{"id":280897,"date":"2023-09-28T14:26:40","date_gmt":"2023-09-28T12:26:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=280897"},"modified":"2023-09-28T14:26:43","modified_gmt":"2023-09-28T12:26:43","slug":"bidens-mad-dog-epa-gone-rogue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=280897","title":{"rendered":"Biden\u2019s Mad Dog EPA Gone\u00a0Rogue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Mario Loyola explains at Real Clear Wire EPA\u2019s Illegal Power Play. <\/strong><\/a> Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA\u2019s Ambitious Gambit to Reorganize America\u2019s Electricity<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA last year was a historic defeat<\/strong> for the Environmental Protection Agency. Not only did the Court rule that the 2015 Clean Power Plan<\/strong>, President Obama\u2019s signature climate regulation, was unconstitutional;<\/strong> it also<\/strong> dramatically limited EPA\u2019s power to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) moving forward.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That left the agency with two courses of action.<\/strong> It could take its lumps<\/strong> and focus on proposing regulations with a high chance of surviving federal court review. Or<\/strong> it could stake everything on a final desperate attempt to decarbonize America\u2019s power sector,<\/strong> and go for the win in keeping with President Biden\u2019s commitment to net zero carbon emissions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On May 23, 2023, EPA chose the latter, proposing carbon emissions standards
for power plants far more ambitious than those
struck down by the Supreme Court last year.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like other EPA climate regulations, the proposed emissions standards under Section 111 of CAA are not designed<\/strong> to reduce emissions from standard power plants, but rather to force a rapid transition away from<\/strong> reliable and affordable sources of dispatchable power\u2014natural gas and coal\u2014to intermittent renewables and<\/strong> new kinds of power plants that don\u2019t even exist yet.<\/strong> Together with EPA\u2019s electric vehicle mandates,<\/strong> the proposed rule would be a train wreck for the American electricity grid<\/strong> and society as a whole, endangering economic competitiveness and energy security while yielding no measurable climate benefit.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those hoping for a dramatic finish to Biden\u2019s climate action will not be disappointed: the proposal has so many legal vulnerabilities<\/strong> that it would be a miracle<\/del> nightmare if the rule survives federal court review.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the proposed rule,<\/strong>\u00a0which President Biden hopes to finalize by next summer, large new or modified natural gas plants and existing coal plants would be\u00a0required to virtually eliminate carbon emissions by 2038<\/strong>, at the latest. Under Section 111(a) \u201cNew Source Performance Standards\u201d (NSPS), large new or modified combined-cycle natural gas plants, which currently supply roughly 30% of the nation\u2019s electricity, would be required to achieve close to zero carbon emissions,\u00a0either by implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS)<\/strong>\u00a0to capture 90% of carbon emissions by 2035,\u00a0or by switching<\/strong>\u00a0from natural gas\u00a0to<\/strong>\u00a098%\u00a0\u201cgreen\u201d hydrogen<\/strong>\u00a0co-firing by 2038. In addition, under Section 111(d) emissions guidelines,\u00a0existing coal plants<\/strong>, which currently supply more than 20% of America\u2019s electricity, would be required to virtually eliminate carbon emissions by\u00a0implementing CCS by 2035.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Interestingly, EPA declined to promulgate NSPS for coal plants because, as it explains, there are no plans to build any new coal plants in the U.S.<\/strong> It declined to promulgate emissions guidelines for existing natural gas plants out of concern for feasibility. Even more interesting, when EPA sent the proposed rule to the White House for regulatory review under E.O. 12866, it contained no emissions guidelines for existing plants at all, and therefore would not have applied to coal plants at all. The White House reportedly sent it back to EPA with orders to put a Section 111(d) rule for existing coal plants in the proposal. This suggests that EPA itself is not very confident in the ability of the Section 111(d) rule to survive court review.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 111 of CAA,<\/strong> the same provision at issue in West Virginia v. EPA, authorizes EPA to mandate<\/strong> \u201cthe degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction<\/strong> which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 111 sets a high bar, especially after West Virginia v. EPA. The proposed rule<\/strong> falls woefully short. It has at least th<\/strong>ree major legal vulnerabilities<\/strong>, any one of which would be sufficient for a court to strike the rule down.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, neither CCS nor green hydrogen is<\/strong> anywhere near \u201cadequately demonstrated\u201d<\/strong> within the meaning of Section 111.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second<\/strong>, EPA<\/strong> has systematically ignored crucial costs and impacts<\/strong> that it is required to take into account in setting emissions standards under Section 111.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third<\/strong>, like the \u201cbest system of emission reduction\u201d struck down in West Virginia v. EPA, the new rule would require\u00a0sweeping regulatory action and infrastructure investments entirely outside the fence line<\/strong>\u00a0of the regulated facilities, thereby raising the \u201cmajor question\u201d doctrine\u2019s presumption against the agency\u2019s interpretation of the law.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

The Mandated Technologies Have Not Been \u201cAdequately Demonstrated\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to the unambiguous pronouncements of the D.C. Circuit, EPA treats Section 111 as if it were a technology-forcing provision throughout the proposed rule<\/strong>. For example, EPA claims that CCS has been \u201cadequately demonstrated\u201d for natural gas plants based on small-scale demonstrations at coal plants. But the coal demonstrations cited involve only small slipstreams<\/strong> (carbon captured from a small percentage of the plant\u2019s total emissions) for use in the food industry. Moreover, the coal plant demonstrations do not involve the sophisticated combined-cycle configurations of large natural gas plants\u2014in which the exhaust from the primary combustion cycle is used to heat the steam generator of the second cycle\u2014that the new standards focus on.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the several hundred pages laying out the proposed rule, EPA provides just two examples of demonstrations at natural gas plants<\/strong>. One, at Bellingham, Massachusetts, captured only a 10% slipstream and closed in 2005 because it was not economical. That was a decade before the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, in which EPA correctly rejected CCS as inadequately demonstrated and too costly. The other, a project at Peterhead, Scotland, is still in planning and may not even be built. Neither can be used as the basis for an adequately demonstrated BSER.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore,\u00a0EPA\u2019s CCS mandate would require a massive buildout of carbon transport and storage infrastructure<\/strong>, which has not been adequately demonstrated and would require sweeping investments and regulatory changes by developers and government authorities unrelated to the entities subject to regulation under Section 111 of CAA. Like the measures \u201cbeyond the fence line\u201d of regulated entities that were struck down in West Virginia v. EPA, this massive infrastructure buildout would be\u00a0beyond the ability of EPA-regulated entities to implement.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Co-firing with low-carbon hydrogen is even further from being adequately demonstrated.<\/strong> Nearly all hydrogen today is produced using carbon-intensive methods. Indeed, electrolysis from renewable and nuclear power produces only trivial quantities, and EPA doesn\u2019t even bother to estimate the cost, feasibility, or time it would take<\/strong> to build out the vast amount of new renewable and nuclear power capacity that would be needed to make the low-GHG hydrogen a practicable option for power plants.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short,\u00a0neither CCS nor \u201cgreen\u201d hydrogen<\/strong>\u00a0co-firing meets the Section 111 legal standards of\u00a0\u201cadequately demonstrated\u201d BSER.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

EPA Has Ignored the Proposed Rule\u2019s Costs, as well as Its Health, Environment, and Energy Impacts<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In determining that a technology is \u201cadequately demonstrated\u201d under Section 111, EPA must take into account the costs of the rule, as well as the health, environment, and energy impacts of the rule. Courts have interpreted this as requiring that costs be reasonable. That poses a threshold problem for EPA\u2019s proposed rule because EPA can point to no measurable environmental benefit that would result from compliance. EPA has based all its greenhouse gas regulations on the same original 2010 Endangerment Finding, which has serious problems of its own, as William Happer and Richard Lindzen note in their July 2023 comment letter<\/a> to the proposed rule<\/strong>. It has not been demonstrated that the sources subject to the rule make a significant contribution to a condition of air pollution that endangers human health, and the finding mentions the 2021 Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon only in connection with a regulatory impact analysis that is unrelated to the requirements of CAA. Under such circumstances, there is a threshold question of whether any significant costs could be reasonable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are other problems with EPA\u2019s estimate of costs and impacts.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, its estimate of costs is highly speculative.<\/strong>\u00a0The rule would affect a host of entities<\/strong>\u00a0and government authorities across the whole society, the\u00a0vast majority<\/strong>\u00a0of them\u00a0not subject to regulation under CAA<\/strong>, and EPA has little clue as to how they will adjust to the rule. If its cost estimates are off by any significant amount, regulated entities\u00a0could well react by shuttering, rather than attempting to comply<\/strong>, which would create a situation of\u00a0dangerous energy scarcity with skyrocketing prices<\/strong>. In parts of the country\u00a0where fossil energy is restricted<\/strong>\u00a0as a matter of policy,\u00a0such as California, the electricity grid is on the verge of dangerous blackouts almost every evening in the summer<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

And those restrictions are modest, compared with those now contemplated by EPA.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA\u2019s most egregious<\/strong> failure to properly account for costs is that it subtracts the amount of federal subsidies from the cost estimate<\/strong>, a nominal reduction of $369 billion based on CBO\u2019s score. That figure will likely turn out to be much greater, given the subsidies\u2019 lack of date-certain sunset.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the\u00a0impact on electricity prices, EPA estimates<\/strong>\u00a0that the rule would lead to a\u00a0price increase of 13%.<\/strong>\u00a0That is almost certainly a\u00a0woeful underestimate<\/strong>. In California, where a much milder form of renewable energy mandate has been in place for years, end-user electricity costs are twice the national average. The costs of compliance with the new rules could be far more exorbitant. As further explained below, CCS would reduce the power output of the relevant plants by at least 30%, while green hydrogen would likely be three to four times more expensive to produce and deliver as current demonstrations using natural gas.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

Given the number of factors outside EPA\u2019s expertise and jurisdiction that would
determine how much time and money all that infrastructure would cost,
EPA\u2019s estimates are little more than conjecture.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The Power Plant Rule Raises the Same \u201cMajor Question\u201d as in West Virginia v. EPA<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The Court held that EPA\u2019s interpretation raised a \u201cmajor question\u201d<\/strong> and that, in the absence of clear congressional authorization, the claimed power exceeded EPA\u2019s statutory authority.<\/strong> The Court noted that EPA\u2019s approach to BSER allowed it to set emissions standards at whatever level the agency wanted, regardless of whether any regulated entity could feasibly comply with the new standards. The Court noted that the Clean Power Plan would result \u201cin numerical emissions ceilings so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them without engaging in [generation-shifting].\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA\u2019s new power plant rule relies on a similarly expansive definition
of BSER to establish standards that can be met only
by shifting generation away from fossil sources.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only way that regulated sources could comply with the rule would be if states or utilities (or other developers) would build a major interstate infrastructure for CCS and \u201cgreen\u201d hydrogen<\/strong>, including tens of thousands of miles of specialized pipelines, massive underground storage facilities for CO2, and large-scale facilities for the production and transport of hydrogen gas from renewable sources. Whether to develop such infrastructure is a decision totally beyond the control of regulated entities.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

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

The claimed power would regulate a significant portion of the American economy,entails political impact of great significance, and intrudes on mattersthat are the traditional domain of the states.<\/mark><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA\u2019s Persistent Usurpation of Congressional Authority<\/span><\/em><\/h5>

EPA\u2019s efforts to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources represent a\u00a0dangerous overreach of executive power.<\/span>\u00a0Congress never authorized EPA to regulate greenhouse gases in this expansive manner. By\u00a0trying to reorganize the country\u2019s electricity-sector limits through executive fiat, rather than the legislative process,<\/span>\u00a0EPA is abusing its authority and circumventing democracy.<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Net zero climate policy raises novel issues that affect every American citizenin almost every aspect of modern life. Policy requiring suchtransformative change should be left to Congress.<\/mark><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EPA\u2019s most egregious\u00a0failure to properly account for costs is that it\u00a0subtracts the amount of federal subsidies from the cost estimate, a nominal reduction of $369 billion based on CBO\u2019s score. That figure will likely turn out to be much greater, given the subsidies\u2019 lack of date-certain sunset.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":280915,"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":[691823058,691823059,691818076,691818073,691818154,691819094,691818772],"class_list":{"0":"post-280897","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-2015-clean-power-plan","9":"tag-climate-regulations","10":"tag-co2","11":"tag-epa","12":"tag-net-zero","13":"tag-renewable-green-energy","14":"tag-u-s-president-joe-biden","16":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/00environmental-protection.jpg?fit=1024%2C724&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1b4B","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":294766,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=294766","url_meta":{"origin":280897,"position":0},"title":"Biden Admin Unveils \u2018Natural Gas Tax\u2019 Proposal","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Biden administration proposed a new regulation Friday that would impose fines on oil and gas companies for methane emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.","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\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0natural_gas_burner.jpg?fit=1200%2C825&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257416,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=257416","url_meta":{"origin":280897,"position":1},"title":"Biden EPA Unveils New CO2 Crackdown On Coal & Natural Gas Power Plants \u2013 Claim to achieve \u2018climate and public health benefits\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The EPA release claimed that the new regulations would produce \u201cclimate and public health benefits\u201d worth $85 billion over the next two decades, as well as prevent premature deaths and hospital visits as a result of decreased particulate matter emissions. ...","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\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/00574384abba1a8.image-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C855&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206681,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206681","url_meta":{"origin":280897,"position":2},"title":"SCOTUS has crippled Biden\u2019s EPA, but there\u2019s only one way to stop them for good","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court has just essentially ended the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) ability to directly regulate greenhouse gases. But don\u2019t expect the Biden EPA to let that stop it. Today\u2019s decision in\u00a0West Virginia v. EPA\u00a0puts an end to the agency\u2019s\u00a0scheming over the past 24 years\u00a0to invent its own authority to\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0EPA-Building-Plaque.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0EPA-Building-Plaque.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0EPA-Building-Plaque.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0EPA-Building-Plaque.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0EPA-Building-Plaque.jpg?fit=1200%2C803&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206759,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206759","url_meta":{"origin":280897,"position":3},"title":"MILLOY: SCOTUS Has Crippled Biden\u2019s EPA, But There\u2019s Only One Way to Stop Them for Good","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From Junk Science.\u00a0Originally posted in the\u00a0Daily Caller. My latest at the\u00a0Daily Caller. The Supreme Court has just essentially ended the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) ability to directly regulate greenhouse gases. But don\u2019t expect the Biden EPA to let that stop it. Today\u2019s decision in\u00a0West Virginia v. EPA\u00a0puts an end to\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-9.png?fit=1024%2C514&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-9.png?fit=1024%2C514&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-9.png?fit=1024%2C514&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-9.png?fit=1024%2C514&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":400524,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=400524","url_meta":{"origin":280897,"position":4},"title":"Reverse Uno: Calculating the Savings from Trump\u2019s Repeal of Biden\u2019s Greenhouse Gas Regulations on Power Plants","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/09\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Our analysis, which was prepared for the Prime Mover Institute (PMI), spanned 50 pages and detailed how the Trump Administration\u2019s deregulatory agenda would save Americans living in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region $314.6 billion through 2055, with the repeal of Biden and Obama era regulations saving much more\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Biden administration\u2019s final greenhouse gas rules\"","block_context":{"text":"Biden administration\u2019s final greenhouse gas rules","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=biden-administrations-final-greenhouse-gas-rules"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/07253162b-1111-4a19-ad5b-afc42ac81c91_1285x722.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/07253162b-1111-4a19-ad5b-afc42ac81c91_1285x722.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/07253162b-1111-4a19-ad5b-afc42ac81c91_1285x722.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/07253162b-1111-4a19-ad5b-afc42ac81c91_1285x722.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/07253162b-1111-4a19-ad5b-afc42ac81c91_1285x722.jpg?fit=1200%2C674&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256232,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=256232","url_meta":{"origin":280897,"position":5},"title":"New EPA Rule Shows Joe Biden\u2019s EV Push Is Just a Pipe Dream","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Biden administration\u00a0released\u00a0new emissions control standards for vehicles. Billed as the \u201cmost ambitious climate regulations\u201d ever, they have captured headlines, but technical realities and high costs have both rules headed straight for a brick wall.","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\/05\/0106977366-1637242533642-zero.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0106977366-1637242533642-zero.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0106977366-1637242533642-zero.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0106977366-1637242533642-zero.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0106977366-1637242533642-zero.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280897","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=280897"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280897\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":280917,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280897\/revisions\/280917"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/280915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=280897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=280897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=280897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}