{"id":259403,"date":"2023-05-28T11:04:53","date_gmt":"2023-05-28T09:04:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259403"},"modified":"2023-05-28T11:04:57","modified_gmt":"2023-05-28T09:04:57","slug":"at-checc-were-down-but-not-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259403","title":{"rendered":"At CHECC, We\u2019re Down But Not Out!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Today, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued its Judgment in the case of Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council, et al. v. EPA<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> I am one of the lawyers for CHECC in this matter, where the Petitioners seek to have the court order EPA to reconsider its ridiculous 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) that CO2 and other \u201cgreenhouse gases\u201d constitute a \u201cdanger\u201d to human health and welfare. To no one\u2019s surprise, the court dismissed our Petition. The sole ground for the dismissal was what they call \u201cstanding.\u201d The court did not reach or discuss the merits of the Petition, namely whether data and evidence accumulated since the 2009 EF had rendered the Finding definitively false and in need of reconsideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also today, the Supreme Court decided the case of Sackett v. EPA<\/em><\/a>. The Sackett<\/em> case involved a different EPA rule, called the Waters of the United States rule. Thus the two cases may seem to be unrelated. But in fact they are closely related in the most important way, which is that both involve wild overreach by EPA, followed by cynical gaming by EPA of court procedural rules in order to avoid ever being held to account for the overreach. In Sackett<\/em>, EPA finally got its comeuppance today, after almost 20 years of litigation. The Sackett<\/em> decision increases our confidence that EPA will ultimately also be held to account for the EF and the many destructive rules flowing from it; but exactly how and when that will occur remain to be seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed in my prior post of April 14<\/a>, the oral argument held that day in CHECC v. EPA<\/em> dealt almost entirely with the issue of standing. EPA focused their argument on seeking dismissal on this procedural ground, thus hoping (successfully, as it turned out) to avoid the merits. They contended that the Endangerment Finding was not itself a rule that affected anyone financially, and that there wasn\u2019t even a pending, let alone final, rule seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector. They also contended that the 2009 Endangerment Finding that we were challenging related to the transportation sector (\u201cmobile sources\u201d) rather than the electricity sector (\u201cstationary sources\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Talk about cynical. The 2009 EF that we challenged in fact contained the only thing passing for the scientific basis of the Obama-era rule, called the Clean Power Plan, that sought to abolish fossil-fuel generated electricity. The CPP was rescinded by the Trump administration, and then ultimately declared an invalid overreach by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA<\/em><\/a> on June 30, 2022. As CHECC v. EPA<\/em> was getting briefed and argued between late 2022 and April 2023, it was common knowledge that Biden\u2019s EPA had in the works a new and even more onerous rule restricting power plant emissions. That rule was only announced on May 8, and officially appeared in the Federal Register on May 23<\/a> \u2014 just two days ago. In the newly-published proposed rule relating to stationary sources, EPA acknowledges the 2009 EF as the source of the supposed scientific basis for the rule (at page 33,249):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 2009 Endangerment Findings, the Administrator found under section 202(a) of the CAA that elevated atmospheric concentrations of six key well-mixed GHGs\u2014carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)\u2014\u201cmay reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations\u201d (<\/em>74 FR 66523<\/em><\/a>; December 15, 2009)<\/em> . . . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, from today\u2019s DC Circuit opinion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHECC draws no connection between the Endangerment Finding (which compels the regulation of motor vehicle emissions under \u00a7 202(a) of the Clean Air Act) and the price of residential electricity.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And thus, if you can even follow the convoluted logic here, EPA, with the support of the DC Circuit, has made it such that no consumer of electricity can challenge a rule seeking to eliminate the large majority of all reliable sources of electricity, and to impose on consumers what will almost certainly be hundreds of billions of dollars of additional costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We plan to fight on, likely through the en banc<\/em> DC Circuit and the Supreme Court. Maybe we will see success at one of those levels, and maybe not. Undoubtedly, when the new power plant rule becomes final \u2014 later this year or maybe in 2024 \u2014 there will be multiple challenges to that on grounds similar to the ones that were ultimately successful in West Virginia v. EPA<\/em>. Those challenges will likely reach the Supreme Court some time around 2027 or 2028. The question is, will there be anything left of our reliable electricity-generation sector by that time?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Sackett<\/em> matter, the Sacketts began to work on building a house back in 2004. Within a few months, EPA issued an order to the Sacketts demanding that they stop work and restore the property, on the ground that wetness on the property was part of \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d that EPA regulated. When the Sacketts attempted to bring a court action to determine that EPA\u2019s order was overreach, EPA contended that the Sacketts had no ability to sue until going through a full administrative process \u2014 and incurring fines for non-compliance of some $40,000 per day. The Sacketts took that case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2012<\/em> that the Sacketts had the right to sue. So they went back to the District Court, where, after 7 additional years of proceedings<\/em>, the court ruled against the Sacketts in 2019 and determined that the wetness on the Sackett property was<\/em> part of the \u201cwaters of the United States.\u201d The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2021. And the Supreme Court reversed today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Incredibly, the Sacketts saw their case through nearly 20 years of this to achieve their victory. But their saga shows you EPA\u2019s game plan \u2014 string things out so far as to exhaust the opposition and, in our case, force the entire reliable capacity for generating electricity out of business before the courts can intervene. We hope to achieve some success before too much destruction has occurred, but as can be seen from the DC Circuit\u2019s decision, even at that prestigious court there is little sense yet of any kind of problem.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I am one of the lawyers for CHECC in this matter, where the Petitioners seek to have the court order EPA to reconsider its ridiculous 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) that CO2 and other \u201cgreenhouse gases\u201d constitute a \u201cdanger\u201d to human health and welfare. To no one\u2019s surprise, the court dismissed our Petition. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":259406,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691819120,691818076,691818073,691818670],"class_list":{"0":"post-259403","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-clean-power-plan","9":"tag-co2","10":"tag-epa","11":"tag-supreme-court","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0dia-internacional-contra-el-cambio-climatico-lo-que-hay-que-saber-ipcc-287111-1_1024.webp?fit=1024%2C720&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-15tV","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":225443,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=225443","url_meta":{"origin":259403,"position":0},"title":"The Briefing Begins in CHECC v. EPA","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"We are extremely honored to have such distinguished and serious scientists supporting our position.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1136.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1136.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1136.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1136.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253132,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253132","url_meta":{"origin":259403,"position":1},"title":"Oral Argument In CHECC v. EPA: The Issue Of Standing","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Meanwhile, EPA\u2019s energy transformation imposes its inevitable costs on consumers of electricity, likely to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions \u2014 without doubt the single most costly regulatory initiative of all time \u2014 and the DC Circuit appears to be struggling over whether\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden Administration\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden Administration","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administration"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/020786.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226123,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=226123","url_meta":{"origin":259403,"position":2},"title":"CHECC Brief Challenging CO2 Endangerment Finding Now Publicly Available","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"28\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Well, it\u2019s just a motley bunch of unpaid amateurs up against the entire scientific establishment, brought into dissent-free line by a few hundred billion dollars of annual federal spending.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1321.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1321.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1321.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1321.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238674,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=238674","url_meta":{"origin":259403,"position":3},"title":"EPA And The Electricity Cost Crisis","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Over in Europe, the energy cost crisis, particularly as to electricity, proceeds apace.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-372.png?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-372.png?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-372.png?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-372.png?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-372.png?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267589,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=267589","url_meta":{"origin":259403,"position":4},"title":"CHECC Has Petitioned The DC Circuit For Rehearing As To Its Standing To Challenge The Endangerment","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"15\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Here in my retirement, my remaining law practice consists almost entirely of working on one case in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, going by the caption Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council v. EPA. From time to time when there is a development in the case, I will report on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/image-457.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/image-457.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/image-457.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/image-457.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223563,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=223563","url_meta":{"origin":259403,"position":5},"title":"Joining Battle Over The \u201cScience\u201d Of Global Warming","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observation. . ..","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-572.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-572.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-572.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-572.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=259403"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":259410,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259403\/revisions\/259410"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/259406"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=259403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=259403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=259403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}