In what may be a world record for turnaround time, the litigation has already begun over the recent rescission by EPA of its carbon emission standards for fossil-fuel fired power plants.
As reported here on September 17, on that date the EPA finalized its rescission of what were called its “Carbon Pollution Standards” for electric power plants. (EPA’s September 17 action did not rescind all of the Carbon Pollution Standards for power plants, but only those for existing power plants and major overhauls of existing plants; the standards for new plants remain in effect for now, although in its rescission action EPA gave strong hints that those will also soon be ended.). By the end of that very day, September 17, a Petition had been filed in the DC Circuit seeking review of the regulatory action. Here is a copy of the Petition. The Petitioners are the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Petition is a short two-page document that simply asks for “review” of EPA’s action, and does not say anything about the grounds for the request. To learn the basis for the request, we must look to the press releases issued by the various petitioning organizations. Those contain statements from representatives of the Petitioners, mostly about imaginary threats to “health” from this thing they call “climate pollution.” But one thing that none of the Petitioners’ representatives do in their statements is address the grounds set forth by EPA for the rescission.
Here is a copy of the Press Release issued on September 17 by the Environmental Defense Fund. It contains quotations from representatives of EDF, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, of the American Public Health Association, of the American Lung Association and of Clean Wisconsin about the supposed importance of keeping the rules in place. For example, we have this from Georges Benjamin of the APHA:
“Clean air is a basic human right. Power plant pollution threatens the health of millions of Americans and fuels climate change, worsening extreme heat, poor air quality and other serious health risks. . . .”
Or this from Harold Wimmer of the American Lung Association:
“Emissions from power plants drive climate change, and climate change is a health emergency. . . .”
But OK guys, the issue raised by EPA’s rescission is that the proposed technological fix in the Biden-era rule, namely 90% carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), “has not been adequately demonstrated, the costs of 90 percent CCS are not reasonable, and the associated degree of emission limitation is not achievable.” None of the Petitioners address any of those questions in their statements.
Compared to other environmental litigations that involve highly abstract or theoretical questions, this one looks to turn on easily available concrete evidence. Is there a functioning, economical power plant with CCS that can be easily replicated throughout the electrical system? If so, the Petitioners can just point to it. Even better, they could offer to build such plants wherever needed.
However, that may not be so easy. When the Biden EPA proposed its “Carbon Pollution Standards” as a regulation in 2023, many commenters pointed out the infeasibility and high cost of the CCS approach. Two of the most thorough and sophisticated comments were submitted by groups of red states led by Ohio and West Virginia. This is from the Ohio comment at page 4:
A study of 263 carbon-capture-and-sequestration projects undertaken between 1995 and 2018 found that the majority failed and 78% of the largest projects were cancelled or put on hold. After the study was published in May 2021, the only other coal plant with a carbon-capture-and-sequestration attachment in the world, Petra Nova, shuttered after facing 367 outages in its three years of operation.
The West Virginia comment went into great technical detail about the problems and feasibility issues with CCS. Among other things, West Virginia (at pages 24-25) cited a study that concluded that because a CCS system uses a substantial fraction of the energy output of a plant, it will inherently cause a dramatic reduction in the plant’s efficiency:
Take efficiency to start. CCS units run on power, too. An owner can get that power from the plant itself. But this approach makes the plant less efficient by increasing its “parasitic load”—and CCS more than triples combustion turbines’ normal parasitic load. . . . This is the cause the Wyoming study analyzed that showed installing CCS technology would devastate plants’ heat rates and lower net plant efficiency by 36%.
And when you must burn dramatically more fuel to get the same amount of usable electricity, you inherently increase the emissions of all other pollutants that come from burning fuel (from West Virginia comment, page 27):
Nearly a decade ago, the European Union’s European Environmental Agency released a study finding that CCS would increase “direct emissions of NOx and PM” by nearly a half and a third, respectively, because of additional fuel burned, and increase “direct NH3 emissions” “significantly” because of “the assumed degradation of the amine-based solvent.”
And how about the chemicals that are used to remove the CO2 from the emissions stream? Again, from the West Virginia comment on the Biden rules (page 27):
The Proposed Rule would force utilities to adopt and communities to accept all aspects of CCS technology without fully understanding the ramifications. For example, the environmental and health effects of CANSOLV—the leading amine-based and EPA-recommended CCS solvent, 88 Fed. Reg. at 33,291—appear unknown; leading CANSOLV studies over the past decade don’t discuss its impact.
The questions of feasibility and cost of CCS systems for fossil fuel power plants are things where expert testimony is inherently unsatisfactory. If this technology is feasible and economical, then build it and prove it.
Unfortunately, the Petitioners in this case have little to no interest in maintaining a functioning electricity system.
The Petitioners are antihuman zealots opposed to reality.
Petitioners are very human, fiercely fighting to keep their place at the trough.
They are very human but are very anti-humanity whilst feeding at the trough of government funding.
The Green Blob is assuming bad health effects from CO2 “pollution”, and the issue is if there are any.
Everyone exhales ~40,000 ppm of CO2 for every breath they take.
If there were any bad health effects from CO2 “pollution”, people at all concerts and stadium events would be dropping like flies as it accumulates. Since they aren’t, the whole idea is preposterous.
A significant assumption on their part is that the “degree” of heating due to the CO2 increase is dangerous pollution in itself. What’s missing from this assumption is that the CO2 heating, if any, is indistinguishable from natural variability.
They present nothing evidence based, Just feelings as the woke greenies are apt to do. Amazing how many institutions have been captured by the green blob!
With respect to power plant ‘pollution’, CAA section 111 says EPA can require the “best system” that is “adequately demonstrated” and “commercially available”.
CCS is neither adequately demonstrated nor commercially available. No best system exists.
The plaintiffs do not have a Snowball’s chance in hell of success against this recission. Why do they even try?
Delaying tactic to allow a potential Democrat administration to pull the recession?
Your are assuming that left-wing judges won’t side with these leaches instead of following the science.
But siding them would be following “The Science”.
You left off the TM symbol.
Good for fundraising.
Sue, rinse, repeat.
Profit from raising money from like individuals.
They filed in the DC Circuit Court. They have a very good chance of this expanding into a full set of court cases, ultimately ending in the Supreme Court. Our tax dollars at work.
Josef Stalin was in favour of democracy – provided he controlled the counting. In similar vein, the left favour absurd litigation because they hope for a left judge. Often, it seems, they get one. But note that they also add legal costs to the thousand cuts they aim for (as in death by a thousand cuts).
“Clean air is a basic human right.”
Is it?
For the left housing is a basic human right, food is a basic human right, etc. But they never address how these basic human rights are to be provided except by taking from those who work to provide those “basic human rights” don’t.
On the long run these things are cheaper for society. Less healtcare costs, less crime.
But it doesn’t hurt people, so it’s a no-go for the modern right.
They see suckers like you coming from a mile away
Reality is that nothing is “cheaper” when filtered through endless levels of bureaucracy and crony contractors. Everything regulated and promoted by government costs more and delivers less. Every “progressive” run entity is concrete proof of that.
Of course, I am assuming that you are not one of the parasites, just one of the gullible who feeds the worm. I may be wrong about that. Perhaps you are the worm.
I taught an undergraduate mostly marine environmental assessment/management course with a short section on pollution. Partly for this I took a short course in thermodynamics. Also am old enough to remember severe air pollution in east Houston. These people either are not doing their homework or something more nefarious. Like carbon and fertilizer petroleum has been demonized but the culture is moving faster which requires more energy. Clean and efficient as it is now this can still potentially produce amounts of pollution type problems.
” Also am old enough to remember severe air pollution in east Houston.”
I wonder how old one has to be to have experienced a brown haze dome over major cities, watery eyes and headaches, etc. Just a guess, but anyone born after the late 1950s would not remember such stuff. Locations would be important, so exceptions expected.
Born in the mid 1950s. I experienced air pollution from the soap factories in Cincinnati.
Just look at the difference between the exhaust from cars before catalytic converters and today. You could almost taste the exhaust from cars back then as well as the visible exhaust. Today you really notice an old (pre-catalytic converter) car if you are behind one at a stop light. And that’s not the only change in air pollution. Add what has been added to the exhaust from coal plants as well as industrial facilities. Our air (and water) are so much cleaner and yet those born after these changes have zero idea what it was like in the ’60s and ’70s.
I am reminded of those “good old days” when I am behind a smoke belching vehicle during my commute.
Around 2005 myself and 4 others took a motorcycle trip from Kansas to south of Atlanta. We went thru downtown Atlanta about 4:00 pm. You didn’t need to drink moonshine to get high. The odor of ethanol was so thick it made me dizzy and sick.
I forget (ClimaChange™ increasingly causes this forgetfulness problem) – but was this year predicted to be above average for Atlantic hurricanes …. just like all the prior years which had ultimately lackluster season-end tallies?
The term “carbon pollution” is deliberate obfuscation conflating carbon particulate air pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2) ‘a colorless, odorless gas naturally present in air (about 0.04 per cent) and essential for plant photosynthesis’.
The litigation is a bad faith attempt to ‘muddy the waters’ and ought to be tossed out equally speedily.
The left always uses language to obfuscate the reality. There is no carbon being released from the smokestacks. Instead it is a colorless, odorless gas called Carbon Dioxide which is critical for life on this planet.
Next year when we get 5 hurricanes, the left will spend the year screaming about the huge increase compared to the year before.
The way things are going, it might well be an infinite increase.
Mr. W: My own view is that the fall of CliSci began when the US public saw Al Gore et al fall flat after Katrina (and Ike in ’06? Correct me if wrong.). Loud, alarming predictions of coming hurricanes faced a hurricane drought in US. The noise they made destroyed their credibility by the time Obama was elected.
Hmmmm. When there isn’t a hurricane they keep quiet about it. They know that people don’t hear silence. And just to make sure, they make a lot of noise about something else. (re Barack Obama: Let’s all hope that he doesn’t get another term – he has done more than enough damage in his three terms to date.)
CO2, yes. H2O, too.
But move the camera and get the lighting right and….
Indeed Chris. This is about “controlling the narrative,” conflating soot (solid carbon) with CO2.
Have you noticed natural gas has become “methane?”
Methane is, of course, the largest component, but there are other gasses in the mix: propane and ethane, for example.
True SN4, but the ploy is to take the word “natural” out of the name and make it seem more like a chemical. As we all know, “natural” is almost the same as “organic.” Right? (sarc) And natural gas is “organic,” just not in the food sense.
Thank you.
I missed that perspective.
So this recission is only related to CO2 and how this would effect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels (mostly coal) to generate electricity. Why then is the American Lung Association upset about it? Given every time we breath in with life-giving oxygen our lungs then fill with CO2 that we exhale. Apparently CO2 in our lungs is not a health issue which makes them part of this petition a real head scratcher.
CO2 is not a pollutant and the 280 ppm that it was fairly recently was on the verge of being too low to sustain life since without CO2 there would be no life that requires either CO2 or O2 to live. And with the increasing levels of CO2 plants are growing faster, using less water, and the planet itself is greening as seen by satellites that don’t lie.
The US on its way to have worse pollution standards than china. Didn’t expect that.
FYI, power plants using coal are now using clean coal technology. Go look up this technology. Power plants using coal are being phased out and are being replaced with new plants using CCGT technology.
You are obviously not a scientist or someone who has tried to understand the issues here, CO2 has never been any form of pollution or has had any measurable influence on historical climate change. These are facts whether you like them or not, any effort to reduce the beneficial effects of CO2 on plants and nature is anti-human and environmentally obscene.
Therefore, the whole debate about the EPA decision to remove the endangerment finding is purely political and ideological in nature. It has nothing to do with saving the planet as insisted by climate alarmists and the public needs to know this and realize they have been gaslighted for decades by these immoral globalist pretend environmentalists with their socialist world government agenda.
Got any more of these buzzwords from heartland and co?
Here, have some scientists:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
My comment was not only about CO2, though.
Chuckle. Point proven. Talk about running for buzzwords in the absence of any real knowledge. Loser is famous for his links to propaganda without any understanding of what it is linking to.
Consensus is often wrong.
Scientific breakthroughs that happened because someone ignored the experts
As has often been pointed out, when you have consensus, you don’t have science. When you have science, you don’t have consensus.
CO₂ is not pollution. Climate propaganda is.
No surprise with this post.
Form an opinion and state as fact.
We are laughing at your idiocies.
Funny that the ‘petitioners’ evidently know how the wind blows, but for instance not so the UK government or the outgoing German one.
Good review here. To Francis Menton, keep up the good work!
This situation is very interesting, because it is the supplemental NPRM announced on the same day, September 17th, that should be of great interest to skeptics of climate alarm on conceptual/scientific grounds.
That document is here, open for comments through November 2nd.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-2920
I will paste two excerpts. Here is the first.
From IV. Legal Framework for Action
“The EPA is now proposing to repeal the suite of determinations, findings, and actions finalized in the 2015 NSPS for purposes of regulating GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants on statutory authority grounds distinct from those presented in the primary proposal in the June 2025 NPRM. Regardless whether the EPA must or can make a GHG-specific significant contribution finding for fossil fuel-fired power plants, the Agency cannot invoke its CAA section 111 authority to regulate emissions from power plants unless GHG emissions from such sources and the associated global climate change concerns used to justify regulation satisfy the statutory prerequisite for regulation under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) in the first instance. That is, GHG emissions from power plants must contribute significantly to “air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Agency is proposing in this supplemental notice that global climate change concerns cannot satisfy that standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to rescind the set of determinations the Agency made in the 2015 NSPS and retained in the 2024 CPS with regard to GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, including the determination that it had a rational basis for regulating GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants and the endangerment and significant contribution findings made in the alternative (collectively “the 2015 Findings”).”
I will paste another excerpt in a reply.
From V. Rescission of the 2015 Findings
“The EPA is proposing that background principles of causation and proximate cause support our proposed interpretation of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) as not extending to regulation of fossil fuel-fired power plants based on global climate change concerns. In particular, the EPA proposes that the terms “cause,” “contribute,” and “reasonably be anticipated to endanger” must be read consistent with these principles. In enacting and amending CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), Congress legislated on a foundation that included “default rules,” including the background principles of causation and proximate cause. (142) These rules are “presumed to have [been] incorporated, absent an indication to the contrary in the statute itself.” (143) Additionally, Congress endorsed the incorporation of proximate cause principles when it added the phrase “may reasonably be anticipated” to this section in the 1977 CAA Amendments. That phrase is another way of saying “reasonably foreseeable,” a longstanding touchstone of proximate cause. (144)
GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants in the United States do not have a sufficiently close connection to the harms identified in the 2015 Findings to fit within the legal meaning of “cause” or “contribute.” This understanding is complemented by the term “reasonably” in the phrase “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Like the terms “cause” and “contribute,” the term “reasonably” places an outer legal limit on the authority to anticipate dangers to public health and welfare from air pollution. The greater the number of causal links involved in anticipating such endangerment, the more difficult it is to qualify the anticipation of the danger as “reasonable.” Global climate change concerns involve causal relationships that are too uncertain, conjectural, remote, and convoluted by intervening and confounding factors to fit within the terms “cause,” “contribute,” and “reasonably be anticipated to endanger” as used in CAA section 111(b)(1)(A).”
There. Thank you for your attention to these important matters.
David, after reading the Trump EPA’s document dated September 17th 2026 that you posted above, it is becoming clear where the climate activists must now go in order to impose an aggressive carbon regulation scheme on America’s economy.
As background history, the authors of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act claimed in 2023 that it gave the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions from point sources such as power plants.
On that basis, Biden’s EPA used CAA Section 111 and a new requirement for carbon capture and storage to impose a defacto ban on new-build fossil fuel power plants, and to throttle the long-term continued operation of legacy fossil fuel power plants.
In their September 17th document, Trump’s EPA argues convincingly that what the 2022 IRA says in generally labeling carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride as ‘pollutants’ isn’t nearly enough to justify using CAA Section 111 to implement the Biden EPA’s 2024 Clean Power Plan 2.0 and its requirement for CCS.
The climate activists are now cornered. Their prior lawfare-based strategy isn’t going to work this time around. If they want a return to aggressive climate regulation, they must have the Congress pass legislation which explicitly and unambiguously modifies the Clean Air Act to force EPA regulation of carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride as pollutants.
I will speculate here that the text of the needed legislation has already been drafted and is awaiting the outcome of the 2026 mid-term election. Assuming the Democrats do take control of Congress in January 2027, that text will likely be attached as a rider to a must-pass body of legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — a piece of legislation which would be very difficult for President Trump to sustain a veto.
Thank you for your reply.
Good points.
If I recall correctly, the IRA expires in 2027.
So the plaintiffs claim problems not addressed in the recission order:
” “Emissions from power plants drive climate change, and climate change is a health emergency. . . .” the but they don’t have any substantiation of that either. EPA’s response should cover both the infeasibility of CCS and the lack of impact on atmospheric CO2 the rules being rescinded have had. Use https://rumble.com/v7f6f50-jonathan-cohler-fossil-fuel-combustion-drove-essentially-none-of-the-atmosp.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a to confront the climate change causation claims.
health emergency…
Hmm…. No 90 day declaration of a health emergency or renewal/extension of an existing emergency.
Without a declartion (local, State, Federal, WHO) there is no identified emergency.
One would suspect that in the past 2 decades, a lack of any declaration might be convincing that no health emergency exists.
The petitioners are obviously referring to CO2 as the pollutant, since it causes Climate Change. Clearly they missed the recission of the CO2 Endangerment Finding. No matter how many times the Petitioners say it, CO2 isn’t a pollutant.
To delay is to deny. It is likely these environmental groups and their lawyers have been working behind the scenes with friendly DC Court judges, and with Democrats in the Congress, to delay implementation of the Trump EPA’s rescission until a new Congress controlled by Democrats in January 2027 can pass legislation which explicitly and unambiguously directs the EPA to impose aggressive carbon regulation on the American energy sector.
That legislation will likely be attached as a rider to a must-pass bill such as the National Defense Authorization Act — in other words, attached to a body of legislation which would be very expensive politically for President Trump to veto.
In any case, a veto action on Trump’s part for a must-pass bill like the NDAA would be quickly overridden by the Congress with support from RINO UniParty Republicans who have been bought off by K Street lobbyists.
Carbon Capture Sequestration is cost upon cost upon cost, and after finally getting it down a hole in the ground, it has to be monitored forever to ensure it doesn’t leak out.
Carbon Capture Utilization takes takes the combusted exhaust gases and with the technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery the combusted exhaust is separated into Captured Heat Energy and the cooled exhaust is then CO2 which if delivered into a commercial greenhouse will provide Enrichment to the plants growing, which increases growth and product produced (profit) and then there is the water (natural gas is 18% water) and this water is created when the heat energy is removed. This water can be injected back into the earth or have nutrients added and used to irrigate.
Waste Is Not waste If It Has A Purpose.
Greenhouses require many employees. CCU creates money and jobs. CCS costs – costs – costs with zero return.