EPA’s New Vehicle Emissions Rule Would Drive Cars and Trucks Off the Road. It’s Also Illegal
Since the 2020 election, President Joe Biden has made clear his intention to drive America’s gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks right off our roads.
In May, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule that would impose such strict emissions limits that carmakers would only be able to comply with them by switching the vast majority of their production to electric vehicles by 2027.
The EPA estimates that under its new rule, nearly 70% of all new cars and trucks produced in America would be fully electric by 2032.
But the proposed rule is based on a flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act. The act gives the EPA the authority to regulate air pollutants from vehicles, but not to dictate what types of vehicles consumers can own. It requires the EPA to set emissions standards that allow manufacturers enough time “to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.”
The proposed rule would have negligible environmental benefits but enormous economic and social costs. It would increase electricity demand and strain the electric grid, while annihilating funding for building and maintaining highways, which is derived almost entirely from taxes on gasoline and diesel.
It would harm consumers by taking away their right to decide what kind of vehicle to buy. Low-income and rural Americans in particular would face higher transportation costs and reduced mobility options. The new rule would also undermine U.S. competitiveness internationally and national security by making us more dependent on foreign sources of critical minerals and batteries for EVs.
The proposed rule is not only bad policy, it is also “arbitrary and capricious” because the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to force a transition to EVs.
The proposed rule’s legal problems start with its definition of the “class or classes of vehicles” to which the emissions would apply. In order to kill off gasoline-powered cars, the EPA is defining the relevant classes as vehicles of various sizes that include both gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles as well as electric vehicles of those sizes.
The phrase “class or classes of new motor vehicles” cannot mean just whatever the EPA wants it to mean. The phrase could not, for example, include both electric scooters and gasoline-powered cars under the same emission standard, even though both are “motor vehicles” under the Clean Air Act.
Common sense dictates that the act cannot be read as authorizing the EPA to force car manufacturers to produce electric scooters instead of cars in order to comply with emissions standards for cars.
As I explained in The Wall Street Journal last summer, the Supreme Court recently struck down a similar attempt by the EPA to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act in West Virginia v. EPA.
The Supreme Court observed in that case that the EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan would have “resulted in numerical emissions ceilings so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them without engaging in [generation-shifting].”
The court went on to note:
Rather than focus on improving the performance of individual sources, it would improve the overall power system by lowering the carbon intensity of power generation. And it would do that by forcing a shift throughout the power grid from one type of energy source to another. … There is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the Agency. … We presume that Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.
The same may be said of the EPA’s attempt to kill traditional cars and trucks. Its emissions limits are so strict that no manufacturer of combustion engine vehicles will be able to comply with them, except by switching to the production of a completely different type of vehicle.
The switch from traditional cars to EVs is the definition of a major policy decision, and nowhere in the Clean Air Act does it say that Congress wanted the EPA to make the choice of where, how, and when that switch should happen.
The EPA’s new proposed standards build on a 2021 EPA rule that significantly tightened emissions standards for vehicles starting with model year 2023. Most auto manufacturers had already completed their design cycle for their 2023 models by the time the rule was promulgated. The 2021 rule is currently being challenged in federal court by a coalition of states and stakeholders in the case of Texas v. EPA. That case will likely decide the fate of this newly proposed rule as well.
No agency has come closer to claiming virtually totalitarian powers to reshape American society as the EPA has. The sooner federal courts rein in the runaway EPA, the better for everyone.
************************************************
ESG is a surprise boon for fossil fuel giants
ESG, or environmental, social and corporate governance, has taken the financial world by storm. It first hit the scene in a 2004 United Nations report that argued the financial sector could rack up more profits if it focused on carbon dioxide reduction and UN-approved progressive causes and has ballooned into a big, green financial juggernaut. In 2021, ESG assets under management hit an estimated $35 trillion. Bloomberg projects that by 2025 $53 trillion will be invested in ESG vehicles — that’s over one third of global assets under management and over five times 2007’s total of $10 trillion of ESG assets.
The main thrust is to hasten the renewable energy transition to solve climate change by diverting capital from fossil projects to various green projects. At least, that’s how it’s advertised. But what if that’s not the case? What if ESG is also a way to shovel tens of billions of dollars into fossil fuel titans?
New reporting from Bloomberg reveals the truth: ESG, through sloppy accounting, has dumped nearly $30 billion into one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies. The beneficiary is Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil and gas firm.
The company never intended to benefit from ESG. In fact, it’s been hostile to the entire project. Amin Nasser, Aramco’s chief executive, has criticized ESG for its bias against traditional energy projects, especially those using fossil fuels. So how did this happen?
In 2021, Aramco sold off 49 percent of two of its subsidiaries — Aramco Oil Pipelines Company and the Aramco Gas Pipelines Company. Through bridge loans, EIG Global Energy Partners LLC and BlackRock Inc. led consortiums that purchased the subsidiaries.
“In order to generate cash to repay the bank loans, the EIG and BlackRock consortiums created two special purpose vehicles: EIG Pearl Holdings and GreenSaif Pipelines Bidco, both registered at the same Luxembourg address,” reports Bloomberg. “These SPVs then sold bonds, which, since they had no direct links to the fossil-fuel industry, ended up getting an above-average score in a widely-used JPMorgan Chase & Co. sustainability screening based on third-party ESG scores.”
Those bonds then landed in JP Morgan’s ESG Indexes — an embarrassing turn of events for ESG advocates. They can no longer claim their green mantle and Bloomberg intimates that more fossil securities are likely to shimmy into indexes due to their opaque and loophole-ridden structure.
But the bad news for ESG doesn’t stop there. A new report out of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy reveals that ESG explicitly cuts the world’s only large-scale decarbonizer, nuclear energy, out of the mix. The report shows that most banks (57 percent) exclude nuclear from their sustainable bond frameworks, with the rest (40 percent) remaining silent. No major bank lists nuclear energy as part of its ESG taxonomy.
So, ESG both funds fossil fuel giants and excludes the most powerful decarbonization tool humanity has at its disposal. If only this was just some kind of bad joke. But this is real money, which means there will be real consequences. The financial world is diving headfirst into what will pan out to be one of the largest misallocations of capital in human history.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/esg-is-a-surprise-boon-for-fossil-fuel-giants/ ?
************************************************
9th Circuit denies bid by environmentalists and tribes to block Nevada lithium mine
The latest bid by conservationists and tribal leaders to block construction of a huge lithium mine already in the works along the Nevada-Oregon line was denied by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.
A three-panel judge of the San Francisco-based appellate court rejected a half-dozen arguments the opponents had put forth in their appeal seeking to overturn federal land managers' approval of the project.
That included claims it violates multiple environmental laws and would destroy lands tribal members consider sacred because they say dozens of their ancestors were massacred there in 1865.
Lithium Nevada Corp.'s mine at Thacker Pass near the Oregon line, 200 miles (320 kilometers) northeast of Reno, has pitted environmentalists and Native Americans against President Joe Biden’s plans to combat climate change. The mine would involve extraction of the silvery-white metal used in electric vehicle batteries.
On Monday, the judges didn't specifically address the claims that the project fails to comply with a new opinion the 9th Circuit issued last year that blocked a copper mine in Arizona based on a more stringent interpretation of the 1872 Mining Law regarding the use of neighboring lands to dispose of waste.
Rather, they more generally differed to the expertise of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which approved the mine in 2021, and the decision by U.S. District Judge Miranda Du earlier this year to allow construction to go forward even though she concluded the mine was not in complete compliance with the new interpretation of the Civil War-era mining law.
The bureau's approval of the mine “was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with” the National Environmental Policy Act, the 11-page ruling said.
The bureau approved the mine in 2021 on an accelerated basis under Donald Trump's administration. The Biden administration has continued to embrace it in an effort to ramp up U.S. production of lithium needed for electric vehicles that are an integral part of his clean energy agenda.
Lithium Nevada officials say the Thacker Pass mine’s reserves would support lithium for more than 1.5 million electric vehicles per year for 40 years.
Conservationists say the open pit mine, deeper than the length of a football field, will pollute the groundwater and destroy precious habitat for sage grouse, pronghorn antelope and other species in violation of environmental laws.
Their lawyers had argued that Du illegally exceeded her authority when she refused to revoke the mine's operation plan in March despite her conclusion that federal land managers had violated the law in approving parts of it.
“This is the first time in public land history that we have a major project violating a number of provisions but is allowed to go forward,” Roger Flynn, the director of the Colorado-based Western Mining Action Project, told the 9th Circuit panel during oral arguments in Pasadena on June 27.
“In the meantime, thousands of acres of public land are essentially being clear-cut,” he said Tuesday about the high-desert sagebrush that serves as critical habitat for the imperiled bird species sage grouse.
The 9th Circuit ruling Monday said Du applied the proper legal standard and found the bureau's sole error in approving the project “weighed against” vacating the entire approval of the mine partly because “there was at least a serious possibility that the (agency would) be able to substantiate its decision on remand.”
Lithium Nevada, a subsidiary of the Canadian-based Lithium Americas, spent more than $8.7 million on the environmental analysis and permitting process, even altering the original plans to move it outside of environmentally sensitive areas, said Laura Granier, a lawyer for the company. She said investments in mitigation, legal costs and initial construction already have exceeded $150 million.
Government lawyers said much of the evidence the Western Shoshone and Paiute tribes presented about the sacred nature of the land came after a formal decision had been issued and that none of it clearly established the actual location of the massacre.
The 9th Circuit ruled Monday that bureau acted “reasonably and in good faith” in its consultation with tribes potentially affected by the mine.
***************************************************
Australia: Coal-fired Power Station's life set to be extended
Delta Electricity could extend the closure of Vales Point Power Station from 2029 to 2033, amid concerns about delays with renewable energy projects and the "early closure" of other coal-fired plants.
The company said it had advised the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) of "a 2033 technical life assessment" for the power plant on the southern shore of Lake Macquarie.
Delta's interim chief executive David Morris said Vales Point "continues to provide high levels of availability to the system and is expected to continue to do so through to 2033".
Nature Conservation Council of NSW CEO Jacqui Mumford said a 2033 closure for Vales Point would "make it almost impossible for NSW to reach its emission reduction targets".
"If this extension goes ahead, Vales Point would therefore account for 70 per cent of NSW's electricity emissions," Ms Mumford said.
Greens MP and spokesperson for climate change Sue Higginson said extending Vales Point would be "reckless, dangerous and foul play".
"Have we forgotten the climate induced fires and floods? We are in a climate emergency, young people are suffering from climate anxiety and many across the country are doing all that they can to ensure we have a liveable planet in the years ahead," she said.
Delta said the purpose of the plant's assessment was to examine the condition of "the existing generation equipment, ash dam capacity and general condition of the facility".
The previous closure date had been set for 2029, based on "a nominal 50-year asset life".
A Delta statement noted the "delays being experienced by new generation and transmission projects, along with earlier closure dates being announced by owners of other coal-fired generators".
"Given the uncertainties surrounding the capacity of electricity resources over the next 10 years and the urgent need to maintain system security throughout this period, Delta considers it a responsible step to advise AEMO of the availability of Vales Point Power Station's capacity."
Ms Mumford said it was "incredibly disappointing that the community hasn't even been asked if they want such an extension".
Billionaires Trevor St Baker and Brian Flannery sold the Vales Point plant in December last year to Sev.en Energy, a company owned by Czech billionaire Pavel Tykac.
"We know that Sev.en has been lobbying the government to extend the life of this plant since they acquired it earlier this year," Ms Mumford said.
"And why wouldn't they - the exemptions granted to this power plant are a bonanza for a company willing to profit from causing serious harm to our climate and human health."
Ms Mumford urged the NSW government to "rule out any support to keep Vales Point operating longer than 2029".
"In an era of increasing climate catastrophe, we cannot allow such reckless disregard for our future."
Delta's statement said its announcement "does not denote a commercial commitment to operate the facility".
"The energy system is in transformation, and this brings higher levels of uncertainty when forecasting market conditions for the longer term," Mr Morris said.
Delta said the Vales Point plant "continues to be a key asset in the transitioning energy market".
It provided "essential firming capacity" to support the "growing integration of renewable energy" and ensured "a reliable and secure source of electricity".
"Currently the Vales Point Power Station generates approximately 10 per cent of NSW electricity needs," the company said.
Ms Higginson said there was also speculation about Eraring Power Station remaining open beyond 2025.
"If we let Eraring and Vales Point coal fired power stations continue beyond their planned closures, we lose hope of reducing our emissions and meeting our net zero targets. We need to make big, bold changes and we need to make them now," she said.
The Newcastle Herald reported on Wednesday that the federal government had declared the nation's second offshore wind zone off the Hunter coast.
Power-generating wind turbines will cover 1800 square kilometres from Port Stephens to Swansea, 1000 square kilometres smaller than the zone proposed in February.
The declared area will start 20 kilometres from the coast at Port Stephens, about 9km further offshore than first proposed, and more than 35km from the coast at Swansea.
The Hunter Community Environment Centre released a report in May, titled Delta's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.
The report said Vales Point was responsible for the loss and degradation of vast areas of seagrass and marine life, but Delta dismissed it as misleading
https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/8270648/vales-point-power-station-life-set-to-be-extended/
***************************************My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment