EPA to Propose First Controls on CO2 Emissions From Power Plants – ‘Will be 1st time fed gov’t has limited CO2 from existing power plants’

From Climate Depot

NYT: “Mr. Biden has said that he is willing to use his executive authority to act on global warming…”

By: Admin – Climate Depot


By Coral Davenport and Lisa Friedman

President Biden’s administration is poised to announce limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that could compel them to capture the pollution from their smokestacks, technology now used by fewer than 20 of the nation’s 3,400 coal and gas-fired plants, according to three people who were briefed on the rule.

If implemented, the proposed regulation would be the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, which generate about 25 percent of the planet-warming pollution produced by the United States. It would also apply to future plants.

Almost all coal and gas-fired power plants would have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, according to the people familiar with the regulation, who asked not to be identified because the rule has not been made public.

President Biden’s administration is poised to announce limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that could compel them to capture the pollution from their smokestacks, technology now used by fewer than 20 of the nation’s 3,400 coal and gas-fired plants, according to three people who were briefed on the rule.

If implemented, the proposed regulation would be the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, which generate about 25 percent of the planet-warming pollution produced by the United States. It would also apply to future plants.

Almost all coal and gas-fired power plants would have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, according to the people familiar with the regulation, who asked not to be identified because the rule has not been made public.

The proposed rule is sure to face opposition from the fossil fuel industry, power plant operators and their allies in Congress. It is likely to draw an immediate legal challenge from a group of Republican attorneys general that has already sued the Biden administration to stop other climate policies. A future administration could also weaken the regulation.

The regulation, proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, is being reviewed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, and could still be adjusted.

Maria Michalos, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, said the agency is “moving urgently to advance standards that protect people and the planet, building on the momentum from President Biden’s Investing in America economic agenda, including proposals to address carbon emissions from new and existing power plants.”

It would not mandate the use of carbon capture equipment, a nascent and expensive technology; rather, it would set caps on pollution rates that plant operators would have to meet. They could do that by using a different technology or, in the case of gas plants, switching to a fuel source like green hydrogen, which does not emit carbon, according to the people familiar with the matter. But the regulation could lead to the broader adoption of carbon capture technology, the people said.

Most of the electricity generated in the United States last year — about 60 percent — came from burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and petroleum, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The proposal comes on the heels of two other Biden administration plans to cut tailpipe emissions dramatically by speeding up the country’s transition to electric vehicles, and curb methane leaks from oil and gas wells.

If those three regulations are implemented as proposed, they would significantly reduce the planet-warming pollution created by the world’s largest economy. Together with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a law that is pouring $370 billion into clean energy programs, they would put the country on track to meet Mr. Biden’s pledge to cut the country’s emissions roughly in half by 2030, and to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2050.

Mr. Biden has said that he is willing to use his executive authority to act on global warming…

In releasing a climate rule for power plants, Mr. Biden hopes to succeed where his former boss, President Barack Obama, failed. Nearly a decade ago, Mr. Obama tried to enact broad limits on power plant pollution that were first blocked by the Supreme Court and then rolled back by President Donald J. Trump. Last summer, the Supreme Court confirmed that the E.P.A. had the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants but in a limited way.

3.8 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William Howard
April 24, 2023 6:15 am

slow learners

More Soylent Green!
Reply to  William Howard
April 24, 2023 8:50 am

Not at all. They know what they are doing. They don’t care.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
April 24, 2023 11:48 am

… don’t care;

… and won’t learn

Tom Halla
April 24, 2023 6:18 am

Leaving the “endangerment provision” in place is endlessly mischievous. The crew around Biden will ignore the “major questions” doctrine as well.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 26, 2023 5:05 am

Anyone who thinks CO2 is a pollutant, cannot know anything about science and the role this critical gas plays in plant growth. Just by opening their mouth they are ’emitting’ their ignorance.

Dave Yaussy
April 24, 2023 6:19 am

This is insanity. Destroying the only reliable (along with nuclear) sources of power on the electrical grid in pursuit of a change that will not stop the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the developing world. This is more about exercising power and control than producing power, which should be their goal.

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
April 24, 2023 3:39 pm

So what’s his motive?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  KevinM
April 26, 2023 3:43 pm

Unfettered government control over energy use.

Steve Case
April 24, 2023 6:32 am

The folks at Time Magazine want to make Earth Day a religious holiday, read about that here. What religion would that be? Environmentalism with Climate Change and the effects of CO2 as the first gospel? If they do, then the first amendment comes into play as it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Maybe they should get their wish (-:

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve Case
April 24, 2023 7:03 am

I’m an atheist. If they make it a religious holiday, I’ll still be an atheist! It’ll be just one more holiday to ignore. For me, any sunny day with comfortable temperatures here in cold, damp New England, is a holiday.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2023 7:30 am

You will not be allowed to ignore these zealots.

Curious George
Reply to  Steve Case
April 24, 2023 9:10 am

As the “Earth Day” really celebrates the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (born Ulyanov), the religion is known as Communism.

Last edited 1 month ago by Curious George
J Boles
April 24, 2023 6:36 am

It has been shown that carbon capture does not work, it takes half the power of the plant to do it? It will never happen, they are just virtue signaling. That is a comfy 17 years away. We need lots more nuclear and don’t wait for fusion power.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  J Boles
April 24, 2023 7:05 am

What we need is more fossil fuels. Long live Alex Epstein!

Steve Case
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2023 7:44 am

Coal is certainly finite, some people think petroleum is abiotic and methane is present in other worlds i.e., Saturn’s moon Titan, so some methane is certainly abiotic and perhaps is continually produced deep within the Earth similar to Radon and Helium.

In any case, most fossil fuels will become more and more expensive to the point that we will effectively run out of them. Eventually we need to synthesize them and that will take gobs of atomic energy. Well anyway, killing the economy now isn’t an intelligent strategy. Democrats and other left-wing political parties around the world know this so there must be some other motive.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Steve Case
April 24, 2023 8:08 am

Power and control. That’s the only motive the left has. By declaring the authority to regulate CO2 production, they give themselves the authority to regulate literally every activity. In their blind lust for power and control, they don’t realize and don’t really care what gets destroyed in the process.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 24, 2023 11:01 am

Any methane that was brought to earth, escaped from the core and mantle while the earth was still completely molten.
There is no methane stored deep within the earth and there is no means of making any. Radon and helium come from radioactive decay. Which radioactive element do you propose results in methane as a byproduct?

The methane on Saturn’s moon was brought there after the moon cooled.
The problem with using the same mechanism to get methane to earth, is that methane is extremely volatile and most of it would have been evaporated off the asteroids before they could arrive at the Earth. What little that did survive the trip would have stayed in the atmosphere and destroyed once plants started making oxygen.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 24, 2023 3:47 pm

Now imagining a Broadway actor shooting giant reuseable methane-filled canisters into orbit for space elevator retrieval.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 24, 2023 3:42 pm

Link for continuous Helium production? I don’t contest it, I’m just looking for a research shortcut.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Steve Case
April 26, 2023 3:46 pm

We have coal reserves to use it for centuries. There will be no coal shortage for generations.

Reply to  J Boles
April 24, 2023 7:51 am

And what will be the cost of electricity under this crazy scheme?

They never tell you that. This prevents a rational person from doing a cost benefit analysis.
A recent WUWT piece places the US loss from warming (RCP 8.5 -we now know to be risible) at 500 billion a year in the year 2090.


This makes the trillions they want to spend destroying the economy, oppressing the people seem to be a vast over-kill that we can’t afford. But they never mention the price vs the cost of their “solutions”.

Reply to  a_scientist
April 24, 2023 11:04 am

It will be cheap, it will only be available for 1 hour per day though.
Knowing which hour ahead of time, will be provided for an extra fee.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 25, 2023 11:28 am

It will be very expensive, and only be available for 1 hour per day.

April 24, 2023 6:44 am

The carbon “burden”, a wicked… regulatory solution. Forward!

DD More
Reply to  n.n
April 24, 2023 10:09 am

the planet-warming pollution produced by the United States.

Is that anything like the gas that Plants Feed on?

Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2023 6:59 am

“The proposed rule is sure to face opposition from the fossil fuel industry, power plant operators and their allies in Congress.”

A comment like that always implies that the opposition is due to selfishness, not that there might be a good case against a proposal.

I’m amazed that Biden can do this by executive authority with no approval needed by Congress. This should go to the Supreme Court ASAP.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2023 3:50 pm

Just remember not to cheer when the next guy tries the opposite goal using the same tools.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  KevinM
April 26, 2023 4:01 pm

If the next guy is just reversing previous executive orders, this administration has already done that in spades.

Ron Long
April 24, 2023 7:08 am

So, China increasing their “carbon pollution”, while building (with slave labor) green energy installations, is not just laughing at the USA and Europe, they are realizing the benefits of their payoffs to Crime Families. This mess is rapidly getting worse.

George Daddis
Reply to  Ron Long
April 24, 2023 7:41 am

What percent of these new plants China is installing weekly have carbon capture?
That is clearly information available to the US President.

Given that, how can any rational person then order our existing assets to convert to carbon capture when they will be overwhelmed by the impact of emissions from plants in India and China?

Tom Johnson
April 24, 2023 7:13 am

In its half century of ‘pollution control’, the EPA has achieved near miraculous success in achieving its pollution control requirements. when car pollution was first regulated, auto makers simply pumped more air through the exhaust. This burned up some unburned hydrocarbons, but also diluted the remaining gases, making them appear to be less pollution. This evolved into catalytic converters which burned up unburned gasses. Then three-way catalysts were invented that simultaneously reduced oxides and also oxidized unburned gases. Then computer-controlled air/fuel ratios were added to give exactly zero excess oxygen at each cylinder in the engine. Now even valve timing and multiple temperature, pressure, and operating conditions are controlled as well. All these required inventions and development of hardware that was not even considered when the regulations were written.

None of these technologies required violation of one of the most fundamental laws of physics, conservation of energy: ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’.

The energy in fossil fuels comes from the sun. It got there over a long period of time, a long time ago. This energy came via photosynthesis in plants which converted CO2 in the atmosphere into carbon in the plants. Burning the fuel puts CO2 back into the atmosphere. The EPA cannot write a regulation that changes this. Changing CO2 back into oxygen and carbon takes more energy than was liberated when it was burned. That’s because of another fundamental law of physics: Thermodynamics’ Second Law. Capturing CO2 and then ‘storing’ it also takes huge amounts of energy. individual CO2 molecules must be separated from the rest of the air, and then ‘stored’ – forever. The techniques to do this are presently unknown, and the energy to do this is not available in the foreseeable future. There is simply no quantity of windmills, solar panels, and batteries that can be assembled in the time period of the regulation as stated, while still keeping airplanes in the air, food on the shelves, and houses warm in the winter and cool in the summer. The EPA doesn’t need a ‘near miracle’, it needs a real miracle. No amount of invention and development can violate physical laws. A dose of reality would help.

Reply to  Tom Johnson
April 24, 2023 7:22 am

And in the meantime, a high colonic would be useful.

Reply to  Tom Johnson
April 24, 2023 3:56 pm
  1. one of the most fundamental laws of physics, conservation of energy: ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’.”
  2. No amount of invention and development can violate physical laws.

Those two statements are an invitation to a philosophical discussion unsettled. If both are true, what else must be true for us to post anything on an Internet message board?

Paul S
April 24, 2023 7:17 am

The term “Carbon Pollution” is wrong on so many levels it gob smacks me.

Ron Long
Reply to  Paul S
April 24, 2023 10:16 am

You’re thinking something that participates in a 10% greening of the earth should not be called “pollution”? Very logical, and I agree wholeheartedly, but logic is not WOKE.

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Paul S
April 24, 2023 12:01 pm

That’s because they have deluded people into not knowing the difference between carbon (the element – the black stuff you get on your hands when you handle charcoal) and carbon dioxide, the gaseous molecule. People think carbon = black and dirty. Which is correct when referencing actual carbon residue. They don’t think of an invisible, odorless gas that constitutes a tiny fraction of the earth’s atmosphere. And a gas that’s essential to life on earth.

Peta of Newark
April 24, 2023 7:18 am

I’ve no special idea of the efficiency (how it would compare to capturing the CO2 gas) an burying it) of doing it but it is very very simple and is well established technology from about a century ago.

How: Gassify (pyrolise) the coal so as to create 2 main things:

  1. What was called ‘Town Gas’
  2. Coke

Put the gas into your power station to make electricity
Take the coke out to your nearest desert and mix/plough it into the top 12″ of sand/gravel/dirt whatever

If you really wanted to haha ‘Go to town’, take the coke via your neaserest sewage works and let it soak up the (treated) goodness coming off the place, instead of pouring it away into rivers/lakes/oceans

Maybe also large cattle/animal/chicken feedlots.
Then you will see some Global Greening

Because what you’re doing is simultaneously capturing the Carbon (those bits of coke will still be there 1,000+ years from now) but also feeding eroded soil.
Which will grow ‘stuff’
(Contain yourself – do not get all squeamish, high-horse and uptight about Invasive Species, Green is green is Green is Green is green is green. OK)

By reference to the attached graphic, once enough coke has been scattered around, lots of new greenery created and

  • that that greenery NOT harvested or poisoned
  • is not eaten (except grazed by buffalo or similar)
  • is not burned no matter how contrived or clever…

……..the effect will be to extent the length of ‘Summer’ as seen in the picture.

Extending ‘summer’ to make it 4 months long instead of the present 3, means that plant life will have pulled an extra 5ppm of CO2 out the sky.
See that just by eyeballing the pic.

Thus: The annual year on year increase will go from +2ppm to minus 3ppm

what’s not to like.
Their carbon capture plan could be up and working well inside, fingers on one hand, years
It would be cheap and of immeasurable benefit to climate. and buffalo coz they’re lovely.

The World Needs More Buffalo (I am NOT joking)

Annual CO2 Cycle.PNG
Steve Case
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 24, 2023 8:00 am

Please stop making suggestions as to how the Democrats and other left-wing crazies can solve their imaginary problem. In doing so you are buying into the notion that there actually is a problem that requires a solution. There isn’t a problem.

Of course there is a problem, and it is Marxism. They are at a point where they think they have the means to install themselves as single party rulers in a world totalitarian government. They’ve been telling us that’s the goal since 1918.

“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.” — Max Horkheimer

John Oliver
April 24, 2023 7:27 am

Communist countries and Banana Republics in general all like to maintain the facade of the rule of law. That’s the trajectory we are on now.

Mr Ed
Reply to  John Oliver
April 24, 2023 9:24 am

Tucker Carlson just got fired at Fox News. He had the highest number of viewers
and let go. Orwellian day. This is moving fast.

John Oliver
Reply to  Mr Ed
April 24, 2023 11:19 am

yea i’m following this too. we are seeing just how powerful the forces of tyranny and censorship are. But there is some faint hope. All these MSM outlets including fox as well as the MSM leftest are slowly ever so slowly loosing audience/ trust. But their still very powerful. Still pretty damn disturbing. Tucker will admit if he got something wrong at some point. He won’t go along with BS and so he has to be silenced.

John Oliver
Reply to  John Oliver
April 24, 2023 11:24 am

Remember that famous quote about the German Fascist- first they came for group A then B …. then they came for me! Scary

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Mr Ed
April 24, 2023 12:08 pm

Don Lemon also got the axe at CNN, which is very surprising considering they like their personalities to be on the far left end of the political spectrum. I guess Lemon’s comment about women in their 50’s not being “in their prime” was a bit too much…
Plus, far left outlets like CNN are bleeding viewers like crazy.

Reply to  Lee Riffee
April 24, 2023 4:02 pm

Target demographic is literally dying.

George Daddis
April 24, 2023 7:37 am

Mr. Biden hopes to succeed where his former boss, President Barack Obama, failed…”
President Obama noted at the time that if his plans were implemented, “electricity prices ….. would necessarily sky rocket.”

Joe’s “success” means that you will have to pay more for electricity, with dollars he has devalued through inflation. What a plan!

Reply to  George Daddis
April 24, 2023 11:53 am

“Mr. Biden hopes to succeed where his former boss, President Barack Obama, failed…”

Reply to  George Daddis
April 24, 2023 12:50 pm

Obama is also reputed to have said, “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to f*ck things up.”

April 24, 2023 7:47 am

Wyoming just had it’s most brutal winter on record. Took a terrible toll on the wildlife.

“Coldest winter ever in Wyoming” | Real Climate Science

64.3% power generation in the state is from coal fired plants and 4.8% is natural gas.

Electricity Generation by State | March 2023 | Choose Energy®

Clearly the government believes too many humans survived the winter.

It doesnot add up
April 24, 2023 7:53 am

So they want to decrease the efficiency of energy production and speed up the use of valuable resources while pushing up costs for consumers and industry using a process that has Gateley any proven experience.

Alternatively they are set on ensuring intermittent power supply becomes a feature of life. Either way it is an attack on the people.

Beta Blocker
April 24, 2023 8:11 am

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) contains language in several places inside the act which labels carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants. The inclusion of this language in the IRA is clearly intended to give the EPA a basis for claiming that there is Congressional intent to authorize direct regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

The question now becomes, what kinds of regulatory mechanisms will be used by the EPA in directly regulating carbon emissions?

The environmental law community has long been advocating for the classification of carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as ‘criteria pollutants’ under sections 108 and 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to add new criteria pollutants to the original list established fifty years ago. This can be done by first publishing a Section 108 Endangerment Finding for carbon and then by establishing a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon GHG’s.

Classifying carbon GHG’s as criteria pollutants would enable the use of a variety of regulatory tools for directly suppressing the emission of carbon GHG’s. Which is why the environmental law community has been such an ardent advocate of adopting this approach.

The other advantage of classifying carbon GHG’s as criteria pollutants is that court challenges to the new regulations will force the courts to decide whether or not to examine the science behind the endangerment finding, as well as to examine the process that the EPA used in developing the finding.

Determining the truth of a scientific question is not something the courts like to do. Courts historically have left it to the regulatory agencies to determine the truth of a scientific claim. Because the courts have already upheld the Section 202 endangerment finding for carbon published more than a decade ago, the courts would likely uphold a Section 108 finding.

What if the Biden Administration decides against using a Section 108 / Section 110 approach and does not choose to classify carbon GHG’s as criteria pollutants? Suppose they attempt to use other sections of the Clean Air Act in suppressing America’s carbon emissions? Why would the Biden Administration go that route?

The strategy underpinning that kind of alternative approach — not to identify carbon GHG’s as criteria pollutants, but to use other sections of the CAA — would be to place immediate pressure on the power generation industry not to build more gas-fired power plants and not to upgrade legacy plants for purposes of meeting increases in power demand while at the same time fighting a very long and very expensive battle of lawfare legal combat in the courts.

Suppose that the issue eventually ends up in the US Supreme Court and the court rules against the EPA citing the Major Questions Doctrine?

The Biden Administration has said explicitly and unequivocally that it will ignore any decisions handed down in the courts which are adverse to its climate change agenda.

Last edited 1 month ago by Beta Blocker
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 24, 2023 7:42 pm

The EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to add new criteria pollutants to the original list established fifty years ago

And Congress delegated authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the Executive Branch to make laws back in 1946 when they passed the Administrative Procedure Act in direct contravention of the separation of powers principle fundamental to the Constitution and the proper, accountable administration of government. We elect representatives to make laws so we can fire them if they violate our will, maintaining the necessary accountability to the electorate that prevents authoritarianism and tyranny. The Democrats in 1946 didn’t think that accountability was necessary anymore and now we have the tyranny. It’s time to drastically overhaul the Administrative Procedure Act or replace it. Administrative agencies should only have power to administer laws passed by Congress and power to propose new laws that our representatives debate and vote on. That would end this mess.

April 24, 2023 8:23 am

For the great reset to take place the global population must be decreased. And this is just one step in the effort to make that come about.

April 24, 2023 8:39 am

I hear that the EU wants to have R404A go the way of R22.

Also, the EU is planning a big attack on plastics.

Reply to  Neo
April 24, 2023 9:13 am

Hmm … DuPont’s patent must be expiring soon. But don’t worry, once R404A is banned, you can now switch to DuPont’s new patented refrigerant. Just ignore all the extra money DuPont just “donated” to various politicians.

general custer
Reply to  alexwade
April 24, 2023 10:21 am

They can ban all commercial refrigerants except the best one: R-717 or ammonia. Highest capacity, a little dangerous, and doesn’t work well with copper, all problems that can be easily solved with current technology. And it’s already in use everywhere.

Reply to  alexwade
April 24, 2023 4:05 pm

DuPont is located in Delaware. Joe Biden is located in Delaware. Coincidence? I think not.

More Soylent Green!
April 24, 2023 8:49 am

We have a lawless government. The EPA, like other departments and executive agencies, just doen’t care about laws, or recognize the constitutional limitations on their power. The agency is staffed with zealots and activists plus the standard issue power-for-power’s sake bureaucrats.

We need to drain the swamp. Say what you want about Trump, but he wasn’t beholded to the billionaires or the corporate money men.

Last edited 1 month ago by More Soylent Green!
general custer
April 24, 2023 8:52 am

There’s a substantial amount of blame to go around for this state of affairs but it’s generation lies in the massively socialist US public school system, which produces the mis-educated grads that are further warped by academia and then take their place in science, engineering, journalism and government. It would be irrational to throw in the towel and join these people so the first item on the agenda should be to eliminate as much as possible government-directed primary school education and replace it with a program based on reality.

Reply to  general custer
April 24, 2023 4:11 pm

Did the kids of the 70s create the technology we’re using to post here? Yeah, they did.

general custer
Reply to  general custer
April 24, 2023 7:45 pm

Here’s a story from the campus newspaper of a highly-regarded land grant university.

April 24, 2023 9:21 am

To stop all this nonsense; the nation’s 3,400 coal and gas-fired plants, need to close ( to cut emissions) for a week … all at the same time.

Lets see how well society runs on government mandated ‘green renewables’.

A quick painful lesson is better than death by a 1,000 cuts.

Mark BLR
Reply to  1saveenergy
April 24, 2023 10:27 am

A quick painful lesson is better than death by a 1,000 cuts.

My initial reaction to this story, and others like it I’ve read before, was very similar.

The cynic in me, however, quickly came up with the following multiple-choice question.

If one or more of the US electricity grids goes “black”, what will be the response of the Biden administration ?
1) Sorry about that, our bad ! We’ll correct our approach to something rational immediately …
2) It’s all Donald Trump’s fault.
3) Other (suggestions welcome).

Reply to  Mark BLR
April 24, 2023 11:12 am

Here’s what they’ll say. It’s an old score card.

It’s the evil oil companies.
They could create carbon free power easily, if they wanted to.
It’s just that they can make more money by selling dirty power that’s killing your kids.
The only solution is to nationalize the oil companies, the power companies, automobile and truck manufacturers, etc.
We have to do it now, in order to save the planet.

April 24, 2023 9:25 am

This proposed rule will be challenged in court, and the Biden admin will lose because SCOTUS is what they are, unfriendly to over regulation. The Bidenistas do this to get their leftwingnut base all hepped up and excited, and don’t care that it’ll be stamped down again. It’s in their nature, that’s what they do.

Reply to  Duane
April 24, 2023 11:12 am

There base is already demanding that the court be packed with trustworthy justices.

John Oliver
Reply to  Duane
April 24, 2023 11:34 am

Unfortunately Duane , the language going although way back to EPAs original mandate leaves a lot of wiggle room. The supremes can rule against but the agency will just find some other regulatory angle- it is a can of worms we have created with some of these agency’s, Homeland security too. Need to go back and start over from scratch , but that ain’t happening.

April 24, 2023 9:43 am

Here’s an analysis about removing CO2 from the atmosphere: Subject: Occidental Petroleum’s CO2 Reduction Plan

In the April 11, 2023 edition of the Wall Street Journal, an article by Benoit Morenne described a plan by Occidental Petroleum to extract massive amounts of CO2 out of the air. Occidental is spending more than $1 billion to build the first of a planned fleet of plants. The plant will remove 500,000 metric tons of CO2 from the air per year. Occidental intends to build up to 135 more of these plants by the year 2035. Occidental claims that its initial cost to remove a metric tonne of CO2 would be between $400 and $500. Using $400 a metric ton, the total cost by 2035 would be $2,400,000,000, excluding possible cost reductions due to efficiencies of scale, for removing 810,000,000 metric tons of CO2. Tax incentives will subsidize 45% of the initial costs, thanks to Bidens’ climate package that was signed into law last year. 
Consider how this plan will cut global CO2 levels from now to the year 2035. Assume that all 135 plants are on line and operating today. By 2035, these plants will have removed 810,000,000 metric tons of CO2. The atmosphere weighs 5,500,000,000,000,000 (5.5 quadrillion) metric tons. 810,000,000 metric tons of removed CO2 is 0.0000147% of the atmosphere. CO2 currently constitutes about 0.04 % of the atmosphere.  Removing 0.0000147 % of CO2 would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 0.03999%, which when rounded to two decimal places yields 0.04%. Ergo, there will be no significant percentage reduction in CO2 levels. 
Occidental expects to generate between $400 and $630 in revenue per metric ton, which includes a $180 per metric ton tax credit. So, even without the tax credits, Occidental expects to earn between $220 and $450 a metric ton. It should be noted that cost estimates for untested new technologies tend to escalate. Occidental’s projections of costs and potential revenues may be a bit too rosy in my opinion. Time will tell.
At 2.4 billion dollars, Occidental’s project may or may not be a technical or financial success. But the anticipated removal of 810,000,000 metric tons of CO2 by 2035 from the atmosphere will not measurably change the global percentage of atmospheric CO2.

Reply to  1966goathead
April 24, 2023 12:56 pm

They’d also have a hard time proving that they’d actually removed any CO2. This sounds like an epic scam to mop up government money, presumably to counteract the effects of losing petroleum sales.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  1966goathead
April 25, 2023 4:25 am

But it sounds impressive to the under educated.

Mark BLR
April 24, 2023 10:14 am

… according to three people who were briefed on the rule.

Almost all coal and gas-fired power plants would have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, according to the people familiar with the regulation, who asked not to be identified because the rule has not been made public.

Slightly off-topic.

Presumably those (3 ?) people signed employment contracts saying they would not leak information to media outlets unless specifically authorised to do.

Will the NYT help track down who those people are with as much “energy” as the MSM did with Jack Teixeira ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
John Oliver
Reply to  Mark BLR
April 24, 2023 11:56 am

Just think about what we know now about COVID and VACCINES now compared to what the censors were telling us. This really is a battle – liberty vs Tyranny . Maybe even good vs evil. This is not political business as usual anymore. The supremes needs to deliver some serious smack down on a number cases to save the Republic at this point. The agencys : FBI CIA Justice EPA etc are rogue, corrupt dysfunctional. 1/2 of Congress too.

April 24, 2023 10:57 am

Next step would be to require all existing cars to get 70mpg if they want to keep using public roads.

Reply to  MarkW
April 24, 2023 4:17 pm

Some motorcycles can

April 24, 2023 10:58 am

As you leave the United States, will the last sane person please turn out the lights?

That’s if there’s any power left to run the lights.

Reply to  Redge
April 24, 2023 4:17 pm

To go where?

April 24, 2023 12:23 pm

Power Plant Emission Trends, EPA
Power Plant Emission Trends | US EPA

This site notes that in 2022 CO2 power plant emissions were 1.7 billion tons. I assume that the chart really means metric tons.

President Biden has now decreed that coal fired power plants now must capture or other wise control CO2 emissions.

So, just how effective will this be?

The atmosphere weighs 5,500,000,000,000,000 metric tons. (5.5 quadrillion tonnes).

Biden expects to remove 1,700,000,000 metric tons.

As a percent of the atmosphere, this is 1,700,000,000 divided by 5,500,000,000,000,000 times 100. This equals

Currently, CO2 constitutes about 0.04 % if the global atmosphere. Reducing the CO2 by 0.0000309 percentage points would yield a new atmospheric CO2 content of 0.03999% Rounding back to two decimal places, the CO2 global concentration would still be 0.04%, which is an unmeasurable change.

Mr. Biden’s plan would have absolutely no effect on global atmospheric CO2 levels. None.

Reply to  1966goathead
April 24, 2023 8:31 pm

One scam follows another .
Global warming then Climate change then Methane from farmed livestock and now carbon capture .
The US government will bankrupt their country and Asia will become the worlds power house .
China is now using more coal than was used by the whole world in 2009 and they are not trying to capture their CO2 and they have more sense to even attempt such a costly process..
I am told they are planting more trees for timber as they import a massive amount of Radiata Pine logs from New Zealand and some of the exporters are getting a little nervous.
Our socialist government here in New Zealand are encouraging overseas companies to buy up our farmland and plant it in Pines for carbon capture .They call it Carbon Farming and once the trees are planted our government will issue carbon certificates to the owners with very little benefit to New Zealand after the initial purchase and the planting of the trees .
Our electricity is very (green) with the majority generated by hydro stations ,with some geothermal in the North Island.
Most power companies have some wind farms and some solar farms are being planed .
We have one major coal and gas plant at Huntly and a few small diesel and gas stations if required .
New Zealand has very high so called agricultural emissions because of our farm animals but we have very low electric generating emissions quite often the country runs on hydro and wind and geothermal with no fossil fueled power generation .
Methane from farmed livestock is carbon neutral exactly the same as if coal fired power stations would be if the CO2 was captured and stored .
In ten years from 1999 until 2009 methane levels in the atmosphere were stable so there was no problem with methane from farming animals or burning coal .
All fodder that the animals eat has absorbed C02 from the air so that is is a carbon sink.
The minute amount of methane that each animal emits during digestion breaks down into water vapour and CO2 in the upper atmosphere into water vapour and C02 within 10 years .
The process is a closed cycle not one atom of carbon is added to the atmosphere .
Since 2010 world coal use has soared from 4.7 billion tonnes to exceed 8 billion tonnes with the entire increase being in Asia .
Methane levels started rising in 2010 with the increase of coal use .

April 24, 2023 2:09 pm

“Almost all coal and gas-fired power plants would have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040”.

OK, no problem. We’ll do it in 2039.

Joe Gordon
April 24, 2023 2:36 pm

Historians disagree on the cause of the decline of the Roman Empire. It’s hard to point to one event or series of events. Just that what seemed invincible in the 3rd Century was a shadow of itself by the end of the 5th.

The United States, however, has the war on fossil fuels. No doubt about it. This will end the USA’s run as leader of the free world and China will take our place (with far less freedom). The only question is whether the woketocracy and Chinese control over what’s written will allow people to understand Biden’s decisions and their effects centuries from now.

In retrospect, I’m sure there actually was something similar that people noted within the Roman Empire. Something obvious at the time, but records have been altered or lost.

Reply to  Joe Gordon
April 24, 2023 4:20 pm

You don’t think population matters? What about India?

Joe Gordon
Reply to  KevinM
April 24, 2023 5:51 pm

I wasn’t there. That’s one theory. It has merit. I’m saying that there were undoubtedly people at the time who knew exactly the moment the Roman Empire was going downhill. Historians today can only theorize.

But I can say with clarity that this war on reliable energy – the one thing that has led to US leadership and quality of life – will be the downfall of US leadership and the tipping point is Biden’s bungling.

April 24, 2023 2:46 pm

This makes me so angry. Every rule making body must be forced to prove scientifically that every rule they are considering is justified beyond any doubt. EPA needs to be cut in half by that I mean fire the top half. If the remainders can’t stand by their work then eliminate the EPA.

Reply to  Bob
April 24, 2023 4:21 pm

Ow. They have electric bills to pay too.

April 24, 2023 3:37 pm

Read headline then scanned until:
Aha here it is:
by 2040″
So he would be age 97, if alive.
Not a poor bet.
The policy can be adjusted over the next 17 years.

April 24, 2023 4:09 pm

Here we go again! Plants need CO2, we need O2. The only source for O2 is plants, both aqueous and agricultural ones. The oxygen level is going down 19 parts per million per year from the 20.7% we have right now. Once this level reaches 19.5% our ancestors health will be compromised. This is only 3500 years in the future less then the time when the pharaohs ruled In Egypt. Therefore we need more CO2 not less. These people are imbeciles.

April 24, 2023 9:11 pm
Beta Blocker
Reply to  observa
April 25, 2023 12:21 pm

A simplistic policy of guaranteeing a 10% annual rate of return on all monies spent on wind and solar capital expenditures, to be financed by ratepayers on a pay-as-you-go basis using unrestricted charges to ratepayer electricity bills, would initiate a mad scramble by investors to build out Europe’s renewable energy infrastructure.

Which is why we won’t see this very simplistic but very highly effective solution to the problem that not nearly enough capital investment is being spent on wind and solar in Europe, at least according to the firms which market this technology.

The Real Engineer
April 25, 2023 4:31 am

Don’t worry, when the electricity goes off, the penny will drop. Either that or the perpetrators will face the ultimate drop, as the general public realise they have been had 100 times over. Lamp posts may even become popular for not giving light. No electric chair of course with no electric!

Even in leftie Britain, a surprising number of people don’t want electric cars any more. Even without much tax electricity except at home costs more than petrol (gas) or diesel despite the insane tax on both. The wheel has come full circle, and because of economics too!

Last edited 1 month ago by The Real Engineer
April 25, 2023 12:29 pm

As this asinine idea of restricting CO2 emissions and also the idea of CO2 capture is based on no reality regarding any connection to warming the planet, this policy is another plan to make energy more expensive, force some power plants to close, and destroy our economy. As greenhouse gases do not exist, any policy to reduce emissions patently has another agenda.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights