Tag Archive for: environmental protection agency

Red States Slap California, Biden Admin With Lawsuits To Halt Electric Truck Push

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

Heavy Duty Complaint by Nick Pope on Scribd

ACF Complaint by Nick Pope on Scribd

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden EPA For Details About Massive Payouts To Orgs Laden With Dem Insiders

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Admin Weighs California’s Latest Green Gambit That Could Set Off Chain Reaction Of Economic Pain

The Biden administration could allow California to implement a rule designed to push green locomotives, but a growing list of stakeholders are warning that the regulation would severely impact the state’s economy and the national rail industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon determine whether it will allow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to move forward with a state regulation that would ban the use of locomotives that are more than 23 years past their manufacturing date unless they run using zero-emissions technology, according to Progressive Railroading.

The rule could disrupt supply chains and saddle the state’s railway industry with huge new costs that would flow to consumers, with the effects of the rule potentially spilling out in other parts of the country, according to numerous trade groups, lawmakers and policy experts who believe the Biden administration should reject CARB’s request.

CARB passed the locomotive rule in April 2023, but the agency must first receive the EPA’s permission before it enacts a regulation that goes above and beyond federal rules, according to the EPA’s Federal Register entry on the request. Monday was the last day to file comments with the EPA about the matter, signaling that a final determination could be coming soon.

“When you look at regulations in California, they’re being promulgated by people who don’t really understand the ramifications of what they’re requiring,” Edward Ring, a veteran of the railroad industry who is now the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “CARB is asking for something — zero-emissions locomotives — that do not yet exist. And what’s going to happen is it’s going to dramatically raise the cost of shipping anywhere in California, and that’s going to have a ripple effect across the country. This is another example of California’s environmentalist regulations raising the cost of living.”

The rule for locomotives would take effect in 2030, assuming EPA allows CARB to proceed. Some of the rule’s critics say that timeline is too tight to meet given the current lack of dependable, affordable zero-emissions technology available for locomotives on the market.

Moreover, the rule also would require locomotive operators to pay into their own trust accounts to fund the acquisition of zero-emissions locomotives and related infrastructure, according to CARB. The payment structure requires operators to contribute more into the accounts for operating dirtier locomotives than they have to put up for running cleaner ones.

Because many other states adhere to CARB guidelines, the EPA’s approval could set off a chain reaction expanding the impact of the rule well beyond California’s borders, according to Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR).

“If EPA approves the waiver the rule becomes a national matter on the first day. Roughly 65% of the locomotive fleet goes in and out of California and almost all of the freight rail traffic that moves in the state of California traverses state lines,” Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR), told the DCNF. “Moreover, EPA granting the waiver enables other states to opt-in and replicate the regulation in full – including the phase out dates and the spending accounts. Such a balkanized system would be unspeakably costly, but also disruptive to the flow of goods.”

A “large number” of locomotives would be impacted by the rule, Greener told the DCNF. Typically, locomotives have a lifespan ranging from 30 to 50 years, and they are regularly upgraded or otherwise modified to be more fuel-efficient, Greener added.

Other rail industry interest groups, such as the American Short Line and Railroad Association (ASLRRA), have also opposed the rule.

“While the spirit behind this rule is consistent with short lines’ environmental commitment, the rule itself is impractical, unworkable, and simply not feasible for most short lines,” Chuck Baker, president of ASLRRA, said of CARB’s rule in May 2023. “In addition, this rulemaking does not acknowledge the impact of the elimination of some short line rail service to Californians … Short lines would not in fact be able to pass on these costs to their customers and some of them would be eliminated by this rule.”

For its part, CARB downplays most of these criticisms and concerns.

“Despite the availability of cleaner options, railroad companies have failed to make investments to replace their outdated, dirty locomotives that contribute to the state’s air quality problems and endanger the lives and health of Californians,” a CARB spokesperson told the DCNF. “Passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, ocean-going vessels, heavy off-road equipment, small off-road engines used in landscaping, among other emissions sectors are all doing their part. It’s time for the rail industry to join and work with us to become part of the solution rather than focusing their efforts on litigation and PR campaigns.”

“In addition, under CARB’s Locomotive Regulation, railroads need not purchase new locomotives, but instead have many options available to them, including the use of zero-emission tender cars, rail electrification, or retrofitting of their existing locomotive fleet to ensure zero-emission operation while operating within California,” the spokesperson continued.

Labor unions, including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, have filed comments with EPA making their opposition to CARB’s rule clear.

Moreover, a diverse coalition of more than 60 trade groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Beer Institute and the Aluminum Association — wrote a letter Friday to Karl Simon, the director of EPA’s Transportation and Climate Division, expressing significant concerns with the rule should CARB be allowed to proceed.

“This regulation from CARB has the potential to create significant disruptions in the supply chain for all sectors of the U.S. economy, especially manufacturers and shippers who rely on consistent, reliable rail service,” the letter reads. “This rule could lead to delays for businesses and increased costs for both shippers and consumers that could ultimately lead to a massive supply chain crisis. If railroads are forced to spend large amounts of money to ensure compliance with this rule, those costs will be passed along the entire supply chain and could inhibit rail service at facilities across the country – not just in California.”

“The issue is that no viable technology exists today to move freight beyond yards on a zero-emissions basis,” the letter continues. “Despite aggressive [research and development] and innovation in the rail sector and significant private investments, the technologies to achieve this rule simply do not exist at this point.”

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and 11 Republican Senators also wrote their own letter expressing concern about the CARB rule to EPA Administrator Michael Reagan on April 16. In addition to raising questions about the legality of CARB’s rule, the lawmakers urged the EPA to “carefully consider the environmental, supply chain, and modal shift implications that EPA approving CARB’s waiver request would have.”

The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

California’s High-Speed Rail Isn’t Built, But It Is Putting Money In Unions’ Coffers

What Has California’s War On Fossil Fuels Actually Accomplished?

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Congressional Candidate Says Biden EPA Has Acted Like ‘Gestapo,’ Mistreated Residents In East Palestine Cleanup

A Republican candidate for the House of Representatives ripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Thursday, saying it was “mistreating residents” of East Palestine, Ohio.

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday he would visit the city where the Feb. 3, 2023, derailment occurred, fulfilling a promise to visit East Palestine made in March 2023. The derailment caused people to evacuate after chemicals were spilled. Dr. Rick Tsai, who is running for the House seat vacated when Republican Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio resigned to become president of Youngstown State University, blasted the EPA and federal government during an appearance on The Vince Coglianese Show.

LISTEN: 2024-02-01-Grabien-WMAL-AM_(Cumulus, Washington, D.C.) – The_Vince_Coglianese_Show – 2276867

“I don’t think the world knows the whole truth about what happened here and is still going on in East Palestine,” Tsai told,  Coglianese, who is also the Daily Caller’s editorial director.

Officials warned of a possible “catastrophic blast” at the derailment site Feb. 6, 2023, and carried out a controlled burn of chemicals, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

“The government put the entity that caused this catastrophe in control of the clean-up and they’ve almost been like the Gestapo here, mistreating residents,” Tsai added.

Tsai has done his own testing of local creeks, saying he has found elevated levels of benzene, according to WKYC.

“As of yesterday or the day before, Ann Vogel of the Ohio EPA was saying they have no evidence of chemicals in our land or a creek,” Tsai told Coglianese. “I can give a seven-year-old a stick and teach him how to find these chemicals. I don’t know how the EPA doesn’t do it with their millions of dollars at you, know their beck and call.”

Former President Donald Trump visited East Palestine in February 2023, donating bottled water and pallets of supplies to assist residents in the town.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

KJP Refuses To Say If Biden Will Drink Water In East Palestine

‘I Don’t Care’: Community Struck By Toxic Disaster Has Mixed Feelings On Biden’s Pledge To Visit Nearly One Year Later

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Tremendously Damaging’: Here’s The Most Aggressive Restrictions Biden’s EPA Pushed On Americans In 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pushed several aggressive climate regulations in 2023 that could seriously harm the American economy, energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The agency proposed or finalized rules that would spur the electric vehicle (EV) transition, decrease power grid reliability by imposing costly restrictions on power plants, tighten air quality standards and more in 2023. Under the Biden administration, the EPA has made considerable efforts to further regulations that would nominally help to counter climate change, often at the expense of the American economy, energy policy experts told the DCNF.

“The EPA took a disturbing trend to a new level in 2023: a willingness to use its regulatory power to kill off industries, dictate or influence what businesses can operate and limit what goods and services are available to the public,” Daren Bakst, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “Congress never envisioned the agency’s authorized regulatory power would be used as a tool for the agency to engage in central planning, reshape industries and limit consumer choice.”

The “Clean Power Plan 2.0″

The EPA’s May proposal to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would require fossil fuel-fired generation facilities to adopt expensive developing technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and hydrogen blending, in order to come into compliance over the coming decades. If finalized in its current form, the regulations— which the EPA contends are legal under the auspices of the Clean Air Act— would significantly raise the chances of blackouts in a massive swath of the Midwest while imposing costs to stakeholders totaling nearly $250 billion, according to analysis conducted by the Center of the American Experiment (CAE).

Power the Future, an energy advocacy organization, dubbed the proposal the “Clean Power Plan 2.0” in a November report because of its strong resemblance to the Obama administration’s “Clean Power Plan” proposal, which the Supreme Court struck down in its landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPAin 2022.

The EPA is moving forward with the proposal, despite the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and a key official for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission warning that the premature retirement of fossil fuel-fired baseload generation and increased reliance on intermittent green energy, like wind and solar, threatens future grid reliability.

“The proposed rule does not require that plants go offline,” an EPA spokesperson told the DCNF in August. “The proposed rule would require plants to install proven technology to abate greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal provides owners and operators of power plants with ample lead time and substantial compliance flexibilities, allowing power companies and grid operators to make sound long-term planning and investment decisions, and supporting the power sector’s ability to continue delivering reliable and affordable electricity.”

However, CAE and one of its leading grid experts, Isaac Orr, are not convinced.

The agency “does not appear to have the expertise necessary to enact such a sweeping regulation on the American power sector,” CAE wrote in its August comments in response to the agency’s proposal.

“This is the regulatory equivalent of studying the structural integrity of the top floor of a 100-story building without doing so for the preceding 99 floors,” Orr told the DCNF.

Tailpipe Emissions Standards

In April, the agency unveiled its proposal for new tailpipe emissions standards in an effort to curb emissions attributable to transportation. The proposed standards would be historically stringent if finalized and they would effectively mandate that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after model year 2032 are EVs, according to the EPA.

Under the proposed rules, 46% of medium-duty vehicle sales and 25% of heavy-duty sales will be EVs, according to the agency’s projections.

The proposal could be “tremendously damaging for the American people,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, told the DCNF. “The reason the agency is pushing these rules is because Congress would never pass these as laws … this rule would be very damaging for Americans and get rid of an iconic means of transportation.”

The administration has spent billions to facilitate its ambitious EV push, and other agencies, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have promulgated their own similar rules as well. Despite these efforts, the American EV market is on tenuous footing: consumer demand is not growing as rapidly as anticipated, companies are losing large sums of money on their EV product lines, auto executives are starting to back away from short-term EV production targets and the nation’s EV charging infrastructure remains inconsistent and unevenly distributed across the country.

Notably, the House passed a bill that would effectively nullify the proposal earlier in December by a bipartisan vote, but it is unlikely to make it through the Senate, and the White House has suggested that President Joe Biden will veto the bill if it lands on his desk, according to The Hill.

Fine Particulate Pollution Standards

In January, the EPA proposed to tighten the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) in order “to better protect communities, including those most overburdened by pollution,” the agency announced in a press release.

More than 70 industrial executives penned a letter to White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients warning him that it could lead to massive swaths of the nation falling out of compliance with the rule, which would in turn choke economic development and complicate key goals of Biden’s own green industrial agenda, according to its text.

The states that would be most directly impacted by a finalized PM 2.5 NAAQS update would be Texas, California, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Illinois, according to the letter’s text.

“PM 2.5 is the most demonstrable science fraud going on at the EPA,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, previously told the DCNF. “There is more than enough scientific research to demonstrate that what EPA is doing here is fraud, and it is really a testament to the corruption of the scientific community.”

If finalized, the proposal would kill jobs and put the EPA in a position to deny local economies the right to develop, because states that can not comply with the tightened standards would have to receive approval from the agency to develop new industrial factories and power facilities, Milloy told the DCNF.

The EPA projects that the policy would generate up to $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032, as well as prevent 4,200 premature deaths per year and restore 270,000 lost workdays per year by reducing the current standard of allowable fine particle pollution by up to 25%.

Waters of the United States

In January, the agency proposed a regulation that would define the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the EPA’s regulatory purview as “navigable waters” to include lands containing small streams and wetlands. A federal court blocked the January proposal in April, finding that the 24 states that sued the agency had “persuasively shown that the new 2023 Rule poses a threat to their sovereign rights and amounts to irreparable harm.”

Then, in May, the Supreme Court limited the EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act — which it had cited as the enabling statute for the January proposal — in its decision in Sackett v. EPA, a case brought by a couple whom the EPA tried to stop from constructing a house on their land in Idaho.

In August, the agency “finalized amendments to its January rule, which are just a half-hearted and incomplete set of corrections to try and fix the flawed rule,” Bakst told the DCNF. “These amendments don’t properly comply with the Sackett opinion and fail to provide needed clarity to implement the opinion. And they did so without seeking public comment.”

The EPA exhibited a “complete disregard for private property owners and the rule of law” in its proceedings pursuant to WOTUS regulation in 2023, Bakst told the DCNF.

Neither the EPA nor the White House responded immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: EPA Bureaucrats Can Rake In Six-Figure Salaries While Mostly Working From Home, Report Finds

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

House Passes EPA Spending Bill That Defunds Several Biden Climate Initiatives

The House of Representatives passed its sixth appropriations bill to fund certain government agencies related to the environment on Friday that would defund many of the Biden administration’s climate-change-focused initiatives.

The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024 allocates over $25 billion to fund conservation programs, agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) and Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) as well as cultural promotion agencies such as the national endowments for the arts and humanities. After spending over 12 hours considering amendments to the bill on Thursday and Friday morning, the House passed the bill by a vote of 213 yeas to 203 nays, with all Democrats but one voting against the bill.

“In drafting this bill, we worked very hard to rein in federal spending while prioritizing critical needs within our Subcommittee’s allocation,” said Republican Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho’s 2nd District, who introduced the bill, at a meeting of the House Appropriations Committee in July to consider the bill. “Cutting funding is never easy and it can often be an ugly, arduous process. But with the national debt in excess of $32 trillion and inflation at an unacceptable level, we must make tough choices to ensure we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with overwhelming debt.”

Amid widespread Republican opposition to the many climate change initiatives of the Biden administration, the House considered over 130 amendments on the floor to the bill, mostly from Republican members seeking to deny funds for these initiatives. Many of their amendments failed to pass due to bipartisan opposition.

Among the amendments passed by the House was a provision to deny funds for enforcing prohibitions on plastic straws, which was offered by Republican Rep. John Rose of Tennessee. Another such amendment, offered by Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, denies the government funds to prevent domestic pollutants from adversely affecting foreign countries.

One amendment, by Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, denies funds to implement a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act(IRA) that raises minimum rents and royalties for oil and gas projects. Perhaps the most narrowly passed amendment was one advanced by Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, which denies funds to implement any of President Joe Biden’s climate-change-focused executive orders, which was approved by one vote.

The bill has been opposed by Biden, whose administration released a statement indicating that he would veto it. “These levels would result in deep cuts to clean energy programs and other programs that work to combat climate change, essential nutrition services, law enforcement, consumer safety, education, and healthcare,” wrote the Office of Management and Budget about the bill’s funding levels, adding that it “include[s] billions in additional rescissions from the [Inflation Reduction Act] and other vital legislation.”

In parallel, the Senate has proposed a separate appropriations bill for these departments and agencies, which provides $19 billion more than the House bill and largely supports Biden’s environmental agenda, including $100 million for environmental justice programs, according to a press release from the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

ARJUN SINGH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Rep Introduces Bill To Defang Two Of Biden’s Signature Climate Programs

The Religion of Global Climate Change

Even Bill Gates [!] is Backtracking on Climate Change

Fear-Mongering UN Chief Wants $100B to Combat ‘Climate Chaos’

House Passes Israel Aid Bill Funded By IRS Cuts

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Dozens Of GOP Reps Urge Speaker Johnson, Mitch McConnell To Repeal Biden Natural Gas Tax

Several dozen Republican lawmakers wrote to the newly-elected Speaker of the House asking him to repeal an emissions reduction program from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), according to a copy of the letter obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Rep. August Pfluger of Texas wrote the letter, which urges House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to repeal the IRA’s Methane Emissions Reduction Program (MERP) natural gas tax before the year’s end by including the MERP repeal in a possibly forthcoming legislative package. Pfluger and other prominent Republican signatories, such as Reps. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Byron Donalds of Florida and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, slammed the MERP as an excessive and unwieldy regulation that would stymie innovation and drive up costs for the American energy industry.

“The MERP is an inappropriate and highly unworkable tax on methane emissions,” the letter states. “If implemented, the ill-conceived natural gas tax will handicap technological innovation, reduce supplies of affordable energy, and increase both costs and emissions,” the letter continues, adding that “in order to lower costs for American families, we must repeal burdensome regulation, secure supply chains and unleash American energy.” 

The MERP imposes a tax on emissions beyond 25,000 annual tons of carbon dioxide or an equivalent amount of pollution, according to the letter. Companies will be forced to collect the relevant data and pay a fee of $900 for every metric ton above 25,000 starting in 2024, which increases to $1,200 per extra metric ton in 2025 and then $1,500 per extra ton in 2026 and beyond.

“Through Congress’s historic investments in America, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program provides significant resources to states and stakeholders to reduce releases of harmful methane pollution, particularly in overburdened communities, to protect public health and slow the rate of climate change,” an EPA spokesperson told the DCNF. “The Biden-Harris Administration through EPA is implementing the program as Congress intended, working closely with states and industry to deploy resources and develop solutions that will cut emissions at their source.”

The tax is a “statutory codification” of the forced collection of emissions data under a specific sub-section of the Clean Air Act, according to the letter. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking to overhaul that particular section of the Clean Air Act such that the agency can increase the scope and costs of the MERP.

New fees or taxes on energy companies will raise costs for consumers, creating a burden that will fall most heavily on lower-income Americans,” the letter states. “In fact, this tax alone will drive up the cost of household energy bills for the 180 million Americans and 5.5 million businesses that rely on natural gas. At a time of persistent inflation and record energy prices, this increase is unthinkable for consumers.”

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Rep Urges Biden Official To Visit Region Where Admin Is Seeking To Curb Drilling To ‘Save A Lizard’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

We Asked Every GOP 2024 Hopeful If They’d Abolish The EPA And Repeal Biden’s Climate Law. Here’s What They Said.

  • Energy policy is shaping up to be a key issue in the 2024 presidential race as President Joe Biden’s massive climate spending and regulatory agenda takes hold of the U.S. economy.
  • Several 2024 GOP primary hopefuls told the Daily Caller News Foundation their administrations would repeal Biden’s signature climate law, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and withdraw from the United Nations Paris Climate Agreement.
  • “Governor Burgum will cut red tape, prioritize innovation over regulation, improve permitting reform, expand energy production and support technology that allows America to produce energy that is cleaner, safer and cheaper than anywhere else in the world,” Lance Trover, spokesman for Burgum’s campaign, told the DCNF.

Several 2024 Republican presidential candidates would defund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and repeal President Joe Biden’s signature climate law if elected, they told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Gas prices are rising, power plants are closing and regulations are impacting internal combustion engine vehicles and appliances like water heaters. Along with slashing the EPA and repealing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), many GOP hopefuls also pledged to withdraw from the United Nations Paris Climate Agreement if they secure the White House in 2024, several candidates told the DCNF.

“Any aspect of the IRA that is detrimental to economic growth adds unnecessary regulations, restricts energy production, exacerbates inflation, or does not align with our vision of a prosperous America would be reversed or repealed,” former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson told the DCNF. “As president, I will evaluate the IRA meticulously and make decisions that are in the best interest of the American people.”

Hutchinson slammed the Biden administration’s IRA for being an example of “out-of-control spending,” which he said he opposed. The former governor argued it wouldn’t be possible to entirely repeal the legislation, but said his administration would review any provisions that hinder economic growth.

Hutchinson would also withdraw from the Paris Accords if president, he told the DCNF. Under a Hutchinson administration, the EPA in its current form “would be a thing of the past,” as it imposes too many regulations that are crippling to businesses and Americans, Hutchinson told the DCNF.

Former Vice President Mike Pence would “immediately” withdraw from the Paris Accords, a spokesperson for the former vice president told the DCNF. The nonprofit founded by the former vice president supports repealing the IRA due to the provisions related to electric vehicles (EVs),” the spokesperson said.

Pence pledged to “eliminate” the EPA in his economic policy roll out on July 26. His plan would also reallocate the EPA’s authorities to other agencies, which he argued will save over $250 billion over the next decade.

“Joe Biden’s two-year war on domestic energy production has come at a terrific cost to our nation: families and small businesses are struggling to afford increased fuel and energy prices and keep up with persistent inflation and higher costs,“ Pence said in a statement along with the unveiling of his energy plan. “On day one of my administration, we will set about reversing course to return America to the energy independent nation and global energy supplier it was when I served as Vice President.”

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley would also withdraw from the Paris Accords, and she “would repeal the IRA’s green energy subsidies that could cost American taxpayers as much as $1.2 trillion,” Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Haley’s campaign, told the DCNF.

Haley rolled out her energy policy agenda on June 8 while visiting an oil rig in Texas, where she pledged to bolster American energy production while ensuring the EPA doesn’t hinder new projects, according to a press release.

“We’re going to stop controlling where they produce and how much they produce. We’re going to pull back those greenhouse subsidies and all of those green deals that Biden has put in place,” Haley told Newsmax following her policy rollout. “We’re going to make sure that we speed up the permitting so that we can get more pipelines in the mix. And more than that, always remember, a strong foreign policy is a connection to a strong energy policy.”

The IRA unlocked $370 billion for green energy initiatives, but could end up costing $1.2 trillion over the next decade, according to Goldman Sachs. The EPA is also spearheading Biden’s push to clamp down on fossil fuel-fired power plants that produce reliable and affordable energy.

Biden reentered the Paris Accords during the first month of his presidency after former President Donald Trump pulled out on the grounds that the agreement represented “another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States.”

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum has made energy one of his main policy platforms of his presidential campaign, along with the economy and national security. The governor frequently argues that the way to approach energy policy in America is with “innovation over regulation.”

“Governor Burgum believes the Biden Administration has weaponized the EPA, and he has pushed back against EPA overreach as governor. By pushing to shutdown energy production through regulation, red tape and increased costs it seems as if Joe Biden’s energy plan is being written by China,” Lance Trover, spokesman for Burgum’s campaign, told the DCNF. “Governor Burgum will cut red tape, prioritize innovation over regulation, improve permitting reform, expand energy production and support technology that allows America to produce energy that is cleaner, safer and cheaper than anywhere else in the world.”

While former Texas Rep. Will Hurd acknowledged that some IRA provisions are adding to the country’s growing debt and worsening inflation, the former congressman made an argument for other provisions he supports.

“Incentivizing nuclear energy production, enhancing American manufacturing to reduce our reliance on China, retooling closed traditional energy facilities in an effort to revitalize those communities, and investing in innovative technologies like sustainable aviation fuels,” are positive portions of the IRA, Hurd told the DCNF.

The former congressman told the DCNF he would audit the EPA to analyze where cuts should be made and argued that the agency should “streamline its efforts,” while not hindering economic growth. Hurd sharply condemned the Paris Accords, highlighting that the deal “hamstrings the U.S. energy sector,” as he said to the DCNF.

Conservative radio personality Larry Elder’s administration would “heavily defund the EPA” and withdraw from the Paris Accords, he told the DCNF while slamming Biden for readmitting the country into the agreement. Elder argued the IRA is an overreach of executive power and that there are some provisions that should be “revisited,” like voluntary carbon reductions.

“I would use the bully pulpit to educate Americans on the downsides of the Democrats green agenda,” Elder told the DCNF. “I would also rely heavily on executive orders. Many so-called ‘green’ initiatives have been created via executive order, and they can be reversed the same way.”

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott would also withdraw from the Paris Accords, a spokesperson told the DCNF. The senator has been highly critical of both the EPA and the IRA, but a spokesperson for the senator did not say what actions he would take against either if elected president.

Scott is the only GOP presidential candidate who has had to take a vote on Biden’s policies. The senator voted against the IRA, and he blamed Democrats for trying to “spend their way out of … inflation,” according to the Aiken Standard.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will address such topics soon in an upcoming policy rollout, a spokesperson for the campaign told the DCNF. DeSantis said at a June campaign event in Texas that fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline is a “no-brainer,” adding that a prospective DeSantis administration would “open up all the oil and gas in the United States for development because it’s important.”

When it comes to domestic energy production, DeSantis said that “the bureaucrats have to stop holding this country up.” He called the Biden administration’s energy agenda and goals “absurd.”

While former President Donald Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment about his policies in a potential second administration, he pledged during his first term to slash billions from the EPA’s budget and rolled back nearly 100 EPA regulations.

“I will cancel Biden’s destructive Green New Deal … it’s an insane thing. I’m for the environment, I want clean water, crystal clean, I want beautiful, clean air. But what they’re doing to this country is incredible,” Trump said Aug. 5 during a speech in Columbia, South Carolina.

Biden did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

AUTHORS

NICK POPE AND MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributors.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scientist Says “Overwhelming Consensus” On “Climate Change” Is “Manufactured”

‘I Don’t Trust It’: 2024 GOP Primary Field Responds To Special Counsel Appointment In Hunter Biden Probe

Here’s How Biden’s Regulatory Agenda Stacks Up To Obama’s After 30 Months On The Job

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Sen. Joe Manchin Vows To Block All Biden Nominees To Environmental Protection Agency

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin will block all of President Joe Biden’s nominees to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency’s proposed rule regulating power plants, he announced Wednesday.

“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability. Just last week, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, every FERC Commissioner agreed that we cannot eliminate coal today or in the near future if we want to have a reliable electric grid. If the reports are true, the pending EPA proposal would impact nearly all fossil-fueled power plants in the United States, which generate about 60 percent of our electricity, without an adequate plan to replace the lost baseload generation. This piles on top of a broader regulatory agenda being rolled out designed to kill the fossil industry by a thousand cuts,” Manchin said in a statement.

“Neither the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law nor the IRA gave new authority to regulate power plant emission standards. However, I fear that this Administration’s commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security and I will oppose all EPA nominees until they halt their government overreach,” he continued.

EPA administrator Michael Regan is scheduled to announce his agency’s new power plant regulations on Thursday. The new rules will reportedly require gas and coal power plants to employ carbon capture technology, according to The New York Times. Out of the 3,400 currently operational power plants in the U.S., fewer than 20 have the appropriate technology in place to comply with the rule. They would have to do so by 2040.

Republicans have made extensive use of the Congressional Review Act in the 118th Congress in a bid to push back against Biden administration rules and regulations. Manchin has signed on to resolutions that would roll back the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and a Department of Labor environmental, social, and governance investing rule. Congress could move to roll back the EPA regulation, although any passed resolution would be subject to a presidential veto.

Manchin has voted against Biden administration nominees more often than any other Senate Democrat. Most recently, he announced his opposition to a Department of the Interior nominee over concerns she would play “political games” with energy production. Manchin is still considering whether or not to support Labor Secretary nominee Julie Su.

The Senate is currently considering two nominees for EPA posts, and two others remain vacant, according to a Washington Post tracker.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Manchin Sinks Biden Federal Reserve Nominee Who Drew Republican Boycott

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Vetoes Bipartisan Attempt To Repeal EPA’s ‘Waters Of The United States’ Rule

President Joe Biden vetoed a bipartisan bill Thursday that would limit his administration’s broad interpretation of the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule that grants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significant new authority.

The president rejected the bill, arguing that his administration’s new rule provides “clear rules of the road” to protect both economic efforts and water quality under the Clean Water Act, according to the veto. The rule dramatically expands the traditional limits of WOTUS — which allow the EPA to regulate navigable waters — to include all territorial seas, interstate waters, adjacent wetlands, traditional waters’ tributaries and some artificial reservoirs.

“The resolution would leave Americans without a clear definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” Biden said in the veto. “The increased uncertainty caused by H.J. Res. 27 would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities.”

Opponents of the rule currently lack the votes required to overcome the president’s veto.

Following a presidential veto, “Americans will need to hope the Supreme Court makes it clear that these EPA bureaucrats are way outside the authority that Congress actually provided in the Clean Water Act,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a March statement following the resolution’s passage by the Senate. He decried the Biden administration’s interpretation of the rule as a “radical power grab that would give federal bureaucrats sweeping control over nearly every piece of land that touches a pothole, ditch, or puddle.”

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of four Democratic senators who supported the bill, also issued a statement in March, encouraging the president to sign the bill.

“The Administration’s WOTUS rule is yet another example of dangerous federal overreach,” said Manchin in the statement. “The proposed changes would inject further regulatory confusion, place unnecessary burdens on small businesses, manufacturers, farmers and local communities, and cause serious economic damage. It is essential to ensure clean water for all West Virginians and Americans, but we can achieve this without regulating our hard-working people out of business.”

The Biden administration’s WOTUS rule creates unnecessary confusion & burdensome red tape for [Montana] farmers, ranchers & landowners—that’s why the Senate voted to overturn it,” Republican Sen. Steve Daines said in a tweet immediately following the announcement. “[Joe Biden’s] veto today shows just how far he’s willing to go to impose big government regulations on [Montanans].”

A federal judge in late March stopped the Biden administration from implementing the rule in Texas and Idaho. At the time, the EPA told the Daily Caller News Foundation that it believes the expanded rule “is the best interpretation of the Clean Water Act,” and noted that it was still going into effect “in all other jurisdictions in the U.S.”

The EPA did not immediately respond to a DCNF request for comment.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED VIDEO: Will Cain warns America focusing on trans, climate issues will jeopardize national security

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Set To Further Crack Down On Gas-Powered Cars And Trucks: REPORT

‘I’ve Got To Go’: TN Rep Walks Off CNN Mid-Interview

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The EPA’s Latest Regulation Could Devastate The Trucking Industry

  • The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule Tuesday that will impose stricter emissions standards on new heavy-duty vehicles, a regulation that will significantly raise operating costs for truckers, experts and industry representatives told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  •  “The costs associated with this are also a concern because these are costs that not only the industry will bear … prices will go up for everybody,” Texas Trucking Association President John Esparza told the DCNF.
  • “It’s an overreach that is indicative of this administration’s tendency to set aside balance to achieve the goals of activists that they are politically aligned with,” Mandy Gunasekara, a senior policy analyst for the Independent Women’s Forum and former EPA Chief of Staff during the Trump administration, told the DCNF.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule Tuesday that will impose stricter nitrogen dioxide emissions standards on new heavy-duty trucks, a move that will substantially hike operating costs for truckers, experts and industry representatives told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The EPA’s rule, which is more than 80% stricter than the previous regulation, will require large trucks, delivery vans and buses manufactured after 2027 to cut nitrogen dioxide emissions by nearly 50% by 2045, according to an agency press release. The agency’s rule is intended to push truckers to phase out diesel-powered vehicles and use electric vehicles (EV) instead; however, the compliance costs associated with such rules could suffocate an industry that is not ready to transition to EVs, experts told the DCNF.

“It’s an overreach that is indicative of this administration’s tendency to set aside balance to achieve the goals of activists that they are politically aligned with,” Mandy Gunasekara, a senior policy analyst for the Independent Women’s Forum and former EPA Chief of Staff during the Trump administration, told the DCNF. “It’s going to squeeze out the mid-sized and smaller trucking companies because they’re not going to be able to afford to purchase the new, extremely expensive equipment required to continue to do what they do.”

The new rules are intended to phase out older trucks that emit more nitrogen dioxide and will push drivers to purchase electric trucks or newer models of diesel trucks that do not produce as much nitrogen dioxide when they burn fuel, according to the EPA.

“If small business truckers can’t afford the new, compliant trucks, they’re going to stay with older, less efficient trucks or leave the industry entirely,” Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association President Todd Spencer told trade publication Freight Waves. “Once again, EPA has largely ignored the warnings and concerns raised by truckers in this latest rule.”

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said that the rule would protect “historically overburdened communities,” that are disproportionately affected by trucking emissions as truck freight routes are often located near “vulnerable populations,” according to the press release. Nitrogen dioxide gas can exacerbate respiratory diseases like asthma and form acid rain in the atmosphere which can damage lakes and forests, according to the EPA.

“The EPA is happy to go easy on big trucking since they support regulations that will harm their smaller competitors far more,” Steve Milloy, Energy and Environmental Legal Institute senior legal fellow and former Trump administration EPA transition team member, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Regan announced the new rule in front of an electric garbage truck produced by Mack Trucks and following his remarks, Mack spokesman John Mies stated that his company supports the administration’s zero emissions targets for trucks and is working to cut “dangerous” emissions produced by diesel trucks, according to CNN.

“Companies have taken the initiative to electrify a certain percentage of their fleet by a certain year and have made plans to build the necessary infrastructure, but they are then told that there isn’t enough power to achieve what they’re seeking,” Texas Trucking Association President John Esparza told the DCNF. “The costs associated with this are also a concern because these are costs that not only the industry will bear … prices will go up for everybody.”

The EPA’s final rule is the first step in its “Clean Trucks Plan” which seeks to heavily regulate trucks’ emissions to push drivers to adopt electric trucks.

Gunesakara echoed Esparza’s comments and said that such targets were a “technological fantasy” that could cost truckers their jobs due to the high price of electric trucks. Gunesakara added that the EPA’s rules would force truck drivers to drive older, more polluting and less efficient vehicles for longer as diesel trucks will be rapidly phased out long before EVs can become a more viable alternative.

The EPA touted its new rule and said that it will result in up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths, 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma and 6,700 fewer hospital admissions as well as an overall annual net economic benefit of $29 billion due to fewer missed work days. The agency’s trucking rules are less strict than California’s regulations as heavy vehicles in the state must cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 75% starting in 2024, and 90% starting in 2027, according to a California Air Resource Board rule.

The EPA did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JACK MCEVOY

Energy & environment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans Urge EPA To End ‘Completely Arbitrary’ Regulations On Small Fuel Refiners

Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.