EPA5

this was biden see SIX FOR TRUMP 2

merri ok

ARSENIC COAL ASH

PFAS?

PESTICIDES?

===

:{:{---}:

GGL 5 26

[### Trump administration aims to roll back limits on toxic ...

The Hill

https://thehill.com › policy › energy-environment › epa...](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/epa-toxic-wastewater-coal-fired-power-plants/)

22 hours ago — It is the latest step that President Donald Trump's administration has taken to pull back regulations on coal mining and coal-fired power and ...Read more

AI Overview

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is facing intense scrutiny over policies that roll back federal limits on toxic heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and mercury from industrial polluters.

U.S. Senate (.gov) +3

Controversial Actions and Impact:

• Coal Ash & Wastewater: The EPA proposed rolling back requirements for coal ash wastewater and delaying cleanup deadlines at unlined coal ash dumps. This move allows coal-fired power plants to discharge more heavy metals into local waterways.

Sierra Club +2

• Repeal of 2024 MATS Regulations: Zeldin repealed the Biden-era Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), returning enforcement to the looser 2012 standards. This decision allows power plants and trash incinerators to emit higher levels of hazardous air pollutants like arsenic, which are strongly linked to cancers and neurological damage.

Earthjustice +3

• Smelter Pollution Waivers: During Senate oversight hearings, Zeldin was pressed over the EPA's handling of industrial polluters—such as mining smelters near fenceline communities and elementary schools—that continue to emit tons of toxic arsenic into the air.

U.S. Senate (.gov) +1

Criticism and Responses:

• Congressional Pushback: Lawmakers have sent formal letters demanding the EPA retract its rollbacks, citing the severe health risks.

Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (.gov)

• Public Health and Legal Action: Environmental advocacy groups, including Earthjustice, have launched lawsuits and campaigns to challenge the EPA's decisions to scale back protections.

Earthjustice +2

• EPA Defense: Administrator Zeldin has defended the measures as regulatory relief for the energy sector, arguing that the pre-existing 2012 air toxics limits remain strict and functional. Track official federal rulemaking and environmental impacts on the Environmental Protection Agency portal.

:{:{}:

Lee Zeldin Intends to Allow More Heavy Metals ... - Sierra Club}:}:

Jun 30, 2025 — Lee Zeldin's proposal to allow coal companies to dump more heavy metals into our waterways defies all common sense.

Sierra Club

McClellan and Tonko Send Letter to Administrator Zeldin Urging ...

Jul 23, 2025 — McClellan and Tonko Send Letter to Administrator Zeldin Urging EPA to Retract Proposal to Weaken Pollution Standards * “It is the ...

Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan (.gov)

WATCH: In Senate EPW Hearing, Kelly Presses EPA on Lead ...

Apr 29, 2026 — Sen. Kelly shows EPA Administrator Zeldin how close the hazardous lead and arsenic smelter is to an elementary school during an EP...

---

HILL

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moved Thursday to roll back limits that require coal-fired power plants to prevent the release of toxic heavy metals into streams and rivers through polluted groundwater, saying a three-year-old rule is unduly costly for the energy industry at a time when energy demand is spiking.

It is the latest step that President Donald Trump’s administration has taken to pull back regulations on coal mining and coal-fired power and empower fossil fuels as a primary energy source to feed the rapid growth of artificial intelligence data centers.

In its proposed rule, the EPA said a 2024 rule under President Joe Biden misjudged the effectiveness and cost of the regulation, and had the effect of shutting down coal-fired power plants at a time when energy demand is spiking.

Changing the rule is critical to making electricity more affordable and reliable, while advancing the economy, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement.

“The AI and data center revolution is creating an electricity and baseload power demand that cannot be met under the overly restrictive policies of past administrations,” Zeldin said. “The Trump EPA will continue doing its part to address these burdensome regulations on the coal-fired power plant sector that hold American communities back from the new opportunities presented by this new 21st century energy reality.”

Reps. Thompson and Moolenaar on bipartisan bill that would bar foreign adversaries from buying US farmland

In 2024, the EPA strengthened wastewater rules over coal-fired power plants that keep coal ash — a byproduct of burning coal — in unlined, uncovered dumps that leach toxic heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic and selenium into groundwater.

In the rule, the EPA required plant owners to report whether the groundwater was contaminated and, if so, pump and treat the contaminated groundwater before discharging it into streams and rivers, Thom Cmar, an attorney for environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, said.

The EPA initially had given power plant owners until Dec. 31, 2029, to meet the new limits.

The EPA said the rule proposed Thursday, if finalized, would reduce power generation costs by as much as $1.1 billion a year. Coal and power industry trade associations cheered the EPA’s move. Environmental groups slammed it as a public health danger and giveaway to the coal-power industry.

Earthjustice said the lakes, rivers and other waterways that will see more pollution as a result of the EPA’s proposal are often sources of drinking water that tens of millions of people rely on. Coal-fired power plants are by far one of the largest sources of toxic pollutants in America’s rivers, lakes and streams, Earthjustice said.

“This plan would eliminate safeguards on hundreds of millions of pounds of wastewater with neurotoxins and cancer-causing contaminants. It would allow coal power plants to avoid cleaning up contamination that threatens our drinking water sources,” Cmar said.

The proposal unveiled Thursday would exempt contaminated groundwater seeping into waterways from the mandatory treatment requirements, Earthjustice said. Power plant owners would only be required to treat the contaminated groundwater if they were already complying with the 2024 rule to pump it to the surface to treat it, Earthjustice said.

States could, however, still investigate whether power plants are polluting the groundwater and, if they are, try to force owners to treat the polluted groundwater under federal clean water laws, Cmar said.

“The problem is, at the state level, many states are reluctant to use that tool that they all have to hold up the permitting process and force the companies to do an adequate job of documenting and limiting the pollution,” Cmar said.

The EPA said dozens of coal-fired power plants — likely up to 104 — are polluting groundwater through the uncontrolled runoff. It found seven plants were complying with the rule to pump and treat the groundwater, it said.

The EPA had estimated in 2024 that its new rule that year would reduce pollutant discharges by 660 to 672 million pounds per year, provide $3.2 billion in public health benefits each year and especially benefit “low-income communities and communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by pollution from coal-fired power plants.”

It had projected that electricity bills for the average residential household would increase by less than $3.50 per year.

Follow Marc Levy at https://twitter.com/timelywriter

}:

GGL 5 26

AI Overview

Tobacco, asbestos, and arsenic are widely considered among the most potent or widespread carcinogens impacting human health, with strong evidence linking them to cancer. Tobacco products are the leading cause of cancer, while asbestos causes mesothelioma and lung cancer, and arsenic is a common environmental toxin linked to multiple cancer types.

leveland Clinic +2

TRUMP 20 4 26 2025 PJT

MMA

...Research and development

• • From the budget: “The Budget puts an end to unrestrained research grants, woke environmental justice work, radical climate research, and skewed, overly-precautionary modeling that influences regulations—none of which are authorized by law.” Office of Management and Budget, *Budget of the United States Government*, [4/3/26]

• • From Project 2025: “Notify Congress that EPA will not conduct any ongoing or planned science activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization. This priority should be underscored in the President’s first budget request.” Project 2025, *Mandate for Leadership*, [2023]

Environmental justice

• • From the budget: “The Budget continues the full elimination of EPA’s radical diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and instead restores civil rights protections for all Americans. This elimination puts an end to taxpayer funded programs that promote divisive racial discrimination and so-called 'environmental justice' grants to organizations that advance discriminatory and radical ideological projects.” Office of Management and Budget, *Budget of the United States Government*, [4/3/26]

• • From Project 2025: “Returning the environmental justice function to the AO [Office of the Administrator], eliminating the stand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.” … “As a threshold matter, there is an opportunity to redefine EJ as a tool for the agency to prioritize environmental protection efforts and assistance to communities in proximity to pollution or with the greatest need for additional protection. Allocations of agency resources, increased EPA enforcement, and/or agency distribution of grants should be based on neutral constitutional principles.” Project 2025, *Mandate for Leadership*, [2023]...

---

Reset or Purge? Trump EPA Dismisses Agency Science Advisers - Inside Climate News

Reset or Purge? Trump EPA Dismisses Agency Science Advisers

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE

Critics fear the unusual clean sweep of panels is meant to ease the planned rollback of climate and environmental policy.

All members of the Environmental Protection Agency’s boards of outside advisers on science and clean air were dismissed in a letter emailed late Tuesday, an unusual step the Trump administration said was aimed at depoliticizing the panels.

Panel members expressed disappointment and confusion at the assertion in the letter signed by James Payne, a career EPA attorney Trump installed as acting administrator. Critics charged the Trump administration with politicizing the process by eliminating the current independent advisers and clearing the way for them to be replaced with hand-picked appointees.

“This is not about good governance, this is about rigging the system for polluters; corruption at the expense of the American people,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Similar efforts to remake science advisory panels came during the first Trump administration, with EPA leaders changing the eligibility rules for serving on boards. The result was fewer university researchers on the panels and more industry consultants and scientists who were supportive of Trump’s deregulatory efforts, like University of Alabama in Huntsville atmospheric scientist John Christy, taking seats.

A number of the now-dismissed panel members had two to three years remaining in their terms. It was not immediately clear who would be appointed as replacements on the advisory panels, both of which are required under federal law. Trump’s choice to head up the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin, won Senate confirmation on Wednesday, the day after the dismissals.

An EPA spokesperson said the move was in line with the agency’s purpose.

“EPA is working to update the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to ensure that the agency receives scientific advice consistent with its legal obligations to advance our core mission,” the spokesperson said in an email. “The decision to reset these federal advisory committees emphasizes the importance of SAB and CASAC to EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment and seeks to reverse the politicization of SAB and CASAC made by the previous Administration.”

The dismissed chairs of both of the boards disputed that characterization.

“I was not appointed as a political appointee, but as a scientist that studies air pollution and health,” said Jeremy Sarnat, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health who had only begun serving as chair of the CASAC in October. He said the Clean Air Act, passed on a bipartisan basis more than 50 years ago and implemented under administrations of both parties, had been “one of the most successful public policies that has ever been enacted globally,” in part because of procedures that require the agency to rely on the best science.

“I know that so many other facets of American life and society have been politicized, and I hope that the CASAC and the advisory boards can remain above that and that the new administrator will adhere to the principles and practices, which have really worked so well for decades,” Sarnat said.

Kimberly Jones, an engineering professor and associate provost at Howard University, who has served as chair of the Science Advisory Board since 2023, said she was disappointed in the administration’s decision.

“It does seem to signal a shift in the decades-old accepted facts about how science should occur,” Jones said. “We should not be writing or interpreting science to meet anybody’s objectives. We should be independent, doing our best job to evaluate the science as scientists. This seems to go counter to that understanding.”

Although EPA’s science advisers are not decision-makers, their advice becomes important when the agency’s policy decisions face legal challenges. EPA’s 2024 decision to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particulate matter, for example, was bolstered because it was in line with the advice the agency received from the CASAC. Conversely, weak ozone standards passed during the first Trump administration were successfully challenged in court in 2021, in part because the EPA had received contrary recommendations from outside advisers.

It is not the first time there has been a clean sweep of scientific advisers. Biden’s EPA chief, Michael Regan, installed a new slate at CASAC when he took office in 2021 based on the findings by the GAO and others that the selection process had become compromised.

H. Christopher Frey, an associate dean at North Carolina State University who served as head of EPA’s Office of Research and Development during the Biden administration, said the circumstances are entirely different now. “This is really just a flat-out purge of the current membership,” he said.

Frey said the Trump administration seemed to be following the conservative policy platform Project 2025, which called for “resetting science advisory boards” at EPA.

“The administration seems to be wanting to promote loyalty and compliance with its policy agenda, but that’s not the mission of a science advisory board,” Frey said. “So if that’s the goal, it’s an inappropriate interference in an external, independent expert advisory board, and it’s also just setting more precedent for this to happen every time.”

---

an 12 24

the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a permanent ban on a pair of carcinogenic chemicals widely used in U.S. industries, including dry cleaning services and automative work.

According to the Washington Post:

The announcement includes the complete ban of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE—a substance found in common consumer and manufacturing products including degreasing agents, furniture care and auto repair products. In addition, the agency banned all consumer uses and many commercial uses of Perc—also known as tetrachloroethylene and PCE — an industrial solvent long used in applications such as dry cleaning and auto repair.

Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, applauded the move but suggested to the Post that it should have come sooner.

"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," Kalmuss-Katz.

The EPA's decision, reports the New York Times, was "long sought by environmental and health advocates, even as they braced for what could be a wave of deregulation by the incoming Trump administration."

The Timesreports:

TCE is known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and to damage the nervous and immune systems. It has been found in drinking water nationwide and was the subject of a 1995 book that became a movie, “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. The E.P.A. is banning all uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was overhauled in 2016 to give the agency greater authority to regulate harmful chemicals.

Though deemed "less harmful" than TCE, the Times notes how Perc has been shown to "cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer," and can also damage the functioning of kidneys, the liver, and people's immune systems.

Environmentalists celebrated last year when Biden's EPA proposed the ban on TCE, as Common Dreamsreported.

Responding to the news at the time, Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the EPA, by putting the ban on the table, was "once again putting the health of workers and consumers first."

While President-elect Donald Trump ran on a having an environmental agenda that would foster the "cleanest air" and the "cleanest water," the late approval of EPA's ban on TCE and Perc in Biden's term means the rule will be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), meaning the Republican-control Senate could reverse the measure.

In his remarks to the Times, Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that if Trump and Senate Republicans try to roll back the ban, they will be certain to "encounter serious opposition from communities across the country that have been devastated by TCE, in both blue and red states."

===

mma 5 24

right-wing media are attacking a series of new regulations the EPA issued in an effort to cut planet-warming carbon emissions and other types of toxic pollution from coal plants and some natural gas plants.

In response to the new rules, which the agency issued on April 25, right-wing media have misleadingly argued that one key action — forcing coal plants and new natural gas plants to cut carbon pollution by 90% in the next eight years — would inevitably cause blackouts and steep energy price increases, fueled by growing demand.

They also insist that the move is unconstitutional, pointing to the 2022 West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency Supreme Court decision, even though the regulations were designed with the decision in mind.

• ## The EPA issued a new rule that it says would prevent over 1,000 deaths by 2035 by requiring coal plants and new natural gas plants to drastically cut carbon emissions using nascent technology or shut down

• • Coal plants that intend to remain active after 2039, and new base-load natural gas plants that are expected to run continuously, are required to cut their carbon emissions by 90% by 2032.This target is based on the capabilities of carbon capture and storage (CCS), a method of removing carbon dioxide from point sources of pollution, like power plants, and storing it underground. While some polluting industries are utilizing CCS, the technology is nascent and expensive. Coal plants that want to operate past 2039 will likely have to adopt this technology or retire. Natural Resources Defense Council, [4/25/24,11/23; EIA, accessed 5/3/24; The New York Times, 3/19/23]

• • The EPA says the new rule would have massive public health and environmental benefits. According to the EPA, “co-benefits including approximately 1,200 avoided premature deaths; 870 avoided hospital and emergency room visits; 1,900 avoided cases of asthma onset; 360,000 avoided cases of asthma symptoms.” The EPA also estimates the rule change would reduce carbon emissions by 1.38 billion tons. EPA.gov, accessed [4/29/24]

• ## Right-wing media and other figures claim that cutting carbon pollution from coal plants, or potentially phasing them out, would make energy more expensive and potentially cause blackouts because of a predicted surge in energy demand

• • The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that the new rule will “raise electricity prices” and might force Americans to ration energy.The editorial incorrectly claims that the rule will ban new natural gas plants and that it will “have no effect on global temperatures.” “But,” the article continues, “it will raise electricity prices no matter what EPA says. Electric rates are already soaring amid the government force-fed green transition, especially in states like California, New York and New Jersey that have done the most to punish fossil fuels.” It concluded that a second term for Biden could mean that Americans would “face energy rationing.” The Wall Street Journal, [4/26/24]

• • On One America News, climate denier Alex Newman told host Alison Steinberg that the new rule is designed to “dismantle the U.S. economy.” When asked about the new rule, Newman said, “Under their plan, energy prices will skyrocket. What they're doing here, Alison, is actually very strategic. It has nothing to do with the climate. Forget the climate change; it’s a total hoax. What they're doing here is they're trying to dismantle the U.S. economy.” Later in the segment, Newman also said, “The Republican states are going to have to stand up and say you have no authority to declare a climate emergency. You're not shutting down anything in our state. If you send anybody into our state to shut down a power plant, to shut down an export of anything you're going to be arrested and you're gonna be prosecuted.” One America News, *In Focus*, [4/28/24]

• • On Fox Business, host Jackie DeAngelis said, “This green push is going to create a situation where all our prices go up” when there is more demand for electrification and other technology. “The electricity and the energy that we need for the green cars and to power all these other green initiatives, even whether it’s in the crypto space or whether it’s other things that we are doing in the chip space in AI, this all comes from fossil fuels,” she said. “Windmills cannot give you the energy that you need to power these industries yet, so ultimately the consumer is going to suffer, businesses are going to suffer. I don't really see how this works.” Fox Business, *The Big Money Show*, [4/25/24]

• • In an interview with Rich Nolan, CEO of the National Mining Association, Fox Business host Larry Kudlow falsely claimed the new rules mean there will be “no new natural gas plants” and that “there isn't going to be any electricity to power any economic growth in this country.”Nolan told Kudlow that the Biden administration had “dealt a massive blow to affordable, reliable American-mined energy in this country.” Fox Business, *Kudlow*, [4/25/24]

• • Newsmax host Rob Schmitt said, “If they implement this, get ready for blackout nation.” In an interview with National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Jim Matheson, Schmitt said, “There won't be nearly enough windmills to run this country, especially with all these new electric cars they want you to drive.” Matheson said his organization thinks the regulation is “unlawful” and called it “tone deaf” to high electricity demand. Newsmax, *Rob Schmitt Tonight*, [4/25/24]

• • Fox host Laura Ingraham said the regulations will “drive up our energy costs even further."She also said that “Biden’s climate fanatics” are “saboteurs of America’s economy, certainly of our energy security.” Fox News, *The Ingraham Angle*,[4/25/24]

• • Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) wrote on X that the rule will “raise electricity costs and further decrease grid reliability” and urged followers to vote for Trump to “stop the EPA.”“Want a good reason to vote for Trump? The EPA. We desperately need new leadership to stop the EPA from attacking the things we need most, ie ENERGY,” Crenshaw wrote on X. “The EPA's latest move on power plants is harmful to Texans and Americans. … It’s going to raise electricity costs and further decrease grid reliability. … This is a terrible plan as energy demand continues to increase across the country. EPA’s dangerous actions put both grid reliability and electricity affordability at risk for millions of Americans.” Twitter/X, [4/25/24]

• • Power the Future CEO Daniel Tuner: “Joe Biden's EPA wants to shut down every coal-fired power plant in the US.” He continued: “Here's the truth:- Coal is inexpensive, abundant, and reliable - Solar manufacturing plants run on coal - Wind manufacturing plants run on coal- EV battery factories are powered by coal Facts matter.” Twitter/X, [4/25/24]

• • A Just The News headline claims that “experts say new EPA power plant rules will drive up energy costs and further destabilize U.S. grid,” but the main “expert” was from the Wyoming Mining Association.The executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association said that the rules were “ill-intentioned” and “legally questionable,” and he said they would have the effect of “further destabilizing America’s already rickety electricity grid by eliminating critical baseload power.” The article concluded that if the rule is not challenged in court, “Americans will likely be paying a lot more for energy in the coming years.” The article also quotes climate denier Steve Goreham and cites a few other sources but doesn’t quote them. Just The News, [4/25/24; Inside Climate News, 8/9/16]

• ## In reality, experts say the vast majority of renewable energy projects in the U.S. are now much cheaper than coal, which is on the way out anyway, and carbon-free energy can meet our grid’s growing demand

• • In most cases, renewable energy is now cheaper than coal. A 2023 report from Energy Innovation found that 99% of “coal plants were more expensive to operate compared to the alternative of building new wind or solar” nearby. InsideClimate News,[1/30/23; Canary Media, 1/31/23]

• • In the U.S., renewables have already surpassed coal in producing power, and coal plants are quickly being decommissioned anyway.According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “in 2022, generation from renewable sources—wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal—surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time.” Coal power has been on the decline for years, and coal plants are now providing only about half of the energy that they were just a decade ago. EIA, [3/27/23; InsideClimate News, 3/14/24]

• • In a recent report, think tank Energy Innovation wrote that instead of just building new gas plants, “utilities and their regulators should examine a wider portfolio of solutions that are lower risk and more compatible with utility and state climate goals and customer preferences.” According to the report, new gas plants may lose their value because of the shift toward decarbonization: “New gas plants represent large investments that utilities will be locked into for decades to come. This means that as the clean electricity transition accelerates, these plants could become stranded assets, with costs ultimately falling to electricity customers.” It listed a focus on energy efficiency, growth of cost-effective renewables and storage, and investment in transmission and other types of carbon-free energy sources as potential energy solutions. Energy Innovation, [3/27/24]

• • The Biden administration is taking steps to speed up federal permits to expand the electric grid more quickly.In another rule announced on April 24, the Energy Department would take charge of conducting environmental reviews of some interstate power line projects to cut permitting times, so they can build transmission lines more quickly to address expected demand. The New York Times, [4/25/24]

• • Volts podcast: Instead of offering real solutions, utilities and fossil fuel allies are using the predicted surge to push for more natural gas infrastructure and oppose regulations.In a conversation about the coming electricity demand surge with the authors of Energy Innovation’s recent report, podcast host David Roberts pointed out that “utilities should have been preparing already and it's a little rich now that they're acting like they're being caught flat-footed.” Report author Michelle Solomon said it’s “likely not a coincidence” that “many utilities have expressed that they are concerned about these rules and kind of spinning up hype right now right before the rules come out,” while the report’s other author, Eric Gimon said that in D.C., fossil fuel allies are misleadingly framing the problem and pushing the “overall narrative of ‘we can't do it,’” saying that “they crank up the volume when they need to.” Volts, [4/24/24, 4/24/24]

• ## The regulations were designed to comply with the Supreme Court’s controversial 2022 West Virginia v. EPA decision, but right-wing media figures still argue or suggest they are unconstitutional

• • In 2022, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued a ruling in West Virginia v. EPAthat limits the EPA’s power to make power plants cut the toxic pollution that is driving the climate crisis.The Supreme Court’s ruling was centered specifically on the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act as applied to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was never fully implemented and is not currently under consideration by the Biden administration. Vox, [6/30/22]

• • The EPA designed the new regulations to comply with the 2022 court decision.NPR wrote: “In 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in again and restricted the EPA's options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources. So, instead, the EPA has created regulations governing individual power plants.” NPR, [4/25/24]

• • Former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called on “the next U.S. president to hold agencies accountable for illegal overreach,” using the West Virginia vs. EPAdecision. Outlining an argument that other right-wing media figures and lawmakers are using to claim that EPA still does not have the authority to enforce the new rules, Ramaswamy wrote, “The single most important Supreme Court ruling this century is West Virginia v EPA. ...Now, if a federal reg has a major economic or policy impact, it must be passed by *Congress*, not a 3-letter agency. Everyday citizens, businesses, and the next U.S. President can finally hold these agencies accountable for their illegal overreach.” Twitter/X, [4/25/24]

• • Power the Future Executive Director Daniel Turner told OAN host Monica Paige that states will “push back” on the rule change using West Virginia v. EPA, saying Biden has “violated” it “before.”“EPA vs. West Virginia, which came out in 2022, was a huge ruling in favor of states rights. I'm sure they will use that as precedent, but Biden doesn't pay attention to the Supreme Court, right? He's violated West Virginia vs. EPA before. I'm hoping there are enough states attorney generals.” One America News, *OAN 8 am News with Stephanie Myers*, [4/26/24]

• • Climate denier Steve Milloy called the rule “unconstitutional,” saying it violates West Virginia v. EPA.Twitter/X, [4/25/24, 4/27/24; Media Matters, 10/13/21]

• • The Daily Caller: “‘Extreme And Unlawful Overreach’: Biden Admin Unveils Final Plan To Push Climate Agenda On America’s Power Grid.”Daily Caller author Nick Pope wrote that “energy sector experts are warning that the rules could cause serious reliability issues that would harm the American economy.” The “experts'' are from fossil fuel trade associations and the Edison Electric Institute, which has helped lobbyists and fossil fuel industry executives develop controversial strategies for fighting renewable energy campaigns. Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of the coal trade association America’s Power, called the rule package “Clean Power Plan 2.0” and an “extreme and unlawful overreach that endangers America’s supply of dependable and affordable electricity.” She added that it is “the same kind of overreach that caused the U.S. Supreme Court to reject EPA’s first Clean Power Plan in 2022.” The Daily Caller, [4/25/24]

===

lerner intercept

whistleblowers cannot tell her (or congress) what scary chem in question is b/c law protects proprietary knowledge; if have report law says must submit but if do not have do not hand over?!

co adds info to Db after sci submits report?!

sometimes one exposure can cause harms.

https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-october-14-2021/

===

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579

politico bad code box size]

no lnx

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has [lnx] to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Now, according to Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla, another relationship involving a High Court justice could merit close scrutiny — and this time, the justice is Donald Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Przybyla, in an  on April 25, reports, "For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer for a 40-acre tract of property he co-owned in rural Granby, Colorado. Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the High Court. Gorsuch owned the property with two other individuals."< according to Przybyla, Brian Duffy of Greenberg Traurig "put under contract the 3000-square-foot log home on the Colorado River and nestled in the mountains northwest of Denver, according to real estate records. >READ MORE:

"He and his wife closed on the house a month later, paying $1.825 million, according to a deed in the county’s record system," Przybyla reports. "Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms. Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank. Przybyla adds, "Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the Court, according to a Politico review of the Court's docket. They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties.

In the 12 cases where Gorsuch's opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times." zxz for nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer for a 40-acre tract of property he co-owned in rural Granby, Colo. Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court. Gorsuch owned the property with two other individuals.>

On April 16 of 2017, Greenberg’s Brian Duffy put under contract the 3,000-square foot log home on the Colorado River and nestled in the mountains northwest of Denver, according to real estate records....federal disclosure forms.<...Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket....one of the more highly publicized rulings in recent years, a multistate suit which reversed former President Barack Obama’s plan to fight climate change through the Clean Air Act.

Gorsuch joined the court’s other five conservative judges in agreeing with the plaintiffs — including Greenberg’s client — that the Environmental Protection Agency had overstepped its authority by regulating carbon emissions from power plants in the decision that makes it more difficult for the executive branch to regulate emissions without express authorization from Congress.

Duffy, who in addition to serving as CEO is chief of Greenberg’s entire 600-lawyer litigation department, said he has never personally argued cases before Gorsuch or met the justice socially.

“I’ve never spoken to him,” Duffy said. “I’ve never met him.”

Once he learned Gorsuch was among the owners, Duffy said, he cleared the sale with his firm’s ethics department.

Gorsuch did not respond to inquiries about the sale, his disclosures or whether he should have reported Duffy’s identity as the purchaser.

Supreme Court rules do not prevent justices from engaging in financial transactions with people with interest in court decisions, but Gorsuch’s dealings with Duffy expose the weakness of the court’s disclosure procedures. For instance, in reporting his Colorado income, Gorsuch listed as his source only the name that he and his two co-owners gave themselves, Walden Group, LLC. The report didn’t indicate that there had been a real estate sale or a purchaser.

Such a sale would raise ethical problems for officials serving in many other branches of government, but the Supreme Court sets its own rules. It has largely left justices to make their own decisions about when and how to report outside gifts and income.

Justice Clarence Thomas is currently under scrutiny for accepting lavish trips from GOP billionaire donor Harlan Crow, who also purchased three Georgia properties from the justice. Thomas did not report the property sales. Of the vacations, Thomas said he had been advised that “personal hospitality from close friends” need not be disclosed.

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a frequent critic of Supreme Court ethics rules, sent a statement responding to POLITICO’s inquiry about Gorsuch’s sale of the Colorado property.

“We have seen a steady stream of revelations regarding Supreme Court Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and of public servants,” said Durbin. “The need for Supreme Court ethics reform is clear, and if the Court does not take adequate action, Congress must. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be closely examining these matters in the coming weeks,” said Durbin, who has asked Chief Justice John Roberts to testify next month on the court’s ethics rules.

Kedric Payne, director of ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said he believes “investments in LLCs require more details than the justice includes in his financial disclosures.“

“This transaction appears to also require naming the buyer. The public has a right to know that justices will fully comply with disclosure rules instead of providing only a tiny peek into their financial disclosures,” he said, noting more facts are needed to distinguish whether it’s a disclosure omission or violation. The center was founded by a Republican former chair of the Federal Election Commission.

Unlike Crow, who bought properties from Thomas, Duffy says he is neither a friend nor a confidant of Gorsuch. But he is one of the nation’s most powerful attorneys.

His Greenberg bio describes him as “A true ‘working CEO,’” and says he “focuses his practice on trial and appellate work in the class action, employment, energy, commercial contract, and product liability areas, serving as counsel in high-profile cases throughout the United States.”

At the time of the sale, Duffy had headed Greenberg Traurig for about a year. A search of his contributions to political candidates revealed that they went primarily to Democrats, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-N.Y.). He contributed the maximum amount allowable for individual donors to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, though he also made contributions in the past to Republicans such as former Sen. John McCain of Arizona and a GOP New York City mayoral candidate, Joe Lhota.

The Duffy family has long resided in Colorado. Duffy attended the University of Colorado Law School and, in 2019, he was the recipient of the “most admired CEO” award by the Denver Business Journal.

Duffy, who described himself as an avid fly fisher, said he’d been looking for the right property for his family for many years. Duffy said he did not know Gorsuch was one of the owners when he made his first offer.

“The fact that he was going to be a Supreme Court justice was absolutely irrelevant to the purchase of that property. It’s a wonderful piece of property and we’re so glad we bought it,” said Duffy.

Gorsuch and his associates purchased the property in 2005 through theirLLC, the Walden Group,which was dissolved after the 2017 sale. The home was originally listed, in July of 2015, for $2.495 million. The fact that the property had sat on the market for so long and that its price had been lowered a couple times suggests the partners were having trouble finding a buyer.

The real estate transaction is another example of how the lack of a firm code of ethics for the court stands in contrast to most other branches of the U.S. government, including the White House and Congress as well as lower court judges.

The code of conduct for lower court U.S. judges says judges should “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,” and “discourages frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court” on which the judge serves. Unlike many of the country’s state and federal courts, the Supreme Court lacks a code of conduct.

“This is exactly the type of situation that an ethics code that included vetting of transactions and full disclosure would clear up,” said Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, a progressive research organization. “Without decisive action, the conservatives on the Supreme Court will forever tarnish its reputation in our public life,” he said.

At the time of Gorsuch’s appointment, his ownership of the Colorado property drew attention only for the fact that his co-owners were major figures in the oil and gas industry. Gorsuch’s ties to the oil and gas industry run deep.

As a lawyer at a Washington law firm nearly 20 years ago, Gorsuch represented oil and gas billionaire Philip Anschutz on a variety of matters as outside counsel, and it was through this connection that Gorsuch befriended his future real estate partners.

Anschutz helped Gorsuch win an appointment to an open seat on a federal appeals court in Denver, including directly lobbying the George W. Bush White House....Gorsuch’s connections to Anschutz extend to .

The Walden Group included Kevin Conwick, who had advised Anschutz in deals to buy sports teams and other projects like the Staples Center in Los Angeles, and Cannon Harvey, who oversaw Anschutz’s venture capital investment division...

===

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-networks-fearmonger-over-biden-administrations-new-vehicle-tailpipe-emissions-proposal

on April 12, the Environmental Protection Agency introduced its strictest standards yet to curb planet-warming emissions from American cars and trucks. For automakers to be in compliance, over two-thirds of new vehicles sold in 2032 may have to be electric. Fox’s cable news networks, which for years have both bashed EVs and downplayed or outright denied the climate crisis, are of course not too keen on the proposal.

The EPA’s new standards apply to cars being manufactured in 2027 and beyond. Notably, they do not ban gas-powered vehicles; as NPR reported, the EPA is setting “a standard for emissions, on average, based on the size and type of vehicle being built.” These rules are stringent enough that auto companies will probably “need to produce 67% zero-emission vehicles to meet them.”

The EPA states that the standards would remove billions of tons of carbon emissions from the atmosphere in the coming decades, as well as improve the air quality for communities across the U.S. The standards still need to go through a public comment and review process before being finalized.

Throughout last week, programs on Fox News and Fox Business responded to the proposal by claiming EVs are prohibitively expensive, not popular among the U.S. public, and not environmentally friendly. They also complained about unnecessary federal regulations and blasted any efforts to transition to clean energy because, in their telling, it will only help China and weaken the U.S.

Fox is misleading about the cost and popularity of EVs

A common refrain from Fox is that electric vehicles are too expensive to compete with gas-powered cars, or that consumers in general just don’t want them.

While their upfront costs are currently more expensive than gas-powered cars, EVs are cheaper than gas-powered cars over their entire lifespan. Furthermore, the production costs of EVs continue to fall, and in the next decade EVs are projected to be cheaper to produce than gas cars.

In addition to long-term financial savings, EVs have numerous health benefits, as well. Reporting on the EPA proposal, The Detroit News noted that by 2055, the rules would reduce “fine particulate matter in the air that can have negative health effects and potentially saving up to $1.6 trillion.” Indeed, one recent study estimated that up to 20,000 people in the U.S. die each year due to vehicle pollution.

In terms of popularity, while EVs made up just 6% of total vehicle sales in the U.S. in 2022, this figure is double the amount from 2021 and likely only getting higher. By 2030, EV sales could make up nearly 40% of total passenger car sales in the U.S., according to analysis by S&P Global (without factoring in the proposed EPA standards). Research from Goldman Sachs estimates that EVs will constitute half of global car sales by 2035, and 60% of sales by 2040.

• Fox contributor and former Trump economic adviser Steve Moore: “Only 6% of the car sales are EVs, so they're basically telling the American consumers, ‘We're going to build the cars you don't want.’ I mean, how stupid is that?” Fox Business, :{The Bottom Line:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [4/10/23]
• Fox anchor Harris Faulkner: “Six percent of all new cars are EVs. That is a huge sign that people don't want this.” Frequent Fox guest Steve Forbes agreed that people don’t want EVs: “The fact they have to keep forcing people to do it shows that, again, people don't want it because they don't like the short distances, they don’t like having to charge an hour, hour and a half. People don't have garages to charge these things.” Fox News, :{The Faulkner Focus}:, [4/12/23]
• Fox anchor Sandra Smith downplays the costs, popularity, and market share of EVs: “In these big American cities, people are scared to take public transportation because of rising crime rates coast-to-coast. … Why aren't we addressing that rather than pushing for these EVs that are not popular, they’re expensive, and the president’s own energy administration right now is forecasting they’ll only be a mere 10% of the American car market by the year 2050. So, if they were liked, if they were affordable, if they were efficient, wouldn't there just naturally be demand for these cars?” Fox News, :{America Reports:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [4/12/23]
• Fossil fuel shill and writer Robert Bryce: “This is very much a class issue. And it's not just about the affordability of the vehicles themselves, it’s about the upgrades to the grid that we’re all going to have to pay for through the rate base and through our taxes.” Fox News, :{The Ingraham Angle}:, [4/12/23]
• President and CEO of Celebrity Motor Cars Tom Maoli suggests that car companies don’t even like EVs: “You know it’s interesting because while you’re saying that the car companies are trying to push EV, it's really the government that’s pushing it. The car companies don't want it. Nobody has figured out how to make money on this venture. … The consumer is not buying into it. They’re coming into the showrooms, they’re afraid of them.” Fox News, :{Fox & Friends:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, [4/13/23]

Fox portends that it's strictly government regulations, and not market forces, that are pushing EVs on Americans

Whether Fox wants to admit it or not, major automakers including Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota, and Volkswagen already have aggressive goals for EV sales in the next decade. Additionally, climate-focused media outlet Heatmap reports that the EPA “expects that automakers are collectively on track for 44% of vehicle sales to be electric by 2030 without any changes to emissions rules.” Federal regulations will certainly prod automakers to manufacture more EVs, but to say that major automakers focused on the global market are moving to produce more EVs solely because of U.S. regulations is false. As part of this narrative, Fox figures are also claiming that this new rule is an affront to personal liberties. This is straight fearmongering, as the rule does not ban gas-powered cars or force people to give theirs up.

• Investment adviser Gary Kaltbaum: “We have a government now that’s coming out with some more dictates that are going to try to force you to maybe buy something you don't want to buy when there’s no demand there.” Fox News, *Your World*, [4/10/23]
• Fox Business host Sean Duffy denounces the Biden administration’s “attack on gas-powered cars.” “The Biden administration is back at it again using crazy regulations to push their radical green agenda,” Duffy claimed. “The EPA now reportedly getting ready to roll out some of the most aggressive climate regulations ever this coming Wednesday, continuing their attack on gas-powered cars.” Fox Business, *The Bottom Line*, [4/10/23]
• Fox News anchor Sandra Smith: “If you create the cars people want, they'll demand them. You don't have to mandate them.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/10/23]
• Fox Business anchor Larry Kudlow states that the EPA is “taking away our free choice.” Kudlow said, “You know the problem with EPA and radical climate change in general is? They are taking away our free choice. So, if you're fed up with a bunch of left-wing central planners jamming stuff down your throat, well, then vote no.” Fox Business, *Kudlow*, [4/11/23]
• Fox contributor Steve Moore suggests an ulterior motive to the emissions proposal: “So this isn't about cleaning up the atmosphere. This is about a radical climate change plan that is going to force people to buy cars they don't want to. I think the Biden people have really stepped in it on this one. Because, as I said, people don't want the government telling them what kind of car they can buy.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [4/13/23]
• Fossil fuel shill Steve Milloy: “Electric cars are so popular government has to mandate them and subsidize them. Look, this whole rule is a failure.” Fox News, *Fox News @ Night*, [4/13/23]
• Fox contributor Phil Flynn says that Americans are “not ready” for the EV transition. “We are not ready for it and they are coming for your car, Sandra, you better lock your garage,” Flynn said, later adding “When the government starts meddling in the free markets and starts to try to pit winners and losers, there is always going to be a backlash that hurts the American people and that's what we’re seeing right now.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/13/23]
• Fox Business host Brian Brenberg suggests this is not about EVs but rather controlling peoples’ movement: “Americans are not going to have the choices they have now about what they drive and how they do that. The fact is, Sean, what the president's actually trying to do is not get people into EVs but get them out of cars. He wants to control this whole supply chain. And the point is, the government's going to control how you get around, not you. And that, look, that's the stock and trade of every totalitarian government is to control the means of movement.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [4/14/23]

Fox is insinuating that EVs are worse for the environment than gas cars, and that only China benefits from this proposal

An MIT article from October 2022 stated that “although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.” EVs also don’t have the deadly tailpipe emissions associated with gas-powered cars.

Additionally, claims that only China benefits from this proposal are overstated. While China does control much of the supply chain for EV materials, the U.S. is taking steps to develop its own domestic supply chains (thanks in part to the Inflation Reduction Act) to reduce its reliance abroad. Automakers are also rethinking their supply chain strategies and investing in mines to secure the resources needed for scaling up electric vehicle production.

Finally, in addition to the numerous health benefits that come with reducing gas-powered car use, a transition to EVs would mean drivers would be less vulnerable to high gas prices and the whims of the global oil market. Reporting on the EPA proposal, MarketWatch notes that it “would strengthen American energy security by reducing reliance on 20 billion barrels of imported oil.”

• Fox host Will Cain suggests this plan only gives power to China: “In China, either through its own domestic geography or through its colonization of the world like Africa, has control of those raw materials as well. … If we move in this direction, we're giving that power, we're taking it from ourselves and giving it to China because of their dominance of those raw materials.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends Weekend*, [4/9/23]
• American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers states that we are “sacrificing American energy independence” to China.“Doing this the way that they're doing it, which is really just to focus on tailpipe emissions, rather than the emissions that actually exist when you create a vehicle from the very beginning, these electric vehicles, while great technology, most those key components continue to be made in China. We shouldn't just be looking at this from the perspective of emissions, but we should also look at it from a national security perspective. We should not be sacrificing American energy independence to a regime that is certainly hostile to American interests.” Fox Business, *Mornings with Maria*, [4/10/23]
• Fox co-host Brian Brenberg suggests this new proposal just gives China more power: “This is what I meaned, mixed up. We're talking about China's desire to dominate on the world stage, and we have a industrial policy by the Biden administration that wants to throw power to the Chinese by increasing emissions standards and, at the same time, handing all sorts of American taxpayer subsidies to Chinese companies in the U.S. for battery power and for battery production.” Fox Business, *The Big Money Show*, [4/10/23]
• Fox correspondent Jackie DeAngelis insinuates that only China will profit: “Basically with this EV push and the green push in general — our solar panels, a lot of them come from China, as well — you’re basically selling out this country so that China can profit from this. It’s absolutely insane to me.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [4/11/23]
• Fox host Brian Kilmeade: “You can sleep well at night knowing that you're driving an electric car and other people’s lives​ are being ruined and countries​ are being destroyed, while China pays them and profits.” Fox News, *The Story*, [4/12/23]
• Fox anchor Dagen McDowell: “We, by this electric vehicle boondoggle, are handing power and our borrowed money to China.” McDowell said: “We have taken a hammer to one of our greatest resources, our energy economy, our fossil fuel economy. We have lowered our standard of living, and so we have ceded power and prosperity to nations that hate us, to Iran and Russia, by reducing our energy output, our oil and natural gas output here, and then in turn we — to Sean's point, we, by this electric vehicle boondoggle, are handing power and our borrowed money to China.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/12/23]
• Fox host Sean Hannity: The electric car push only helps China. “The push for electric cars also threatens national security,” Hannity claimed. “Experts warning now it will make us more dependent on China giving them more leverage over this country. Now, as-powered cars, they are just the latest thing that they want to ban.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [4/13/23]

Fox is using good old-fashioned climate bashing to advance their anti-EV agenda

As usual, Fox is downplaying the seriousness of climate change by suggesting that these rules won’t do anything to help fight climate change. However, The Washington Post noted that the proposal is “large enough to avert the equivalent of two full years of nationwide carbon emissions, according to EPA estimates.” This proposal would thus go a long way in helping the U.S. — which is the world’s largest historical carbon emitter — to advance its climate goals. Additionally, as climate change requires a global, collective response, the U.S. would also be following in the footsteps of the European Union, which recently proposed even more-stringent requirements for tailpipe emissions.

• Fox host Greg Gutfeld: “None of their predictions have come true. None of them.” Gutfeld continued, “They are forcing America to do this crap over one, less than a percent Celsius. Less than a percent Celsius. It has no effect. And in fact, as this climate gets warmer, people's lives improve. That's a fact. That's a fact. People die from cold weather more frequently than warm weather.” Fox News, :{The Five}:, [4/12/23]
• Fox host Jesse Watters suggests that climate change is like a religion: “It’s not going to lower the Earth's temperature at all. All it does is make the donors happy because this is a religion to them, and it makes my guys in Detroit happy because they sell these things, and we pay for half of it. It’s the taxpayers subsidizing this ‘green revolution.’” Fox News, :{The Five}:, [4/12/23]
• Fox contributor Jason Chaffetz argues the proposal is part of a climate denial conspiracy theory related to the 15-minute city idea: “And the only thing they want to ramp up is their goal of limiting your mobility. This is not a mistake. As Laura [Ingraham] discussed last night with famed U.K. professor Norman Fenton, these moves are essential in order to bring about the end game of climate fanaticism — so-called 15-minute cities.” Fox News, :{The Ingraham Angle}:, [4/12/23]
• Fox’s Dagen McDowell: “There is no climate crisis. This is all about removing your choice and ending your ability as an American to decide what the hell kind of car you want to drive.” Fox Business, :{The Bottom Line}:, [4/12/23]

===

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/01/epa-chemical-assessments-health-risks-cancer-whistleblowers/

===

an 7 22

In mere weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency is set to unveil a supplemental draft rule aimed at cracking down on the oil and gas industry’s rampant methane emissions. This rule, which sidesteps the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA ruling, provides a necessary advancement to 2016 rules that were rolled out similarly regulating methane emissions as part of the Obama administration’s ambitious climate goals. New rules could not come at a better time, given recent findings of rampant methane emissions in the oil-rich Permian Basin, where some fossil fuel companies are relentlessly polluting the region with nonstop methane emissions.

Taking data from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab project known as Carbon Mapper, the Associated Press found dozens of so-called “super emitters” located in the area, of which just 10 companies owned 164 sites responsible for major methane emissions. The Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute Director, Kassie Siegel, provided an eye-opening analogy to the methane issue: “If carbon dioxide is the fossil-fuel broiler of our heating planet, methane is a blowtorch,” Siegel told the Associated Press. It’s long been understood that methane is more than 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Yet polluters freely emit methane with little to no consequence because, at this juncture, it is ultimately a company’s responsibility to account for its own bad actions. This has been a massive issue throughout the Gulf South and beyond. In Colorado, local air quality monitoring found that company reports of reduced methane emissions were an outright lie. Officials in towns and counties near Boulder were alarmed that claims of methane emissions being reduced by half weren’t even close to what on-the-ground air quality monitors had found. Colorado is considered a leader in methane emission regulation, yet there is still much work to be done to ensure that fossil fuel companies aren’t continuing to do their worst.

The Associated Press cites years of inaction and the difficulty of tracking methane emissions that are intermittent as major culprits, along with the oil and gas industry’s own practices of simply flaring and venting its methane because companies are overwhelmed by their own output. Regional oversight has all but signaled its support of such actions. An environmental consultant told the outlet that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rarely, if ever, inspects oil and gas sites. And the primary agency overseeing onshore oil and gas projects in the state—the Texas Railroad Commission—itself benefits from a lack of oversight, allowing oil-loving commissioners to continue sitting on their hands in favor of constant fossil fuel development and production. If states like Colorado can’t even seem to get things right, it feels like Texas doesn’t even stand a chance to do right by its citizens.

===

===

methane:

:{ttps://www.cnn.com:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{ › 2021 › 06 › 30 › politics › biden-methane-emissions › index.html}:

Jun 30, 2021President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed a bill repealing a Trump-era rule that rolled back regulations on methane emissions -- a particularly potent greenhouse gas believed to contribute ...

Attention turns to EPA on methane regulation after Biden ...

:{https://gnet.org}::{ › attention-turns-to-epa-on-methane-regulation-after-biden-action}:

President Biden Joe BidenBiden emphasizes unity in his July 4 remarks: "America is coming together" Governor of Oregon: Heat wave toll is "absolutely unacceptable" Army braces for change radical in the reform of justice MORE Restoring Obama-era rules on methane emissions shifts all attention to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as regulators say they plan to crack down further ...

Biden EPA Targets NatGas with Damaging Methane Emissions ...

:{https://marcellusdrilling.com}::{ › 2021 › 09 › biden-epa-targets-natgas-with-damaging-methane-emissions-reg}:

Get ready, it's coming this month. The completely radicalized Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Joe Biden and EPA Administrator Michael Regan (formerly the failed head of North Carolina's environmental agency) will issue a new regulation targeting so-called methane emissions, a rule that is "expected to be stricter even than an Obama-era standard set in 2016" which was ...

Focus shifts to EPA on methane regulation after Biden ...

:{https://thehill.com}::{ › policy › equilibrium-sustainability › 561436-focus-shifts-to-epa-on-methane-regulation-after-biden}:

Focus shifts to EPA on methane regulation after Biden action. 's restoration of Obama-era rules on methane emissions is shifting all attention to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as ...

What to look for as EPA readies landmark methane rules

:{blogs.edf.org}::{ › energyexchange › 2021 › 09 › 09 › what-to-look-for-as-epa-readies-landmark-methane-rules}:

In his day-one executive order on climate, President Biden directed EPA to propose methane rules for oil and gas facilities by this fall. And this summer, Congress passed a bipartisan resolution reversing a Trump-era rollback of methane protections and reaffirming EPA's obligation to reduce methane from both new and older sources in the oil ...

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/trump-report

raw story gettys

The Trump administration delayed the first-ever report from the Environmental Protection Agency blaming humans for climate change.

The EPA acknowledged in a 2017 report that human activity was, at least in part, to blame for glaciers shrinking, sea levels rising, coastal flooding and other threats, but the agency's climate change indicators website was not updated under former president Donald Trump, reported the BBC.

"Combating climate change - it's not optional. It's essential at EPA," said the agency's administrator Michael Regan, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. "We will move with a sense of urgency because we know what's at stake."

The EPA had never before attributed global warming to human activity, even during Barack Obama's administration, but the agency neglected to release its findings under Trump, who had called climate change a "hoax."

The report shows data from dozens of federal agencies to show the damage already caused by climate change, including coastal flooding and wildfires, and attributed rising temperatures to increased energy consumption -- which has nearly doubled in summer months since 1973.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/jim-inhofe/

alexh

During a confirmation hearing on May 13, Radhika Fox — President Biden's nominee for a top position at the Environmental Protection Agency — was questioned by U.S. senators. One of them was Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who told Fox that if she didn't "behave" in the position, he would have to tell her "daddy."

According to Washington Post reporter Colby Itkowitz, "Inhofe's office said he was playing off Radhika Fox's opening statement where she mentioned that her father was in the room and credited her hard-working immigrant parents. The exchange between the 86-year-old male senator and the much younger female nominee to lead the EPA's Office of Water was not antagonistic, but drew attention from those who wondered whether he would have made the same quip to a man. CNN first reported Inhofe's remark."

Inhofe, Itkowitz notes, has been "one of the Senate's most vocal climate change deniers." And one of the things the Oklahoma Republican questioned her about was the Trump Administration's decision to roll back some of the environment policies of the Obama Administration.

Inhofe told Biden's nominee, "I appreciate your comments, particularly in your opening statement. I enjoyed that. And so, I will look forward to working with you. And if you don't behave, I'm going to talk to your daddy."

Leacy Burke, a spokesperson for Inhofe, told the Post, "He made a lighthearted joke at the end of his questioning to recognize her father again since he was present at the hearing. As he said in the hearing, Inhofe looks forward to working with Ms. Fox once she is confirmed."

Fox's parents immigrated to the United States from a rural area of India. During the hearing, Fox told U.S. senators, "My parents grew up without electricity. They relied on wells for drinking water and pit latrines for wastewater management. Everything I have accomplished is because I stand on the shoulders of my parents' hard work."