia with a big assist from Biden, who appears to believe that only American hydrocarbons contain carbon.
Now Putin has shut them off so they’re madly scrambling to get their coal up and running before winter. So they spent a bunch of money and tripled their energy costs and their carbon footprint is what it was. That’s where Biden is taking us, with painful gasoline prices as a bonus.
Geothermal always seems like one of those great on a small scale, bad idea on a large scale. Then again, it may be be just having trouble conceptualizing the size of the earth.
It's got a lot of problems: Water flowing through hot rock tends to dissolve minerals, which deposit out again when it gets cooler, so you get an enormous amount of pipe fouling unless you run a closed loop system, which is more expensive and poorer performance than open loop. And rock has a lousy thermal conductivity, so what typically happens is that you start out getting a decent heat flow, then the rock around your pipes cools down, and it drops off.
The steady state geothermal heat flux is under a tenth of a watt per square meter, you can beat that for a short time, but that's what it tends to drop to, unless you're putting your pipes down above an active volcano; Geothermal works really well in Iceland!
I mean, you could probably run a decent geothermal powerplant in Yellowstone park, but getting the permits would be a bear.
"I mean, you could probably run a decent geothermal powerplant in Yellowstone park, but getting the permits would be a bear."
Have Yogi do the paperwork. 🙂
This shit is crazy. CO2 is not a pollutant and doesn't fall under the Clean Air Act. This is how un-democratic authoritarian libs get around democracy. This is why "A California court has ruled bees can legally be considered fish."
But my wife tells me methane emissions are definitely a pollutant and negatively affect air quality, especially indoors.
That comment stinks
My wife hasn’t figured out that angle yet. Still, we have separate bathrooms at both of our houses, and what is essentially my methane production is one of the factors driving this.
I wonder if farts were the inspiration for adding butyl mercaptan in natural gas so that people would be able to smell leaks?
All of them. Start over with a clean slate, clear rules and objectives and staff with competent people who can be easily replaced when they screw up.
And do away with qualified immunity and hold transgressors personally liable.
Hi, Rhoid. Great comment, Sweetie.
Do away with all immunities. Immunity fully justifies an ass kicking in formal logic. That has more certainty than the laws of physics. It is supreme over all US laws and ratified treaties.
Hi, Bummie. All are in abject failure. Their only success is taking our $trillion and returning nothing of value.