From Government Accountability & Oversight
Webadmin,
GAO has uncovered certain facts which the Trump administration absolutely must consider and exploit as it pursues its announced regulatory corrections. This information sheds light on the previous administration’s process for adopting an unlawful “suite of regulations” imposing the “climate” agenda without any statutory authorization. Turns out, that plan was more unlawful than even we knew.
In fact, this information rightly puts an immediate end to the flagship rule, the Biden administration’s ‘Clean Power Plan 2.0’.
If you recall, the Clean Power Plan 1.0, imposed by the Obama-Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that “generation shifting”—forcing disfavored power plants to close via punitive regulation—was a “best available system” for reducing emissions, which had been “adequately demonstrated.” The Supreme Court overturned that rule in the monumental opinion West Virginia v. EPA, holding that EPA had never been given the authority to decide “how Americans get their electricity”, which is a “major question” left to Congress. Along the way, the Court ruled that forcing plants to close via punitive regulation was not a “system” of emissions reductions.
Seemingly taking its cues from the dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, the Biden administration then imposed a second, even more stringent Clean Power Plan 2.0. That plan also sought to force the premature retirement of certain electricity generation capacity, as purportedly the most efficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As has been documented, that is unlawful and a basis for overturning the CPP 2.0 rule and others, too.
This second time around, EPA required carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as the best available system of emission reductions; EPA claimed CCS had been “adequately demonstrated” largely because the former administration claimed that CCS at a facility in Canada was working just fine. This was not true, as any search even of the Canadian popular or trade press would have proved (and the operator’s own quarterly reports affirmed, unambiguously).
Worse, however, EPA was told during the rule making process, by the government’s own engineers, that this was false. And someone buried that information even though it came from the government’s own expert staff. EPA then proceeded with the same false premise, as if it never received the advice it asked for.
GAO is reliably informed that on March 16, 2023 the EPA solicited preliminary comment from the Department of Energy (DoE) on EPA’s soon-to-be-proposed rule “New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule”. DoE’s National Energy Technology Laboratories’ (NETL) comments, submitted to EPA by DoE-HQ on or before March 22, 2023, refuted claims made in the then-draft proposal. Those comments were not reflected in the rulemaking docket, and EPA subsequently proposed its rule making the same claims that DoE engineers refuted.
GAO also sees this letter, suggesting the comments did make it to EPA and therefore that the party sanitizing the record was at the Agency, not at DoE.
We state with no slight confidence that DoE’s comments confirm what EPA knew or should have known, that it was proposing a major rule on a demonstrably false premise that carbon capture and sequestration had been “adequately demonstrated,” and based on an incomplete or materially falsified administrative record.
This recalls the previous administration’s burial of an assessment of exports of liquified natural gas to non-FTE countries, in order to facilitate a politically desired “pause” on LNG exports[1] (see FOIA request HQ-2024-02097-F; Government Accountability & Oversight v. Dep’t of Energy, 24-1829, DDC).
The Trump administration is sitting on the records the Biden administration cooked to force a predetermined outcome. That record, including digital traces of whatever, if anything, was disappeared from recent, prior administrations will necessarily be in the Trump administration’s hands. These records include internal discussions of all of the questions which strike at the heart of the legality of the Biden “whole of government” approach to imposing a never-enacted, ideological agenda. The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has an outstanding, late 2023 request to track this information down; GAO now has a couple of its own, helping direct new agency leadership to the information.
We hope the administration will consider these facts and take appropriate action, beginning with moving expeditiously to identify and release this information, and work with the Agency on the most appropriate remedy to these proceedings.
[1] See, e.g., Editorial, “The Harris Disguise, Energy Edition,” Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2024, https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-harris-fracking-energy-camila-thorndike-climate-policy-b768a9ce; video, “Energy Department is ‘extremely disappointed’ by Biden admin burying LNG study: Secretary Wright,” Fox Business, March 19, 2025, https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6370233247112.
Will anybody ever beheld to account for this fraud? Because, if not, what is the point, they’ll just do it again with impunity. Resignation should not prevent prosecution.
Geez politicians and public servants caught lying and cheating for ideological purposes…..
In order to stop these b’stards the law needs updating. Currently it says:
“Government officials are frequently given legal immunity relating to their work. This immunity is based on the premise that government employees – from legislators to police – shouldn’t be held personally liable for actions they take as officials.
The idea behind the qualified immunity doctrine was that officials need to be able to make reasonable mistakes without fear of being driven to financial ruin from lawsuits. ”
This is called a free get out of jail card. Change that and all of these problems will disappear.
The “reasonable mistake” rule is important for official functioning. But it should be possible to distinguish between a deliberate act of b*st*rdry and a reasonable mistake.
Mike , I agree with your general point. The problem is who gets to decide when the line is crossed or not? Who decides what is a reasonable/genuine mistake and what is a malicious act? We are seeing increasingly bizarre rulings happen in our woke focused dystopia.
The other point I would make is this.
Why does this freedom to act with legal immunity only apply to public sector employees?
All of us have a duty of care to our fellow humans, it is not valid to give public sector workers only a form of superior rights a legal shield above others.
I would argue that public sector employees would be working under a different legal regime wherein punishments are doubled because of the large responsibilities and the possible devastating effects of their actions.
So when a police officer violates a person’s constitutional rights, how can that be construed as a reasonable mistake?
Qualified Immunity is a concept installed by courts and not by legislation.
Of course, you have to go to the same courts that instituted qualified immunity to challenge qualified immunity.
Good luck with that.
The most charitable view of this perfidy would be to call it noble cause corruption. However that doesn’t absolve the Biden/Harris abomination of being a corrupt criminal enterprise that took delight in causing great inconvenience and stress to the American public.
And the current administration is different how?
It is neither corrupt nor criminal..
Did Biden accept “no pay” for being president.
Trump wants to bring out all the Democrat corruption for the whole USA to see.
He wants to Make America Great Again… after 8 O’bummer years and four highly corrupt “who knows who” autopen years.
This is what Trump is up against. He can install dept heads, but if the rank and file work against them, then it is long battle. Hopefully, Trump can fire more than the “temps.”
Trump’s Department heads seem to be looking hard at employees who are working against Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence has just referred three of her employees for prosecution for leaking classified information to the Propaganda Media (Leftwing Media), and one more may be referred shortly.
I think it’s funny that Tulsi Gabbard was a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, where she excoriated Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and she eventually got blackballed from the Democrat Party and turned her support to Trump. After that, she started noticing that she was getting harassed every time she took a flight somewhere, and subsequently found out that the Biden administration had put her on a watch list for special treatment (not in a good way).
What I think is funny is she is now the boss of the people who put her on that list. I think that is one reason Trump put her in that position, although not the only reason.
Trump has a very good sense of humor. 🙂
Even if some can’t be fired- they can be transferred to place nobody would want to go. That usually results in people quitting the job.
An acquaintance once told me that at least in the State Department that place was usually Ouagadougou :<)
Haha true. Isn’t the Fauci wife supposed to be deciding is she wants to quit or work on Indian reservations “helping” the natives?
if I were the Indians I would want her and her husband far far away from reservations.
In Canada, where it is a bureaucratic nightmare to fire a civil servant, those parking places are termed “turkey farms.”
Rather than doing the bidding of China and thus destroying America to rule over its ashes, the new administration wishes to counter China and to root out corruption, waste and fraud.
Got any evidence of Trump administration lawlessness?
But, but, but hundreds of lawsuits….
Yes, over things the previous administrations got away with without comment.
This is gelling into lawfare vs. Trump 2.
Funny how the Biden Administration was able to deport illegal aliens without “due process.”
Funny how the aliens came in without going through any due process, but somehow can’t be removed without due process.
I never have understood why Republicans did not sue Biden for breaking U.S. immigration laws. It’s against the law to just release an illegal alien into the United States. Biden released millions of illegal aliens into the United States.
Easy to get them in. Hard to get them out. With the hope that the illegal aliens would vote Democrat because Democrats are responsible for them being in the U.S., and are giving them taxpayer money hand over fist. To facilitate that voting, the Biden administration gave out millions of social security numbers to millions of illegal aliens, which is another illegal act.
That was the plan. I think that’s still the plan.
“Funny how the Biden Administration was able to deport illegal aliens without “due process.””
Yeah, Obama deported 800,000 illegal aliens while he was president without being required to give them a hearing before a judge.
Now, leftwing lawfare is trying to force Trump to give every one of the millions of illegal aliens in the country a hearing before a judge.
The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a new law restricting the ability of District Federal Judges from applying their rulings to the whole nation. What goes around, comes around.
If you see no difference, then it’s because you don’t want to.
All the Biden-Harris/Democrat lawlessness needs to be exposed to the public.
The Radical Democrats are a lawless Party. They are a great danger to the personal freedoms of all of us, including the naive Democrats.
Have to respectfully disagree, though I do agree with perfidy. You can’t have noble cause corruption without a noble cause. the leftist/progressive cause is anything but…
Good point! There’s nothing noble about the radical Left.
Story Tip – from the Guardian:
A government spending watchdog has questioned the value of the multi-billion pound subsidies granted to the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire – and said that plans to hand over billions more may not represent value for money.
The government has provided about £22bn of public money to businesses and households that burn biomass pellets as fuel over the past three years, including £6.5bn for the owner of the Drax plant.
The power plant, which generates about 5% of the UK’s electricity, is expected receive more than £10bn in renewable energy subsidies between 2015 and the end of 2026 – despite ongoing concerns that wood pellets are not always sustainably sourced.
The Public Accounts Committee has said that biomass generators have been left to “mark their own homework” when it comes to proving that their fuel met the sustainability standards set by the subsidy scheme.
The committee added it was not convinced by the government’s plan to heap a further £2.5bn in subsidies on the Drax plant by extending its support beyond the 2026 deadline for a further five years while it invests in carbon capture technology.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP and chair of the committee, said: “Billions upon billions of government support has been provided to the biomass sector over the past two decades. Rather than taking it on faith that the woody biomass burnt for energy is a sustainably sourced low-carbon alternative fuel, it is long past time a true assay was made of what taxpayers are getting for their money.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/25/mps-question-value-of-billions-in-subsidies-granted-to-drax-power-plant
They only questioned it? Its dead, Jim!
In other news the UK has just experienced being told by its Supreme Court that ‘man’ in English and in law means adult male, and ‘woman’ means adult female.
Meanwhile insiders at the Guardian are preparing to publish the latest discovery of its investigative journalism team: the astonishing news that the Pope is Catholic….
Interesting that £22bn is the same size as Rachel Reeves black hole.
Net Zero = economic slavery.
From the article: “We state with no slight confidence that DoE’s comments confirm what EPA knew or should have known, that it was proposing a major rule on a demonstrably false premise that carbon capture and sequestration had been “adequately demonstrated,””
Maybe this will put the kibosh on recent Carbon Capture legislation. I heard even a few Republicans were thinking of supporting Carbon Capture. Someone should tell them the technology has not been “adequately demonstrated” as of yet.
We shouldn’t require the installation of equipment that has not been “adequately demonstrated”. That is nonsensical. Republicans in Congress shouldn’t propose nonsensical laws.
Take a look at the comments submitted on that rule (they are online). They will give you myriad technical reasons that CCS is not “available” to all the plants in the country, even if the other problems can be overcome (likely not, horribly expensive, for one.)
If CCS exists as a way to reduce CO2 emissions, it should be easy (using the words of Einstein) to “describe it in Such a way that a 6-year-old can understand it”. Such a description of a viable method is not evident.
The problem is, you have in effect 6-year-olds trying to describe something they don’t understand.
Story tip – for all you AI fans.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-strange-phrase-keeps-turning-up-in-scientific-papers-but-why
All is not as it seems to be. How many other cockups are included in AI?
This error insertion and propagation – a single dot! – reminds me of crystal lattice dislocations that propagate in the growth direction. A nuisance, as all of the wonderful theoretical material, thermal, and electrical properties are degraded.
Does this mean AI knowledge is crystalline? Once formulated and deposited, right or wrong, that way forever?
Once formulated and deposited, right or wrong, that way forever?
Sounds like a lot of people I know.
Well of course the senior executives of Biden’s EPA knew that carbon capture and storage wouldn’t work. The fact that it wouldn’t work was a central element of their CAA Section 111 lawfare strategy to force a transition to wind and solar.
A power utility could spend years in court fighting the new CAA Section 111 rules. For every expert who who said CSS wouldn’t work, the EPA could hire two more who would say that it could. Moreover, both the EPA and the power utilities knew full well there was no guarantee the power utilities would win in the courts.
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the follow-on CAA Section 111 rulemaking were the products of a highly coordinated effort to force Net Zero on the power utilities.
The 2022 IRA granted both authority and funding to the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. The major questions doctrine of West Virginia versus EPA is hence avoided. The CAA Section 111 rulemaking and the wording of the 2022 IRA were coordinated in ways meant to generate strong incentives for power utility executives to abandon fossil generation and to move towards wind and solar backed by batteries.
In Biden’s net zero regulatory world — a regulatory world enabled by the 2022 IRA legislation — why would a power utility stay with fossil generation when it could make more money by increasing the value of its wind and solar asset base?
Why not just cave in to Biden’s EPA and its Clean Power Plan 2.0, make a lot of money in the process, and who cares if the ratepayers get screwed and the power grid’s overall reliability continues to decline?
The game plan to ensure economic slavery.
The blatant disrespect of the law is a hallmark feature of the leftist democrat party which I left nearly 35 years ago when the rot of that slimy party was too hard to ignore anymore.
Biden was never really there.
More an more reports are coming out. One major influencer is Condoleezza Rice.
No doubt she was not alone. High suspicions exist for our word salad specialist Kamala Harris.
No doubt there were others. The “most diverse administation” undoubtedly included more than a few ideological activists.
Correction, you must be referring to Obama’s sidekick, Susan Rice.
Yes, I heard Susan Rice whining about the Trump administration yesterday on tv.
I think Susan Rice is a major player. She’s Obama’s Frontman in the Biden administration.
I do think the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle was pure Joe Biden. His own advisors told him it was a bad plan. It wasn’t really a plan, Joe just said get us out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible and damn the consequences. Just like he did to South Vietnam.
Joe has a history of abandoning allies to their fate. He is responsible for the death and displacement of literally millions of innocent people over his political career. Joe Biden is bad news. The radical Democrats are more bad news.
I don’t like anonymous posts. They can’t be trusted.
Some of us are under employment agreements that forbid use of name in conjunction with commentary and other publications.
Since we follow the rules and remain anonymous, I guess anonymous = untrustworthy outweighs following the rules = trustworthy.
What I do not trust is “Scientists say…”
The article claims:
“This was not true, as any search even of the Canadian popular or trade press would have proved (and the operator’s own quarterly reports affirmed, unambiguously). ”
The operator’s report says:
“During the third quarter of 2022 (July 1 – September 30), SaskPower’s CCS facility was available 94.5 per cent of the time, capturing 219,750 tonnes of CO2. While online, the facility had a daily average capture rate of 2,500 tonnes, with a peak one-day capture of 2,742 tonnes.
This strong performance resulted in …”
Color me perplexed!
From a year ago: One CCS Project Cancelled, Another One Failing as Industry Navigates Very Bad Week
Canada’s sputtering carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry sustained two serious setbacks in less than 48 hours this week, with one major project cancelled and a second subject to scathing criticism from independent analysts.
On Wednesday, Edmonton-based Capital Power announced it was giving up on a C$2.4-billion CCS project that was meant to capture up to three megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from its gas-fired Genesee generating station in Alberta. “Through our development of the project, we have confirmed that CCS is a technically viable technology,” the company said in its statement. “However, at this time, the project is not economically feasible.”
A day earlier, the Cleveland-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) declared the CCS installation at SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3 coal plant an “underperforming failure”, achieving only a 57% capture rate after nine years in operation and $1 billion spent on the technology. “Canadians should not be proud of the money and resources wasted on CCS, and should be especially concerned about the billions of dollars now earmarked for additional CCS investments,” wrote analysts David Schlissel and Mark Kalegha.
https://www.theenergymix.com/one-ccs-project-cancelled-another-one-failing-as-industry-navigates-very-bad-week/
So why did the author point to a report that says good things when these other, not good, reports are there? (And I knew they were!)
That’s what and why I said I was perplexed.
Ditto.
Bottom Line:
““Through our development of the project, we have confirmed that CCS is a technically viable technology,” the company said in its statement. “However, at this time, the project is not economically feasible.””
The government should not be forcing electric generating facilities to do things that are not economically feasible.
The Left is fundamentally dishonest. When more people realize they are liars, they will lose more and more.
Watching what’s going on now with academia you got to wonder if there were complicit in this plan.
“GAO has uncovered certain facts”
Who is GAO?
Aha: “From Government Accountability & Oversight”
(whoever that is)
“This second time around, EPA required carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)”
This third time around, EPA required genetically modified flying elephants
I went to the linked report on the Canadian CCS facility, and as I read it, the operation is working fine. What am I missing?
Back up to my comment at 8:20.
““Through our development of the project, we have confirmed that CCS is a technically viable technology,” the company said in its statement. “However, at this time, the project is not economically feasible.””
Working fine, but not economically feasible, according to this operator.
Okay, I get it. That’s a real show stopper.