EPA Question 31 Major Energy Regulation – Watt?

From cfact

David Wojick

The EPA launched a huge regulatory reform process that reconsidered 31 regulations related to its largest energy.

You can check out the list here along with some interesting discussions.

Many wars about coal are under guns, and some very bad cars. Much of it is climate-related, so it is important to include fake CO2 hazard findings. If that disappears, then the rest is easily killed.

For example, coal and gas kill the carbon dioxide limits of power plants. Then, the CO2 limits on cars and trucks designed to force people into electric vehicles are impossible.

The real good news is that the scope is more than just a wider climate. It includes scanning rules such as the totally unscientific PM2.5 limit. My personal favorite is the mercury emission rules for coal power plants, which the EPA says is no evidence, but we will adjust anyway.

Each of these “reconsiderations” requires a complete rule, so there is a lot of work to be done. Given the layoffs of layoffs and the fact that most EPAs like these bad rules, it is an interesting question who will do the job. New employees and contracts may come, but these multiple rulemaking processes will take a year or more to pass.

I think EPA has at least three strategies to kill these bad rules. Some are easier than others and it remains to be seen for each situation.

The most laborious strategy is rulemaking based on new science. This involves a lot of research and brand new technical support documentation. Reversal hazard discovery may be necessary, but since it was completed in 2009, there is a lot of new science to learn from. The predicted hazards failed to occur particularly useful.

An easier second strategy is to simply compile against suspicious rules submitted as comments during their rulemaking. In this case, the new discovery is wrong if the previous discovery is wrong. Some new science may be necessary, but most of the research has been completed.

Mercury from coal is likely to be a prospect here, as the EPA has previously admitted that they have found no physical evidence that the secondary mercury emissions from combustion are the cause of mercury in some lakes. Filing for this stupid rule is broad.

The weird PM2.5 rule is another possible candidate, because PM2.5 is not even a specific substance, but only a particle size. All books on how ridiculous the EPA rules are.

The first two strategies use scientific arguments, while the third strategy uses legal arguments. In this case, the EPA simply says it does not have the legal authority to issue relevant rules. Administrator Lee Zeldin repeatedly stated that the premise of EPA is to transcend its mission and legal authority. This sets the stage for the revocation of previous rules to be illegal.

Interestingly, the recent rejection of the previous “Chevron doctrine” by the Supreme Court has made this legal argument even stronger. The doctrine basically says that the court must deliver to the institution in interpreting the law. Therefore, it was previously believed that the rules that were previously considered to be human-permitted by the EPA rules may no longer be allowed and that the EPA itself can make decisions.

Then, if the danger is abolished, other climate rules may lose their legal basis. According to the Clean Air Act, hazards are a necessary condition for regulatory authorization.

To be sure, the 31 battles that bring this EPA together are a truly breathtaking event. As this highest battle unfolds, stay tuned for CFACT.

Related