From Government Accountability & Oversight
by Webadmin
Amid reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering the December 2009 “Endangerment Finding” regarding greenhouse gases,[1] a recanvassing of emails obtained in the infamous “Richard Windsor” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought over a dozen years ago by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) against the Agency[2] leads to a troubling conclusion: the Obama EPA’s regulatory “finding” that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare was the product of an illusory notice-and-comment process, and the agency predetermined its outcome because the relevant decisionmakers had unalterably closed minds.
The Endangerment Finding is the basis for the entire “climate” regulatory edifice that has followed, not to mention the electricity reliability crisis we are now being warned about by reliability organizations such as the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
Putting aside the obvious imperative for revisiting the EF given the evolution of scientific understanding and increasing disparity between the claims serving as the basis for the EF and subsequent scientific observations casting doubt on its evidentiary foundations, none of the proposed reforms to that climate regulatory state are likely to be durable if the Endangerment Finding remains in place. All of the regulatory reforms will be short-term and, ultimately, for naught. Electricity reliability crises will indeed be the new normal.
Reviewing the Agency’s internal record for procedural improprieties is a responsible step in reconsidering any prior or pending action. This is particularly important given what we have learned about the Obama and Biden EPA and other agencies deployed in the facially unconstitutional “whole of government” approach to imposing this climate agenda, despite the whole of government not being authorized to implement such policy and, per West Virginia v. EPA, even the EPA not having been authorized to do most of what it is trying to do post-EF.
And these emails, and privilege logs of randomly selected (by EPA) withheld-in-full records from CEI’s FOIA litigation suggest that there is a sound basis for believing the Obama team proceeded with a predetermined outcome in mind, and that the Endangerment Finding was the product of unalterably closed minds such that there was no realistic chance the process would achieve any other result. That violates our due process requirements as affirmed in the Administrative Procedure Act.
Even given just that information, to protect the integrity of the rulemaking process and hopefully guard against further adventurism in the future, it is clear that any reconsideration should also consider what the internal discussions reveal about the original propriety of this action in this respect.
Endangerment Finding Timeline
10.20.99 International Center for Technology Assessment submits petition to EPA seeking regulation of GHGs under § 202(a) of the CAA. This was denied in Sept. 2003, then winded its way through DC Cir. litigation, where that court upheld the denial.
4.02.07 SCOTUS holds 5-4 in Massachusetts v. EPA that the CAA definition of “air pollutant” contemplates GHGs, and that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make that decision.
It did not order EPA to regulate GHGs, but to set forth a reasoned basis for doing so or not doing so.
12.18.08 EPA Administrator Johnson finds no endangerment, focusing specifically on stationary source permitting requirements, as set forth in the 19-page “Johnson memo”.
1.21.09 Obama administration takes office at noon.
1.29.09 Principal advisor to the Administrator on legislative climate issues and former green-group (NRDC) lawyer, David McIntosh, reports to the Administrator Lisa Jackson (under her false-identity email account in the name of “Richard Windsor”) and Lisa Heinzerling[3] about the second of two scheduled meetings with [ REDACTED ] climate modelers. [ REDACTED ].”
1.30.09 Scheduled “Briefing on the response to the Endangerment issue from Mass. v EPA“
2.08.09 Lisa Heinzerling sends “Richard Windsor” a “power plants memo”, withheld in full (WIF)
2.09.09 Jackson, McIntosh call with White House climate advisor “Carol Browner to discuss Coal Plants”
2.16.09 Emails, heavily redacted, discuss how much and what to say to NYT’s Broder in interview the next day. Redactions include discussion of endangerment. State, re that interview: “SUBJECT: Handshake meeting; Opportunity to outline agenda; endangerment”
2.16.09 Jackson writes to Heinzerling, Subject: Good news re: Johnson memo, “The Sierra Club and other petitioners who have challenged the Johnson memo on PSD will NOT be asking the court to stay the memo tomorrow. [ REDACTED (two lines ) ]. Have a good night.”
Heinzerling responds, “Wow. How did you pull THAT off?”
That seems a very good question.
2.18.09 NYT’s Broder publishes story “EPA to regulate Greenhouse gases”. Story quotes Jackson saying mind not made up but Mass. v EPA anniversary was coming up, which she calls “momentous,” saying “We have to lay out a road map.”
EPA redacted several emails, shielding discussion of same.
2.22.09 Vaughn index shows several email discussions of Endangerment, between Administrator and Heinzerling, WIF, as was email with same and public affairs chief discussing when and how to tell public about EF
2.23.09 Email from Bob Sussman to Windsor, Heinzerling, McIntosh, Subject: “OMB/Endangerment Finding”, refers to recommendation for “one important item” from Michael Fitzpatrick of OIRA (OMB) for proceeding with the Endangerment Finding
Heinzerling responds, “We’re planning on doing this.”
See 2.26.09 email to White House re same. This shows EF was well in the works one month into office.
2.26.09 Email from Heinzerling to “Windsor”, McIntosh, states that EF will be made, even though it was at the time purportedly just something under consideration, and that Agency can proceed w tailpipe regs (subject of Mass. V. EPA) while EF is underway
2.26.09 EPA tells Heather Zichal, deputy WH coordinator for climate and energy policy, that the EF will be made, they will get OMB to expedite its review and gives the timeline for going final
3.05.09 Vaughn index shows email discussions of Endangerment, between Administrator and Heinzerling, WIF
3.10.09 Vaughn index shows email discussions of Endangerment, between Administrator and Heinzerling, WIF
3.12.09 Al McGartland, director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, emails (soon-to-be) whistleblower Alan Carlin, “In light of the tight schedule and the turn of events, please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of NCEE on endangerment.“
3.13.09 Vaughn index shows string of emails about drafting memo to POTUS re EF, Heinserling and Windsor, Attachment: “Presidential Decision Memo endangerment LH 3-15 – redline.doc”. Other entries show this thread continues on 3.16.09 and 3.22.09, including David McIntosh
3.16.09 Subject: Comments on the Endangerment TSD, copying more Agency officials, Carlin presses for inclusion of what are later described as “not helpful” comments contradicting what the administration has decided to do
3.17.09 More WIF email between Windsor and Heinzerling, “Endangerment”
3.17.09 McGartland emails Carlin, Subject: endangerment comments??? stating he did not forward Carlin’s input and stated, inter alia, “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal of policy case for this decision.”
3.20.09 More WIF email between Windsor and Heinzerling, “Endangerment”
3.22.09 WIF emails between Windsor, Heinzerling, PR chief, “Endangerment”
3.202-23.09 WIF email between Windsor, Heinzerling, PR chief, on the matter of public hearings on “the endangerment finding”, which the records states had not yet been made
4.07.09 Lisa Jackson (“Richard Windsor”) trying to get time w David Axelrod to message EF
4.24.09 EPA proposes EF
6.09 Alan Carlin whistleblowing. 6.24.09 email re same, and having not been presented with the questions about Carlin allegations “we had been worried about.”
12.03.09 Vaughn index shows East Anglia (i.e., ClimateGate) Talking Points
12.05.09 Memo, redacted (first in full, then merely heavily), Tough Qs and As, “Issues raised regarding the Climate Research Unit (CRU) University of East Anglia.”
Fully redacts “Relevance to EPA and the Endangerment Finding.”
12.15.09 EPA publishes “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
9.26.11 OIG report requested by Ranking EPW Member Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), “Procedural Review of EPA ‘s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes”—which found, among other procedural deficiencies, that the EF “should have been peer reviewed as” required by implementing guidance for the Information Quality Act but was not—states, inter alia, in its discussion “OAR Did Not Follow Some Steps in the Action Development Process”:
“EPA initiated a formal action development process for the stand-alone greenhouse gases endangerment finding in early March 2009,” and “OAR [Office of Air and Radiation] began the action development process for the stand-alone endangerment finding in March 2009…”, citing no other point of note in the history of considering an EF between March 2009 and July 2008;
and
“in the endangerment finding EPA described the April 2009 TSD as the “underlying scientific and technical basis” for the Administrator’s proposed findings.”
[1] Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, December 7, 2009, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/federal_register-epa-hq-oar-2009-0171-dec.15-09.pdf.
[2] Competitive Enterprise Institute v. EPA (DDC), Case No. 1:12-cv-01617 (JEB).
[3] Ms. Heinzerling, who authored Massachusetts et al.’s brief in the Massachusetts v. EPA case, was brought in to the administration immediately and set to work on this matter for the first approximately seven months as “Administrator Jackson’s chief advisor on climate matters” (apparently until “reinforcements have arrived”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still consider the Endangerment Finding unconstitutional as an Establishment of Religion. Global Warming advocates act on a nearly fact free or Procrustean Bed approach, attributing all bad weather to human emissions of greenhouse gasses.
It might have started as a hypothetical explanation for warming since the Little Ice Age, but the True Believers deny the existence of such natural variations in climate, as with Michael Mann’s notorious Hockey Stick. It has become an evangelical (in the sense of preaching, not the euphemism for conservative Protestant) religion, and is intolerant of any dissent.
The EA itself is not un-constitutional, as Congress clearly has the power to regulate any pollutants that cross state lines as a matter of its interstate commerce powers. The issue is statutory, not Constitutional.
First of all, the 1990 Clear Air Amendments did not address nor did Congress even consider so-called “green house gases” (i.e., the stuff of life itself) to be a pollutant nor that climate could actually be controlled by limiting greenhouse gases. Therefore the Statutory finding by SCOTUS a decade and a half ago was simply wrong and was a political, not legal decision. And that decision is certainly ripe for overturning by the current SCOTUS which has had no qualms about overturning prior court decisions that enabled the Administrative branch to effectively make its own laws (i.e., Chevron).
Of course, given the history of both liberal judges and liberal EPAs working for liberal Dem Presidents, who will return to power eventually, the best solution is to simply amend the CAA to specifically exempt CO2 and CO as pollutants for the purpose of “controlling climate”. There is still reason to limit CO emissions because CO can act as a poison in high enough concentrations, and is commonly emitted as a result of burning hydrocarbon fuels. But “climate change” must be explicitly excluded as a basis of regulating either gas.
Stop with the meaningless minutiae of the endangerment finding already. It does not have the force of law. It was simply crafted out of thin air by the EPA at the time with sciencey-sounding “evidence” to support it. It was done to supposedly satisfy the requirements of the ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA to give the EPA’s attempt to invent authority to regulate “greenhouse gases”—which Congress never granted to the Executive Branch (the EPA)—a veneer of legality which never existed and still doesn’t, despite the weird ruling by the Supreme Court. It was gleefully signed by dumber-than-a-sack-of-hammers administrator Lisa Jackson, an Obama appointee whose devotion to leftist dogma always superseded actual science. The new administrator can simply reverse it with the stroke of a pen. More importantly, to prevent the EPA in future from usurping legislative power it does not have, according to the US Constitution, it would be helpful for Congress to clarify that the EPA may not enforce any rules or regulations not expressly passed by Congress, and cannot invent authority to regulate any air or water pollutants not enumerated in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and their amendments.
I think that this minutiae is important to help support the record that this has always been about political gain and not science.
Absolutely, exactly, and amen.
All this skepticism is nice, but we know the whole thing was BS to begin with and just needs to be binned. Do it, already.
Boy, would that upset the true believers!
I must respectfully disagree that the new administrator can reverse it with the stroke of a pen. If that were the case, it would have happened already. Reconsideration is a formal process that must be followed as cited by Trump’s executive order on the subject.
This has to be done carefully to avoid the same bias Jackson’s EPA showed in the original proceeding. There is plenty of data (just read Carlin’s report) to support the EF reversal and the track record shows EPA did not follow the rules in promulgating it.
One more fact is the world has not followed the temperature “projections” at the time of the EF.
The minutia is critical when it comes to a court of law.
It establishes method and intent beyond reasonable doubt.
CLIMATEGATE’S ugly cousin.
I was at EPA (Office of Research and Development) at the time and (unofficially) reviewed Alan Carlin’s comments. EPA had no real climate scientists at that time, so had to rely on (as I recall) a recent report by a US Government group, which itself was mostly dependent on the last IPCC report. This was a departure from EPA’s practice of depending heavily on ORD scientists when considering regulation and setting of standards for air and water pollutants.
Carlin’s comments were right on, and I can understand the memo stating your comments do not help the legal of policy case for this decision.
Indeed.
Endangermentgate!
I am so tired of every scandal under the sun having the “gate” appendage.
maybe append “quiddick”, huh?
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
There is nothing more dangerous than an out of control government.
What? Illegal, unethical actions taken by the Obama gov? Say it ain’t so…
Oh yes there is –
an in control government.
Such as Kim Jung Un runs.
Nothing is more dangerous than government.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence –it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” -GEORGE WASHINGTON -JANUARY 7, 1790
The top priority of the government is to protect the citizens FROM the government.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
OT: Did anybody else get a complimentary issue of New Scientist magazine in their mailbox today?
If they only knew what I think about them, they wouldn’t ask me to subscribe.
Conclusions in search of evidence? Inconceivable!
Seriously. The public comments at the time of the finding were wholesale ignored. The best analogy would be the fraternity kangaroo court in “Animal House.”
That is a good choice. There are, of course, many others.
I read the 52 pages of the Endangerment Finding, and on page 26 found the section about why H2O was not included in the list of ‘greenhouse gases’. here’s an excerpt from page 26:
The Administrator’s reasoning for excluding water vapor, was described in the Proposed Findings and is summarized here with additional information in Volume 10 of the Response to Comments document. First, climate change is being driven by the buildup in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases. The direct emissions primarily responsible for this are the six well-mixed greenhouse gases. Direct anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect and are thus not considered a primary driver of human-induced climate change.
The statements following ‘At first’ are declarative statements that are very debatable but stated as fact.
‘Climate change is being driven by greenhouse gasses’ is not a proven fact.
‘Anthropogenic emissions of water vapor, in general, have a negligible effect.’ What is not stated is that the large effect of H2O in the atmosphere on climate is so huge, that it negates the miniscule s of the gases listed.
Sounds like they are using the debate technique of making up-front statements that are somewhat feasible, but not true, to make their following supportive arguments sound true.
Repeating my March 10th comment at Vijay Jayaraj’s WUWT guest post on the EPA,
It would be interesting to find out if any lower level EPA employee who followed EPA rules voiced that particular concern back then, or alternatively, if any EPA administrator with influence said “to heck with our rules.”
Dismissing the endangerment finding helps but is not a long term solution. As soon as the next Dem President comes into office – and we know that’s coming eventually, if not as soon as the 2028 election – the Dem President will order another EA conducted and come to the same if not even more radical conclusions.
The only long term resolution is to amend the 1990 Clear Air Amendments to specifically exclude so called “green house gases” as a pollutant. In which case EPA will still have no authority to regulate CO2 and CO.
It’s also likely that the current SCOTUS would overturn the former 5-4 majority in MA vs. EPA and that would also make the EA moot.
Congress needs to fix this as part of this year’s budget reconciliation act, and it clearly impacts Federal budgets given the massive spending on behalf of “fixing climate change”.
And someone needs to file a lawsuit to overturn the MA vs. EPA decision. There are certainly plenty of parties directly damaged by that decision and the ongoing policies.