coal
“National Security” is Becoming a Punch Line
Whenever he wants to roll back environmental protections, Trump cooks up a new national security justification.
A recent NY Times article recounts how often President Trump has invoked national security. It earnestly dissects his latest and most absurd claim: that the Arc deTrump he wanted to build will be filled with snipers, ammunition, and drones. It turns out that the snipers would be in an excellent position to shoot out the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery but not to protect anything of strategic importance. The environment has been one of Trump’s most fertile grounds for pretextual national security claims.
CONTINUE READINGWhat Explains Trump’s Energy Policy?
There’s no plausible economic explanation. It’s all about politics.
Trump’s energy policy rests on promotion of U.S. fossil fuel production and use. The instruments include orders forcing coal-fired generators to keep operating, relaxed air pollution standards for power plants, and repeal of as many energy efficiency standards as possible. Trump’s overall economic policy centers on mercantilism, the belief that countries get rich by exporting more than they import. That fits pieces of his energy policy but not others. There’s also some rhetoric about free choice by consumers, but Trump clearly is not a believer in free markets as a matter of principle.
CONTINUE READINGThe EPA Power Plant Rule Repeal Don’t Make No Sense
The Drain is a roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
The hair-on-fire news this week was the Environmental Protection Agency announcing that it is repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and fossil gas. I saw the headline (“EPA Poised to Repeal Carbon Rules for Coal, Gas Power Plants“) on Sunday evening, when Zahra Hirji, Jen Dlouhy, and …
Continue reading “The EPA Power Plant Rule Repeal Don’t Make No Sense “
CONTINUE READINGThe Rise and Fall of an Energy Emergency
Frantic federal efforts to keep uneconomical coal plants from closing met their doom in a new court decision.
According to the Department of Energy, decrepit coal-fired power plants had to be kept open to avoid “unacceptable reliability risks within five years” unless something changed. You could be forgiven for thinking that calling this hypothetical situation an emergency was something of a stretch. The legality of the orders reached the D.C. Circuit in a Michigan case involving a coal plant that seemingly everyone except Trump wanted to close. The court found no basis for the order. The opinion avoids directly calling out the government’s abuse of power. Instead, it keeps focused on basic issues of statutory interpretation. The statute clearly didn’t give DOE anything like the authority to take over the power system that it was claiming.
CONTINUE READINGPondering the Effects of Biden’s Climate Policies
A new report has some unexpected implications.
A new report from an MIT researcher says that the “glass is half full” in terms of prospects for renewables in the U.S. This was interpreted by some to mean that Biden’s climate policies were proving successful despite repeal of key parts of the Inflation Reduction Act. That’s a bit of a misreading. It also misses some key takeaways from the report. Those include skepticism about tax credits for wind and solar, an emphasis on removing obstacles to new projects, and a call for supporting the development of “firm” power sources like geotherma
CONTINUE READINGKeeping Coal on Life Support
Trump is doing everything he can to boost coal. And still, the industry is on life support.
The good news for investors is that coal is behaving like much of the non-AI stock market this year. Yet this growth is taking place on a very low baseline, which had slumped well below from Great Recession levels. If investors are to be believed, Trump may be able to keep the coal industry on life support. But it’s still in the ICU.
CONTINUE READINGRollin’ Coal!
One year in on Trump’s ‘Toxic First’ Agenda and the MAGA assault on environmental law.
They call it Rollin’ Coal — when you retrofit your diesel truck (and they are always trucks) to emit more pollution. A lot more. You may have seen the pictures: big dark clouds of fine particulates and a bounty of air toxics — a big f*#ck you to Prius drivers, environmentalists, and, well, all of …
Continue reading “Rollin’ Coal!”
CONTINUE READINGSolar and Wind are Winning
Two energy reports out this week paint a clear picture of the future that may await us.
Industrial policy moves slowly. Sometimes it takes months or years to understand the trajectory of global energy trends. Picture an oil tanker that requires a herculean effort just to shift course by a small degree — that’s what energy policy feels like much of the time. But then sometimes, you get a glimpse of the …
Continue reading “Solar and Wind are Winning”
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Wrap-Up)
Trump’s EPA says carbon emissions from U.S. power plants are too insignificant to regulate.
U.S. power plants emit 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, a little less than the entire country of Russia. The Trump Administration is proposing to end all regulation of carbon emissions by power plants, on the theory that these emissions should be considered insignificant. They have some complicated legal arguments , but the arguments break down the more closely you look at them.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part II)
To justify a decision not to regulate CO2 from power plants, EPA had to twist statutory language beyond all recognition.
According to EPA, carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector are too insignificant to warrant regulation. This is a bizarre conclusion: U.S. power sector’s emissions are around 6.5 billion tons, just below Russia’s total emissions from all sectors. To reach this conclusion, EPA has proposed a novel reading of the Clean Air Act. In EPA’s view, before it could regulate those emissions, it would first have to make a formal finding that they “cause or significantly contribute” to climate change, and (2) that this has to be judged on the basis of the sector’s percentage of total global carbon emissions. The statute doesn’t say either of those things.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
The Drain is a roundup of climate and environmental news from Legal Planet delivered to your Inbox once a week.
