EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28079
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#26

Post by Addie » Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:26 pm

WaPo
The Trump administration keeps losing environmental court cases

Lawyer: “What the courts are saying is we’re going to enforce the laws that Congress wrote, and this administration is breaking those laws and needs to stop."


It turns out that unraveling Barack Obama’s environmental agenda is harder than it looks.

Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration three times in the last three days, arguing that the administration short-circuited the regulatory process in its push to reverse policies on water protections, chemical plant safety operations and the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. In each instance, the courts either reinstated the existing rule or delayed the administration’s proposal from taking effect.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency’s move to delay new chemical and safety requirements was “arbitrary and capricious.” The day before, a judge on the U.S. District Court in South Carolina reinstated a rule in 26 states limiting the dredging and filling of streams and waterways on the grounds that the EPA had not solicited sufficient public input. And on Wednesday, a judge on the U.S. District Court of Montana ordered the State Department to conduct a more extensive environmental impact statement of the Keystone XL’s proposed route through Nebraska.

“It’s certainly been a very bad week for EPA’s deregulatory agenda," said Georgetown University law professor Lisa Heinzerling, who served as a senior EPA official under Obama. The recent decisions come on the heels of a major loss for the administration Aug. 9, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the EPA to ban a widely used pesticide known as chlorpyrifos, linked to developmental problems in children, within 60 days. In March 2017, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had rejected a petition by environmental and public health groups to take the pesticide off the market.

The recent rulings all date back to decisions made early in President Trump’s tenure — often at the urging of industry groups who accused Obama officials of federal overreach. In the case of the Risk Management Plan amendment, or Chemical Disaster Rule, which was reinstated Friday, chemical manufacturers and refiners had urged the EPA to suspend a rule aimed at promoting safety at chemical plants.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17678
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#27

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:44 pm

tek wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:39 pm
I'd bet many (if not most) of those 300+ aging coal plants aren't viable, even without having to meet new emissions regs.
It surely will not encourage anyone to build trumplng new coal fired plants.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10610
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#28

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:38 pm

I would think the cost of building and maintaining them would be prohibitive modernly. Coal, even relatively clean hard coal, is nasty, messy stuff to deal with.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20726
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#29

Post by TollandRCR » Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:04 pm

In addition to dumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than Obama’s Clean Power Plan, this Trump plan will markedly increase pollution. Illness and deaths will be the result.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#30

Post by Dan1100 » Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:25 pm

Addie wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:26 pm
WaPo
The Trump administration keeps losing environmental court cases

Lawyer: “What the courts are saying is we’re going to enforce the laws that Congress wrote, and this administration is breaking those laws and needs to stop."


It turns out that unraveling Barack Obama’s environmental agenda is harder than it looks.
:snippity:
Will Wall Street figure out that Trump's EPA isn't doing them any favors by issuing permits that won't stand up in court? Probably not. :roll:


"Terror must be maintained or the Empire is doomed."

-Evil Spock

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28079
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#31

Post by Addie » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:27 pm

CNBC
EPA reveals greenhouse gas rule for power plants to replace Obama plan

The Trump administration on Tuesday revealed its long-awaited plan to scale back an Obama-era rule designed to cut planet-warming emissions from the nation's power plants.

The proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency — the Affordable Clean Energy Rule — will hand authority to states to create their own narrower rules for coal-fired power plants. That would give states the option to impose looser restrictions that allow utilities to emit more greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

The measure also stands to relieve pressure on the coal industry, a sector President Donald Trump has vowed to revive. Coal miners have seen their fortunes fade as coal-fired plants retire ahead of schedule, under pressure from cheap natural gas and falling prices for renewable energy projects.

Tougher regulation under former President Barack Obama put additional stress on the coal industry by requiring power plants in some cases to undertake expensive upgrades or shut down. On Tuesday, the EPA said Obama's plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants was "overly prescriptive and burdensome."
Adding:
LA Times Editorial: Not surprisingly, Trump's new Affordable Clean Energy plan is anything but
Mother Jones: Even Trump’s EPA Admits His Power Plan Will Kill Thousands of Americans

“Galling and appalling.”
Vox: EPA analysis of its own new climate proposal: thousands of people will die


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20726
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#32

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:44 pm

As New England well knows, pollution from coal-burning power plants does not respect state boundaries. The prevailing winds will blow that pollution eastward. We may see acid precipitation again. At one time the rain was more acid than vinegar. The lakes were dying. That is why Federal rules are needed.

This urge to destroy everything Obama did is sick.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17678
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#33

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:54 pm

Question from the Eurobot: is it perceivable that an entity could file a charge against a coal fired plant cause they don't achieve best protection of public health (or in a court case likely a person or class of plaintiffs), causing damage to their health and property by not using available technology to limit damage? Eg similar to complaints against the tobacco industry? Can industries hide behind minimal legal requirements?



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20726
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#34

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:57 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:54 pm
Question from the Eurobot: is it perceivable that an entity could file a charge against a coal fired plant cause they don't achieve best protection of public health (or in a court case likely a person or class of plaintiffs), causing damage to their health and property by not using available technology to limit damage? Eg similar to complaints against the tobacco industry? Can industries hide behind minimal legal requirements?
I hope and expect that to happen. Plus I think the EPA has again violated the law in changing this rule capriciously without public comment. Dictatorships are prone to do thar.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14718
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#35

Post by ZekeB » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:11 pm

Hey Thump: Why not ban steel belted radial tires and have us go back to wood? The timber industry needs you.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20726
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#36

Post by TollandRCR » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:16 pm

In that scenario, the Trump E.P.A. predicts its plan will see between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 because of increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5, which are dangerous because of their link to heart and lung disease as well as their ability to trigger chronic problems like asthma and bronchitis.

Not menioned are the deaths of coal miners.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28079
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#37

Post by Addie » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:05 am

TIME
Trump Administration Officially Ends Obama-Era Restrictions on Methane Pollution

BILLINGS, Mont. — The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled back an Obama-era rule that forced energy companies to capture methane — a key contributor to climate change that’s released in huge amounts during drilling on U.S. and tribal lands.

A replacement rule from the Interior Department rescinds mandates for companies to reduce gas pollution, which Trump administration officials say already is required by some states.

The change could save companies as much as $2 billion in compliance costs over the next decade. It comes a week after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed weakening a separate methane emissions rule affecting private land and some public lands. ...

Methane is a component of natural gas that’s frequently wasted through leaks or intentional releases during drilling operations. The gas is considered a more potent contributor to climate change than carbon dioxide, although it occurs in smaller volumes.

Bernhardt and other Interior officials were unable to immediately say how much the new rule would affect methane emissions. But a U.S. Bureau of Land Management analysis provided to The Associated Press said all the reductions projected to occur under the original rule were lost with Tuesday’s change.

The prior regulation would have cut methane emissions by as much as 180,000 tons a year. Emissions of potentially hazardous pollutants known as volatile organic compounds, which can cause health problems if inhaled, would have been reduced by up to 80,000 tons a year.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28079
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#38

Post by Addie » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:21 pm

Bloomberg
California, New Mexico Sue Trump for Axing Methane-Waste Rules

California and New Mexico are suing the Trump administration to block it from rolling back Obama-era regulations aimed at reducing waste from natural gas exploration on public lands.

The suit comes just hours after the Bureau of Land Management repealed key sections of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule, which assesses royalties on operators that allow natural gas and its waste to escape into the atmosphere. The regulation would have eliminated the equivalent of 3 million passenger vehicles worth of emissions in one year, according to a statement issued by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

“With this attempt to axe the Waste Prevention Rule, the Trump administration risks the air our children breathe and at taxpayers’ expense,” Becerra said in the statement. “We’ve sued the administration before over the illegal delay and suspension of this rule and will continue doing everything in our power to hold them accountable for the sake of our people and planet.”

The states allege that efforts to dismantle the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule by the U.S Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to “provide any reasoned basis for its action,” according to the complaint filed Tuesday in a San Francisco federal court. They seek to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing its Waste Rule Repeal and to reinstate the 2016 policy.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28079
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: EPA Rules: Obama's Clean Power Plan

#39

Post by Addie » Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:31 pm

The Guardian
Trump climate plan will break law by worsening pollution, states say

Fourteen states oppose EPA’s effort to replace Obama measure and encourage more efficient coal plants ...


The Environmental Protection Agency is moving to replace Barack Obama’s clean power plan, a rule that would have hastened the US shift away from electricity produced from burning coal.

Not only does burning coal warm the planet, it is also causes a range of health problems, from asthma to cancer.

Where the old Obama plan would let states decide how to use cleaner sources of power, the new plan will instead encourage efficiency upgrades at coal plants.

A more efficient coal plant can run more at a lower cost and stay open longer, leading to higher levels of pollution.

The 14 states opposing the EPA rule say that it means pollution could end up higher than if the agency hadn’t written a new rule at all.

“EPA’s own analysis shows that the proposed approach has the potential to increase CO2 and other pollutant emissions, worsen air quality, cause and exacerbate illnesses, and even contribute to deaths,” the states, which include California, New York and North Carolina, said in comments due this week.



Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”