By Robert Bradley Jr.
“The case for CO2 freedom is made clear. Will consumerism replace climate exaggeration and magical energy thinking? Will Democrats join the new policy?”
Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a historic final rule titled:
EPA Finalizes Repeal of 2024 Power Plant Regulations, Delivering $300+ Billion in Savings, Proposes Repeal of All Remaining Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Power Plants
The rule is scheduled to take effect November 16, 2026.
The press release made an argument for affordable, plentiful, reliable, liberated energy, titled:
Trump EPA delivers reliable and affordable energy in the largest power sector deregulatory action in U.S. history
Released for maximum effect at the G20 Summit in Houston, Texas, the press release continued:
… U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of the majority of the Biden administration’s greenhouse gas requirements for U.S. power plants, an action the agency projects will save $310 billion, and proposed rescinding every remaining greenhouse gas standard for the power sector. If finalized, the new proposal would save an additional $370 million in direct compliance costs, in addition to the billions more American families and businesses can expect to see saved across the economy….
“The Trump EPA,” the press release continued, “is taking these actions in accordance with the law and based on the best reading of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA’s final rule is expected to unleash the full potential of America’s vast energy resources, including coal and natural gas….
“For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy. The Trump Administration has come in to protect American energy and to make sure you can afford to keep the lights on,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “Americans will see a decrease in electricity prices, but this is just the beginning. We are working to go even further so that American energy can be fully unleashed. Realizing the full potential of American energy means more jobs, lower prices, and a more prosperous America.”
Playing offense, the press release explained its consumer-first energy exceptionalism.
“The Trump administration is saving Americans hundreds of millions of dollars through common sense energy solutions that put an end to the Biden administration’s disastrous Green New Scam policies enacted at the cost of our nation’s energy security and future,” said Chairman of the National Energy Dominance Council and DOI Secretary Burgum. “This necessary reversal restores efficiency to our energy sector and allows our vital resources to be used for the benefit of the American people. Under President Trump, this administration will continue reversing course on out-of-touch Obama and Biden-era policies by unleashing American energy and securing our nation’s energy independence for generations to come.”
Adding explanation to the benefits of consumer-driven electricity policy:
“During periods of peak electricity demand, coal and natural gas continue to play a critical role in keeping the lights on,” said Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “Today’s announcement will help ensure reliable electricity generation regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining by allowing coal and natural gas plants to keep generating power when Americans need it most. Unlike past administrations that prioritized the interests of climate alarmists, President Trump promised to put the American people first and he is delivering.”
“President Trump and Administrator Zeldin have yet again taken real action to save the American people money on their electricity costs. Thanks to President Trump’s EPA, common sense has prevailed, and our U.S. energy sector can unleash more reliable baseload power without the crippling regulations that have hurt American ratepayers. Announcing this repeal at the G20 Energy Abundance Ministerial shows the world that President Trump is unmatched in delivering his promise of energy dominance for America,” said NEDC Executive Director Agen.
Background
The press release provides this context:
The final rule strikes most of the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards, which EPA has determined exceeded the agency’s authority under the CAA by requiring control technologies that are not adequately demonstrated, effectively forcing plants to retire rather than setting standards they could actually meet. The 2024 rule also failed to account for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which barred EPA from misusing the CAA to manipulate Americans’ energy choices. The manipulation in the 2024 rule created inefficient uses of natural gas, adversely impacted the nation’s energy systems, and drove electricity prices up. The 2024 rule was another example of the Democrats’ war on America’s natural resources and attempted to achieve the same unlawful fuel-shifting goals of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.
Finally,
Concurrently with today’s final rule, EPA is proposing to rescind all remaining GHG emissions requirements for power plants, which have imposed unnecessary requirements and drained the power sector’s resources, while producing virtually no benefit. Following the repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, EPA’s proposal states that CAA Section 111 does not give the agency the authority to regulate power plant emissions based on climate change. Models continue to show that GHG emissions from power plants have no material impact on global climate change. In fact, if all carbon dioxides were eliminated tomorrow, there would be no meaningful climate impact.
The case for CO2 freedom is made clear. Will consumerism replace climate exaggeration and magical energy thinking? Will Democrats join the new policy?
Additionally, the targeted emissions are global in nature, and any potential public health harms are too uncertain, conjectural, remote, and convoluted to tie specifically to the U.S. power sector. Therefore, the agency is proposing it is out of its scope to regulate. If finalized, American businesses will be given certainty for the future, empowering them to unleash the full potential of American energy and provide it at an affordable price for families.
Baseload power is essential to the great American story, powering generations of manufacturing, good-paying jobs, and communities. Together, the coal and natural gas industries support hundreds of thousands of jobs and add tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy each year. The nation’s power plants provide reliable, affordable energy essential to national security, heating homes, and keeping schools lit. But for nearly two decades, the Obama and Biden administrations worked to destroy coal and natural gas, threatening our energy security and driving up costs for everyday Americans. In contrast, the Trump EPA has delivered billions in cost savings for baseload power.
– September 14, 2026
Lee is the best agency leader by far.
That’s a Grand Slam! Keep going strong – lots of graft and corruption to track down and prosecute
Waiting for W.B. to arrive and declare Peer Reviewed research papers disagree and demand we genuflect to the Climate Change Priesthood.
What is W.B.?
Warren Beeton But yeah, undefined acronyms are a PITA
PITA? A pocket bread? <JK>
Oh, now I get it!
Sorry about that. I had just finished reviewing a very long blog where Beeton repeatedly claimed it was not valid science unless it was published in a peer-review journal.
Anybody with working brain cells can see that the peer review process for anything related to AGW has been trashed. Also the whole peer review system overall is poor given the large number of “peer-reviewed” papers that are pulled after unbiased reviews of the papers find flaws.
I think it was The Lancet journal that revealed the “irreproducibility” scandal of ~ 70% of peer-reviewed published papers.
Especially in the social sciences- especially psychology. I suspect most peer reviewed papers in physics and chemistry usually hold up well. I have a lot of respect for geology too- when I reincarnate, in my next life that’ll be my career.
My BIL is a PhD Chemist. He does not study AGW nor intend to study it but completely believes in it for one simple reason. There are published peer reviewed studies supporting AGW.
It may not be valid but then again it might be valid. Not being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn’t pass judgement on it.
PhDs study more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
That’s exactly why I didn’t care to go to grad school. I prefer a wider perspective on reality.
‘I had just finished reviewing a very long blog where Beeton…’
As of 10/20/26, his name shows up 180 times on that thread, meaning 180 comments (out of ~372) either initiated by, or responding to, one ‘WB’. The guy’s a
machinetool.Maybe he’s insecure and it gives him some sense of self-worth to have so many people respond to him, even with all the negative comments.
Purely ego driven based on my past experiences.
He is trying to score “debating points” to inflate his self-esteem.
He is also trying to control the conversation with various red herring posts.
Maybe he’s an evil AI funded by the ruinables industries. 🙂
Maybe he gets paid by the post.
He knows that he can’t refute any of the data and arguments being presented.
So long as his cabal control the main journals, they can continue to pretend that a lack of published papers proves that they must be right.
There are something like 150,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications addressing climate change in something like 3000 journals, 30-50 being the premier journals. Most require a subscription ranging in the $20 to $2000 range.
The question is, how much money has Warren Beeton spent to read those publications?
Another question is, how many papers has he read, cover to cover?
Another question is, how much time did he spend validating the calculations, data, and claims made?
My estimate is zero.
I do not accept anything for or against in a science discussion without personally validating the claim. Verification is everything. Even if the hypothesis or theory is supported by the research paper, no claim of “proof” or “objective truth” is valid.
“I do not accept anything for or against in a science discussion without personally validating the claim.”
That’s obviously not even remotely true, is it, S.N. 4? For instance, the other day you were perfectly happy to accept CNN’s claims of an “HIV epidemic” at face value without “personally validating” any of it, weren’t you? Yes, of course you were. Hypocrite.
Then we have our other favourite Professor
HypocriteMarkW, who obviously can’t “refute any of the data and arguments being presented” regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, yet refuses to accept its definition as agreed to by literally everyone else. Why is that, Professor? (And no, it’s not because he has a better one.)Is there any reason why I shouldn’t, on the available evidence, call the two of you a pair of Ignorant lying hypocritical twerps?
Here’s a reason- ’cause you’d have more influence in the discussions here by not being a low brow wise ass.
“a low brow wise ass”
Great, Joseph, thanks. Except that I’m not the hypocritical lying twerp, am I? What kind of influence in the discussion do you think that hypocritical lying twerps have?
And remember, this is not my first interaction with either of these two, although it may be the first one you’ve seen. I gave them plenty of polite opportunities in the past to back up their claims. They both failed miserably. What else is left to call them? Please enlighten me.
How do you know I did not personally validate the CNN claim?
“How do you know I did not personally validate the CNN claim?”
The same way I know that Professor Hypocrite up there is flat-out lying about his claim that there is a “real” Second Law of Thermodynamics different from the one in all the textbooks, and yet, when asked, he cannot produce it.
In particular: first, you surely would have shown it if you had, rather than just saying “CNN said so” (this is, as I pointed out, WUWT, not “Skeptical” “Science” or The
ConversationMonologue). Second, my own extensive research tells me that your hypothetical personal validation is biologically completely impossible. If you can demonstrate the existence of a transmissible virus called “HIV” more scientifically than any before you – in other words reliably and reproducibly – along with its relationship to “AIDS”, whatever that is defined as this year, then there will be a Nobel Prize in it for you, I am sure. But feel free to prove me wrong! By all means, show us the results of your personal validation. I’ll wait here.And if you can’t, are you going to apologize, like a gentleman, for behaving like a hypocrite and calling me a troll?
“Second, my own extensive research tells me that your hypothetical personal validation is biologically completely impossible. If you can demonstrate the existence of a transmissible virus called “HIV” more scientifically than any before you”
You have proven nothing.
Post a link to that post and I will go back and review it.
If I made an error, I will admit it, correct it, and apologize as I have done so many times before.
Personal validation does not have a definition that the conclusion of that process is correct.
Consider the CDC definition. Words matter. Concise definitions are critical to communications. Context derived definitions require the context be defined.
“An epidemic is a sudden, rapid increase in the number of disease cases above what is normally expected within a specific local community, population, or region. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it can apply to infectious diseases like influenza or non-communicable health issues like obesity.”
If you deflected from the topic of the posted article and posted multiple times in that red herring, that meets the definition of a troll. I usually used “flame warrior” in those instances.
And consider that you are passing judgement on a single datum.
That speaks volumes, too.
“You have proven nothing.”
I asked you to back up your claim. All you had was “CNN said so”, which is an Argument from Authority, i.e. a Logical Fallacy. Is that the kind of standard that you think we adhere to here on WUWT? I think we should try to do better.
“If I made an error,”
A Logical Fallacy is a classic error. Are you going to apologize for it, then?
I caught an epidemic once.
(but I got better . . . )
Correction, s: The Second Law of Thermodynamics is NOT agreed to by literally everyone else. I disagree with it. I don’t think it has been properly thought through (probably from the same school of thought that defined “Before Present” relative to a fixed date), and in particular but not exclusively it seems to be incompatible with the Big Bang.
Mike, you are right that the Second Law (and everything else we know about physics) doesn’t apply very well to the Big Bang. But that’s not what Professor Hypocrite is talking about. He’s talking about conditions today, right here on Earth. Do you have any counterexamples to the Second Law (the one in the textbooks) from today that you can share with us? I’ve never seen any.
And independently of which time in the history of the universe is in question, my point about Professor Hypocrite’s complete inability to back up his claim still stands. What is the real Second Law? He has no clue. Do you?
You seem incapable of having a calm conversation as evidenced by your repeated ad hominems, aka insulting names.
That tactic is commonly associated with trolling.
Maybe it is catnip time.
More of a cat-o-nine tails time.
A cat o’ nine tails? You’re threatening me with physical violence now? You know that is a severe violation of Anthony’s site policy, right? Not to mention flat-out illegal in many jurisdictions? Probably including yours? You’re lucky you’re an anonymous coward, in addition to being an illiterate hypocritical liar. Unless your name really is “Sparta Nova 4”, in which case your local authorities may wish to pay you a visit over this post.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” – Isaac Asimov
“your repeated ad hominems”
You implied that I was trolling. Someone is clearly getting carried away with the “ad hominems”, but it isn’t me. Liar.
FYI, without finding the specific post you reference, I cannot determine if I was responding to science or politics. Until I can verify your claim one way or the other, I shall assume your claim is accurate.
BTW, do you know the differences between verification and validation?
Posted under (10/15/26)
Claim: Fiji Pre-COP Climate Conference was Not a Flop because Participants Agreed to Demand More Money
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/10/15/claim-fiji-pre-cop-climate-conference-was-not-a-flop-because-participants-agreed-to-demand-more-money/
stevekj
“Fiji currently has a raging HIV epidemic”
No it doesn’t. You know that “HIV” is just as fake as “COVID”, right? Guess who was behind both scams? And no, he wasn’t in it for your health.
Sparta Nova 4
Claiming HIV and Covid are fake is perceived as trolling.
The response is where the problems lie.
[Note: perceived as]
stevekj
“perceived as trolling”
By whom? As far as I can tell, only by people who have never looked into the matter in any depth. That’s not my fault.
Sparta Nova 4
CNN believes Fiji has an HIV epidemic.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/16/asia/fiji-hiv-emergency-methamphetamine-intl-hnk
[Note: response to “By whom?”]
stevekj
And you fell for that? This is WUWT, you know. We don’t take MSM claims at face value around here, do we? Well, some of us don’t.
[Note: no claim that I believe the report.]
[Note: no claim CNN was a valid report, only that it “believes”]
I am being maligned as a hypocrite based on word spinning, shifting definitions, and not based on anything I claimed.
In addition, the debate was politics, not science.
I call on stevekj to APOLOGIZE for defaming me using false and baseless accusations.
So the question to stevekj is, are you going to be a gentleman?
“are you going to be a gentleman?”
What, precisely, would you like me to apologize for? You made a claim that constituted an Argument from Authority. That is not science, and this is supposed to be a scientific blog. I made a scientific claim (correcting Eric’s), and you responded to it with a logical fallacy. That sounds a lot like “trolling” to me.
“In addition, the debate was politics, not science.”
No it wasn’t. Eric made a false scientific claim, and I corrected him. Now you are simply lying. One of us certainly needs to act more like a gentleman, but it obviously isn’t me.
“the differences between verification and validation”
Why don’t you enlighten us? Are you going to claim that your “personal validation” of Eric’s claim consists of nothing more than confirming that “CNN believes it”? And your “validation” of CNN’s claim in turn is the CDC’s definition of an “epidemic”? Is that your idea of “validation”? If so, you have a lot to learn. A scientific claim isn’t “validated” just because someone else says it is. There’s a bit more to science than that, it turns out.
You called me a hyppocrit when nothing I did stands up in the light of day that supports that.
You said no one.
I published a link that showed someone, thus falsifying your absolute claim of no one.
It was a news report, not a science paper.
I made no claim of validation.
You said I called you a troll.
I did not.
I advised you that your behavior could be interpreted as trolling.
You twisted what I posted and redefined it to serve your purposes.
You are simply lying.
You certainly need to act more like a gentleman.
But I doubt you will.
The topic of the original article was the politics of the Fiji conference.
“You called me a hyppocrit”
No, I called you a “hypocrite”.
That’s because you told us that you don’t take scientific claims at face value without “personally validating” them. Right?
Yet you were perfectly willing to accept Eric’s and CNN’s claim about an “HIV epidemic” at face value without doing any “personal validation” whatsoever. Right?
That’s what “hypocrisy” means.
“I advised you that your behavior could be interpreted as trolling.”
Why would you do that, if not to imply that I actually am trolling, and that I should therefore shut up? What my behaviour “could be interpreted as” is completely irrelevant, and entirely dependent on the reader’s grasp of English (and science). None of that is within my control, and therefore there is no point in me worrying about it. All I can do is tell the truth, which is that there is not an “HIV epidemic” in Fiji (or anywhere). How you interpret that is completely up to you, and therefore your problem, not mine.
Your behaviour, on the other hand, “could be interpreted as” hypocrisy. What implications would you take from this statement, and why?
“The topic of the original article was the politics of the Fiji conference.”
I wasn’t talking about the politics of the Fiji conference. I specifically replied to Eric’s claim of an “HIV epidemic” in Fiji. That’s not politics. It’s science. Your reading comprehension appears to be terrible. (And your spelling isn’t much better.) Perhaps you should sit down. You are in way over your head. And you are a hypocrite.
Cue the lawfare from the usual suspects!
How long till the first troll proclaims that this proves that none of us want any regulations?
Related, Colorado is voting on amendment 82 to give consumers the right to use and distributors and utilities the right to sell natural gas.
This is in response to democrat regulations to limit or ban it. Currently, something like 70% of homes and businesses use it for heating in some form or another.
In the UK over 22m of the 28m+ homes are on the gas network. Electricity is four times more expensive than gas. Only idiots would want to switch from gas.
My wife and I have already turned in our ballots and we both voted yes on that amendment. It is amazing we even have to have such an amendment but that’s how bad it has become here in formerly red Colorado that is now almost as blue as CA, NY and other left-wing hell-holes.
You vill not have any natural gas and you vill be happy!
But are we not now doomed? Oops. Sorry. That was 10 years ago that we were doomed but I just haven’t noticed.
About that supplemental NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) to rescind and repeal all remaining regulatory actions on power plant CO2 emissions – it remains open here for comments through November 2.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-2920
I have submitted two comments in support of two different lines of reasoning the EPA is proposing.
First comment here.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3044
Second comment here.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3072
Thank you for listening.
P.S. Lee Zeldin is doing a terrific job on these issues!
Well done.
“EPA… Proposes Repeal of All Remaining Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Power Plants…”
I wonder what the hold up was on the remaining GHG emission standards? Not quite ready to sing “Happy Days are Here Again” yet.
Good point. The current supplemental NPRM follows the original NPRM filed last year in July. I suppose Zeldin must have thought the basis for that action needed updating to make a stronger case.
Here is the July, 2025 proposal and my comment to it at the time.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-0001
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-0141
Let’s hope the updated proposal gets issued as a final rule very soon.
Very nice exactly what is needed.
I believe laptops and cell phones work better when there is reliable, available electricity.