{"id":266511,"date":"2023-07-10T11:06:44","date_gmt":"2023-07-10T09:06:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=266511"},"modified":"2023-07-10T11:06:46","modified_gmt":"2023-07-10T09:06:46","slug":"energy-appliance-victory-dc-circuit-vs-doe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=266511","title":{"rendered":"Energy Appliance Victory! (DC Circuit vs. DOE)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Master Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0<\/em>Mark Krebs<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe \u2018wheels of justice turn slowly,\u2019 but they indeed turned, even within the District of Columbia\u2019s \u2018uni-party.\u2019 As for holding on to this victory, it is far from a slam-dunk for preserving consumer choice and free markets. I expect the struggle to escalate in Biden\u2019s all-of-government war against natural gas and other fossil fuels.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Beleaguered energy consumers were just handed a far-reaching victory by the\u00a0United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia<\/a>\u00a0(DC Circuit). The ruling\u00a0vacated<\/em>\u00a0a Final Rule from the U.S, Department of Energy (DOE) that would have banned the manufacture and sale of non-condensing boilers for use in commercial applications. DOE\u2019s rule was challenged several years ago by natural gas interests\u2013and later joined with a separate but similar case brought by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For those fluent in legalese, the Court\u2019s historical review and logic can be downloaded\u00a0here<\/a>. The Court found that DOE failed to meet the standards of \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d necessary for DOE to mandate more stringent minimum efficiency standards. Such evidence is required by the\u00a0Energy Policy and Conservation Act<\/a>\u00a0(EPCA).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DOE\u2019s failures were major and numerous. Previously, the Court had afforded DOE ample opportunities to rectify them,\u00a0but they didn\u2019t.\u00a0<\/strong>Ultimately (reading in between the lines), it appears that the Court lost its patience with \u201cthe Agency\u201d (DOE).\u00a0 One of the far-reaching results of this victory is that it undermines a veritable super-weapon of the administrative state; the Chevron Deference.\u00a0 This aspect will be discussed in more detail further down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DC Circuit has set a precedent that illustrates how DOE routinely bends the rules to achieve its \u201cadministrative state\u201d objectives.\u00a0 Consequently, DOE should exercise more care and transparency going forward with both present and future developments of appliance minimum efficiency standards.\u00a0\u00a0However<\/em>, it is probably more likely that DOE will find ways to get around it; perhaps\u00a0 drastically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the years, I\u2019ve provided updates via MasterResource on the status of these issues.  Some of the most relative to this \u201cvictory\u201d are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n