A “top state official” confirmed the Michigan DNR’s plans to clear the acres of state forest for a solar farm to MLive.com.

The acres being cleared from the state forest are reportedly among the “4,000 acres of public land” throughout Michigan that will be leased in order to address decreased “revenues from hunting and fishing licenses,” as well as Michigan falling “behind building enough renewable energy.”

Leasing 4,000 acres of public land statewide is partof the DNR’s plan to help remedy both problems in coming years. Officials said that state solar initiative may begin just west of Gaylord.

DNR officials also reportedly “recently assessed 1,200 acres of public trust land in Otsego County near a major power transmission line to decide whether it was suitable for solar arrays,” according to the outlet.

The Daily Wire reported that Chris Martz, a meteorology student, had “published a chart showing nuclear power produces far more power on less land than solar and wind.” […]

Do you like math?

Do you like making climate activists cry?

If so, this post is for you.

They advertise utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind as being “eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle. Emissions is all the… pic.twitter.com/qV0ZM8CqrC

— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) December 30, 2024

— Read More: www.breitbart.com

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S2129B on Thursday, enacting a law that will require energy companies to cough up $75 billion to the state over 25 years to atone for their supposed roles in causing climate change. Aside from standing on questionable legal footing, the new law essentially amounts to a state revenue grab that will ultimately increase costs for consumers if fully implemented, according to energy and legal experts.

“When you dig beneath the headlines, the story here is very simple: New York State is choosing to punish industries that it doesn’t like, which power everyday activities, and use the money it’s confiscating to fund pet projects and various progressive lifestyle choices that couldn’t get funded by Bernie Sanders and Democrats in Congress,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “While China and other adversaries continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere, New York liberals are using the guise of ‘fixing climate change’ to try and bankrupt companies they don’t like and unlock money for their liberal wishlist. This shakedown is horrible for everyday people.”

New York On Track To Miss Deadlines On Majority Of Its Lofty Climate Goalshttps://t.co/vKEHsxkaDC

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 20, 2024

Hochul’s office says that New York will take the funds it rakes in under the superfund law to pay for projects that will enhance the state’s “resiliency to dangerous climate impacts.” Examples of the projects funded by the law would include upgrades to drainage systems, “preventive health care programs,” retrofitting buildings to be more green and developing “green spaces” in urban environments among others, according to the law’s text.

State officials will determine how much each affected company must contribute to the superfund based on how much carbon dioxide they emitted between 2000 and 2018.

Upon signing the bill, Hochul’s office proclaimed that the new superfund law will “[shift] the cost of climate adaptation from everyday New Yorkers to the fossil fuel companies most responsible for the pollution.”

However, Ken Girardin, director of research for a New York-focused think tank known as the Empire Center, said that the new statute will hit consumers the hardest as the affected corporations seek to recover costs by passing the expense along to their customers.

“I don’t think that this law will ultimately be implemented, as New York is trying to thread multiple legal needles at once,” Girardin told the DCNF. “That aside, if these costs were to be levied, it would be entirely within the companies’ rights to recover those costs, basically in New York exclusively. They could levy a geographically-focused surcharge … If a company gets targeted by this program, it stands to reason that they would recover their costs by raising prices in New York specifically.”

Even without the new superfund bill in effect, New York has some of the highest average gas prices of any state in the U.S., trailing only eight other states, according to AAA gas price data. Moreover, the cost of electricity for commercial, residential and industrial customers in New York is higher than the national average cost for each type of customer, in some cases by as much as 50% as of October, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell LLP who advises energy companies on the implications of climate legislation, said that the new law will likely only intensify existing concerns about New York’s hostile business environment.

“While we all share the goal of addressing climate change, imposing retroactive liability on companies for legally-conducted business activities sets a troubling precedent that could significantly impact New York’s business environment and economic competitiveness,” said Segal. “Unlike its namesake federal statute that dealt with waste activities, the use of fossil fuels is and was an essential component of maintaining quality of life in New York and elsewhere.”

“There’s a real risk that these costs will ultimately be passed on to New York consumers through higher energy prices,” Segal added. “At a time when many families are already struggling with high costs of living, we need to carefully consider the downstream economic impacts of this policy.”

Vermont enacted a similar piece of legislation in June, and other blue states including Massachusetts and Maryland are also reportedly considering rolling out their own comparable versions of a superfund bill, according to Insurance Journal. Moreover, New York state and city — as well as numerous other Democrat-controlled jurisdictions across the country — have sued energy companies in pursuit of billions of dollars of damages with “climate nuisance” litigation, though none of those cases have so far led to a major verdict or settlement with the plaintiffs.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

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.

(Natural News)—In an era dominated by climate alarmism and the relentless push for Net Zero policies, a growing body of scientific evidence is challenging the narrative that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a planetary villain. Peer-reviewed studies and respected scientists are now revealing that CO2 is not only harmless but actually beneficial to the Earth, driving a global greening phenomenon that is feeding the world and restoring biodiversity. Yet, this groundbreaking research is being systematically ignored by the mainstream media, which remains wedded to a politically motivated climate agenda.

Recent studies published by the CO2 Coalition and other independent scientific groups have shown that rising CO2 levels are not the existential threat they’ve been made out to be. In fact, the atmosphere is already “saturated” with CO2, meaning additional emissions have a negligible impact on global temperatures. This saturation effect, long argued by climate skeptics, explains why historical CO2 levels—10 to 15 times higher than today—did not lead to runaway warming. Instead, CO2 is proving to be a boon for plant life, driving a “green revolution” that is increasing agricultural yields and greening vast swaths of the planet.

One of the most compelling findings comes from a team of Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Peng-Sheng Wei. Their research, published in a recent paper, found that increasing CO2 levels from 100 to 400 parts per million (ppm) resulted in a mere 0.3°C rise in ground temperature – a figure so small it falls within the margin of error. Even more striking, the study found no additional warming as CO2 levels rose further to 400 ppm. This directly contradicts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) claim that doubling CO2 levels will lead to a catastrophic 3°C temperature increase.

Similarly, Austrian scientists have concluded that doubling CO2 to 800 ppm would result in at most 0.5°C of warming, with no increase in infrared absorption at key wavelengths. These findings, along with those of Polish and Canadian researchers, suggest that the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly overstated. Dr. Jan Kubicki and his team argue that above 400 ppm, CO2 “can no longer cause any increase in temperature,” while Professor Yi Huang of McGill University notes that CO2 absorption is already saturated, rendering additional emissions largely irrelevant to warming.

Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth

But the benefits of CO2 extend far beyond its minimal impact on temperature. The gas is a vital nutrient for plant life, driving photosynthesis and fostering growth. According to the CO2 Coalition, higher CO2 levels are enhancing global vegetation, with satellite data showing a 20-30% increase in greening between 1982 and 2012 in regions like India, West Australia, and the Sahel. This greening effect has accelerated in recent decades, with CO2 identified as the dominant driver.

The agricultural implications are profound. Studies by Charles Taylor and Wolfram Schlenker reveal that a 1 ppm increase in CO2 boosts crop yields by 0.4% for corn, 0.6% for soybeans, and 1% for wheat. This “fertilization effect” is helping to feed a growing global population, countering the Malthusian predictions of food scarcity that have long haunted environmental discourse.

The late physicist Freeman Dyson, a towering figure in 20th-century science, was among the first to recognize the benefits of CO2. In a 2015 interview, Dyson explained that the Earth is “growing greener” due to rising CO2 levels, which are increasing agricultural yields, expanding forests, and enhancing biodiversity. He argued that these positive effects are “more important and more certain than the effects on climate.” Dyson also criticized climate models as unreliable tools for predicting future warming, noting that they fail to account for the complex, non-linear dynamics of the atmosphere.

Despite this mounting evidence, the mainstream media and political elites continue to push the Net Zero agenda, ignoring the science that undermines their narrative. The CO2 Coalition, an educational foundation dedicated to promoting the facts about CO2, has been at the forefront of this effort, highlighting the gas’s vital role in the environment. Their work, supported by distinguished scientists like Professor William Happer and Nobel laureate Dr. John Clauser, underscores the importance of CO2 in sustaining life on Earth.

The truth is clear: CO2 is not a pollutant but a life-giving gas that is making the planet greener, more productive, and more resilient. The climate alarmism that has dominated public discourse for decades is built on shaky scientific foundations and serves primarily to advance a political agenda. As the evidence continues to mount, it’s time to reject the fearmongering and embrace the reality that CO2 is good for the planet—and good for us.

Sources include:

• WattsUpWithThat.com
• ScienceDirect.com
• NaturalNews.com

(Natural News)—In the race to embrace renewable energy, the UK has found itself in a costly predicament. Wind energy, once hailed as the silver bullet for our energy woes, is now proving to be a significant financial burden. The UK has spent more than £1 billion this year alone to turn off wind farms and start up gas plants in a stark reminder that hasty decisions without proper planning can lead to disastrous consequences.

It’s not surprising that wind energy is failing to live up to its promises. Governments, driven by the fervor of achieving net-zero targets, have blindly pushed for alternative energy without fully considering the drawbacks. The UK’s energy grid, designed for a different era, is struggling to cope with the surge in wind power. The result? A record amount of wind power is being wasted, and consumers are footing the bill.

The UK has boosted its offshore wind fleet by 50% in the past five years and plans to double it over the next five years. However, the grid infrastructure has not expanded at the same pace. This mismatch has led to the operator paying wind farms to turn off, particularly those in Scotland, to prevent grid overload. The irony is palpable: while the UK pays Scottish wind farms to shut down during windy conditions, it simultaneously pays for gas-powered plants in the south to fire up. This absurd scenario highlights the flawed logic of rushing into renewable energy without considering the big picture.

The problem is exacerbated by the UK’s energy system rules, which are outdated and ill-equipped to handle the complexities of balancing supply and demand in real time. To keep the lights on, the operator is forced to shut down far-flung wind farms and start up gas-fed plants closer to demand centers. This not only undermines their misguided decarbonization goals but also increases energy bills, making it harder for consumers to benefit from the touted advantages of renewable energy.

Clem Cowton, director of external affairs at Octopus Energy Group, rightly criticizes the “outdated rules” of the energy system. However, the blame should not be solely on the rules but also the lack of foresight and planning. The mad rush to achieve net-zero targets has resulted in bad planning, with little to no consideration for the practicalities of integrating large-scale wind energy into the existing grid.

A cautionary tale

This situation should serve as a cautionary tale for other countries considering similar energy transitions. Wind power, like electric vehicles, is often portrayed as a panacea for our environmental woes. However, the reality is far more complex. Wind energy is expensive, environmentally harmful, and, as the UK is discovering, often inefficient. Consumers are not only paying for the construction of these wind farms but also for their failings. The question remains: who will bear the cost of deconstructing these wind farms when the climate change crisis, much like the COVID-19 pandemic, loses its urgency?

The looming return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House has just planted a bomb under Labour’s Net Zero obsession. With a Trump-led America pulling in the opposite direction, the UK’s ambitious decarbonization plans may face even greater political peril.

The UK’s experience with wind energy is a costly lesson in the dangers of hasty green policies. Governments must approach renewable energy with caution, ensuring that infrastructure and regulations are in place to support the transition and that it truly is a better alternative, which isn’t the case with wind power. Blindly pushing for alternative energy without considering the drawbacks is not only financially irresponsible but also undermines the very goals it seeks to achieve. The UK’s £1 billion wind energy fiasco should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers worldwide.

Sources for this article include:

Expose-News.com

Bloomberg.com

GBNews.com

In essence, they’re suggesting that the damage is done, the investments are made, so they need to somehow generate a return on those investments before Trump pulls the plug on the mandates.

A report by Brady Knox over at Washington Examiner, commenting on a NY Times article, suggests car companies may ask President Trump to keep Joe Biden’s rules in place for now:

According to a report from the New York Times, the Biden administration’s actions to boost domestic EV manufacturing may have already set the auto industry past the point of no return. Following Biden’s initiatives, automakers have already invested billions of dollars in transitioning to electric vehicles. If Trump were to scrap the initiative, major automakers fear they could be undercut by smaller manufacturers producing cheaper, internal combustion engine cars.

Three of the country’s largest automakers, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, are already lobbying Trump against scrapping the rules.

Some had hoped that one of the biggest proponents of electric cars, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, would be able to sway Trump to keep those rules in place, but now, his priorities seem to be cutting regulations. He expressed opposition to the $7,500 tax credit for buyers of electric cars, saying he opposes all subsidies.

“In my view, we should end all government subsidies, including those for E.V.’s, oil and gas,” Musk said last week.

Musk’s calculation was more cynical in a July earnings call, speculating that the end of the subsidy would hurt Tesla somewhat, but hurt its competitors much more.

Is it worth keeping the mandates so the big three U.S. automakers can prevent smaller competitors from eating their lunch?

Nope, Not Worth It

As horrible as the situation is for major U.S. automakers, keeping the mandates in place would be far worse. Americans need relief far more than automakers right now. Getting the price of vehicles down to a manageable level is crucial if America is going to have any chance of recovering from the financial decimation we’ve felt for the last four years.

But there’s actually a good business reason for pulling the mandates immediately. The Biden-Harris regime forced automakers to try to usher in a future that was too far off, but that doesn’t mean OPTIONAL electric vehicle adoption isn’t part of the future.

The damage has been done by the mandates, but there have also been significant investments into research and development that can flourish if they’re allowed to transition without government interference. In other words, they can return to internal combustion engines as the primary driver for now to get their revenues back while reducing costs for American consumers. Simultaneously, they’ll be expanding on what they’ve built in EV infrastructure, albeit without mandates forcing the issue. They’ll be able to work at the speed of the market instead of the mandates.

It’s a sour consolation for the biggest automakers because it means they’ll have to wait years or even decades to realize benefits from their electric vehicle investments, but the long-term returns should be worth the wait… if they can survive long enough to see them.

Rather than using the current rules to stifle competition, they should hope that President Trump immediately sides with the free market and the consumers to allow enough short-term benefit for U.S. automakers to recover.

One short film has shined the light on the kind of future the left sees for you.

To be fair, I think this film was pretty generous. This is nothing compared to what these people want for us.

Firstly, it starts off with the dude telling his son he’s only allowed a two-minute shower followed by the son’s disappointment in not being able to visit Grandma on Christmas. That part was probably accurate, as flying to visit family would likely be reserved for politicians and elites.

Secondly, the cat food at the office was also pretty generous, as everyone knows you will eat zee bugs. We are also supposed to own nothing and live in pods so it’s unclear why he’s driving to and from his townhome.

Lastly, I think the most accurate part was “lowering your carbon admission” to have a steak dinner, as well as the lights turning off from reaching your energy limit.

The left wants to dictate every aspect of your life, from how much you drive to what you eat. And although the film does a pretty good job of what these people want, it does not do their perceived dystopian future justice. Subsequently, this film only begins to represent how miserable your life would be if these climate tyrants got their way.

Trump has never bought into their delusions about manmade climate change and can’t be bullied the way liberals can into supporting their profitable green measures. Not only has he ridiculed some of their more outlandish claims in the past, but he has also promised to continue the practice of extracting fossil fuels and back out of the highly flawed Paris climate accord.

Clean technology proponents are already in damage control mode, with United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell trying to allay market fears by stating: “Those investing in clean energy are already enjoying huge wins in terms of jobs and wealth, and cheaper, more secure energy. This is because the global energy transition is inevitable and gathering pace, making it among the greatest economic opportunities of our age.”

Reuters, meanwhile, reported that Trump’s win “has darkened the outlook for a strong deal at the COP29 climate summit” scheduled for next week in Azerbaijan. The participating countries are expected to set a new target for climate aid that may surpass $1 trillion annually; climate alarmists are worried that other countries won’t provide funding if the U.S. doesn’t get on board.

Reuters was also quick to point out that he has called out climate change for being a hoax and that his policy advisers considered removing the U.S. from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many are worried that he will try once again to withdraw from it when he retakes office, which could also set the stage for other countries being reluctant to participate.

Centre for European Reform Senior Research Fellow Elisabetta Cornago implied that the outcome of the election could spell disaster for climate change funding. She said: “Pushing for more ambitious climate finance is going to be almost impossible without the U.S. buy-in, which will de-motivate developing countries from taking seriously the climate ambitions of the West.”

One Latin American climate minister told the AP that Trump’s return to the Oval Office is a big setback.

“The election feels like a slap in the face to climate progress, but it won’t stop the global push for clean energy. Sticking with fossil fuels is a dead end,” the official stated.

Trump is expected to boost fossil fuel production

Trump has stated his intention to increase the production of fossil fuels, and he is expected to prop up the industry through regulation and potentially opening more federal lands up for drilling. He may also roll back some policies that pertain to emissions and fossil fuels, something he did during his first term in office as well. In addition, he plans to support new liquefied natural gas export terminals. This is something that Biden has been actively working against.

Climate change alarmist Sam Ricketts said that Trump’s presidency will make the planet unsafe for children.

“This is obviously a difficult result to stomach for those of us who care about our democracy as well as healthy communities and a safe and livable planet for our children. There’s no sugar-coating it: This is a gut punch,” he said.

Trump has yet to release his official climate agenda, but he has said that he will repeal the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which spends billions of dollars on greening the economy.

Sources for this article include:

• ClimateDeport.com
• Reuters.com
• Politico.com

With Election Day right around the corner, one of the issues voters are voting on this election cycle is energy policy. Donald Trump talks a big game about reinvigorating America’s energy independence through the expanded use of native fossil fuels while Kamala Harris wants more climate authoritarianism, which in the end will only lead to the destruction of America’s economy.

California’s Kern County – Kamala used to be attorney general in California – is a gold mine for fossil fuels. It boasts some of the world’s largest oil fields with an estimated reserve of somewhere around 27 billion barrels. Since that oil is considered “heavy” oil, making it more difficult to extract and refine, California developed some of the cleanest and most advanced methods of purifying that oil without destroying the environment – a win-win, right?

The problem is that, thanks to the climate policies of Democrats, California currently imports around 75 percent of its oil and 90 percent of its natural gas. On top of that, Democrats in California are also forcing the state’s residents to subsidize expensive “renewable” energy programs based on wind and solar.

It is a mess, in other words, and one that Kamala wants to replicate on a national scale. Should she end up getting installed into the White House, Kamala will turn the entire country into California, but in all the wrong ways.

“Californians are victims of a special interest-driven regime that is determined to keep the state on the bleeding edge of so-called renewable energy technology,” writes Edward Ring for AMGreatness.com.

“It is naïve to think Kamala Harris is going to deviate from these energy policies if she ends up getting elected U.S. president. Across the entire nation, the result will be higher energy costs than ever, costing taxpayers and consumers not hundreds of billions, but literally trillions of dollars. Most of this money will be wasted.”

(Related: Kamala Harris is doubling down on her climate conspiracy theories, which she is trying to leverage as a means to force America into accepting “net zero” carbon tyranny.)

Kamala: an enemy of cheap, domestic energy

The situation in California is disturbing in that the Golden State sits atop virtually limitless amounts of cheap and abundant energy that is increasingly staying trapped in the ground as state officials refuse to issue new drilling permits. The latest “green” laws in the state have made it steadily more impossible for the state to be energy independent, which is what Kamala wants for the entire country.

It turns out that only a select few are given access to the gold mines full of energy as beneficiaries of the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris regime’s “Green New Deal.” Special subsidies and grants are made available only to those with these special connections while everyone else is simply out of luck.

“Expect streamlined zoning and tax subsidies for solar and wind farms,” Ring writes about what Americans can expect under a Kamala regime.

“Expect restrictions not only on conventional fuels but also on every imaginable petroleum derivative, including fertilizer. Expect therefore to see every business that lacks the economies of scale to withstand the new regulations to die a slow death, while ‘green’ financiers and ‘green’ monopolists – i.e., Kamala Harris’s donors – consolidate and dominate every sector of the American economy.”

Climate fanaticism is a mental illness. Learn more at Climate.news.

Sources for this article include:

• ClimateDepot.com
• NaturalNews.com

The title of the research article is: Effects of system-sanctioned framing on climate awareness and environmental action in the United States and beyond. Sounds pretty heady, I know. But I bought it and read it so you don’t have to.

The purpose of the study is to determine whether people are more likely to get on board with climate action if they are first exposed to “patriotic” and “system-sanctioned” messaging. My Spidey sense is already tingling, because there’s a hypothesis embedded in that purpose and it doesn’t feel right.

They didn’t go into the study wondering whether people might be influenced by some sort of messaging (that would sound like objective science). They began with a specific message—which means someone wanted to know whether that particular message would have the desired effect. That sounds like an agenda.

So let’s consider the inciting incident for such a story. The authors note that planetary concern alone has failed to inspire enough people to make the sacrifices needed to avert an alleged disaster. It seems many of us, like the poor R2 unit, have a bad motivator. So we need something else. Something more visceral. Something that really moves us.

That something, it turns out, is the status quo. Here in America we care deeply about preserving our way of life. And we should—it’s a good way. In fact, the authors suggest the status quo is what keeps many people from taking action. Their version of supposedly saving the planet requires changes that impact our way of life, and we naturally resist such changes—especially if we’re not convinced the cause is real. So someone hatched a plan to use our defense against us. And they tested their idea with this study.

Here’s how they did it. They presented participants with a series of statements and sentimental photos that connect environmental themes with happiness and life in America. It ends with Let’s keep the United States as it should be. Shrewd.

After looking at the “messaging,” the participants answered questions about the severity of climate change and what should be done about it—from raising taxes to government-mandated “sustainable” energy. The control group, who only read a random passage from Great Expectations, answered the same questions.

And now for the exciting conclusion:

In a large, nationally representative U.S. sample, we found that the system-sanctioned change intervention successfully increased liberal-leftists’ as well as conservative-rightists’ belief in climate change; support for pro-environmental policies; and willingness to share climate information on social media.

Sounds Orwellian? I thought so too.

It’s probably no coincidence this study was published on September 9 and the presidential debate was one day later. Kudos to the Harris team for picking it up and weaving it in so quickly—unless perhaps they had an advance copy, since it was accepted by PNAS in June.

There’s a lot I could say about the study itself and how the “messaging” is constructed using the principle rules of propaganda. But few of us are truly innocent of that charge, even for honorable purposes. Nonetheless, the mission for this sort of message is not to win on logical grounds. In the words of the research article:

We tested an experimental manipulation derived from system justification theory in which pro-environmental initiatives were framed as patriotic and necessary to maintain the American “way of life.”

From the text it is objectively clear that someone wants to manipulate us. Someone wants us to hear something that makes us go along with what they want.

If the intention were genuinely about protecting our way of life, then the environment is a consideration. But in today’s world the chief factor is affordable, reliable energy—without which everything stops. If we truly want to keep the United States as it should be, then it all starts with energy. And the only proven solution at this time comes from cheap, abundant oil and natural gas. We have plenty of that in America to maintain our way of life for a long time. At least until someone perfects dilithium crystals.

This allegedly scientific study is not about preserving our way of life. But it certainly provides a base from which to launch a barrage of new messaging.

Coming soon to a campaign near you.

Michael O’Sullivan is Program Director and COO for Blue Energy Nation, a non-profit committed to educating young people on energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and an advocate for smart energy choices.

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket, which is made up of expedited cases from applicants seeking immediate action, currently features 18 applications, with 11 of them pertaining to the agency’s aggressive power plant regulations finalized in April. The flood of emergency applications seeking immediate relief from landmark EPA rules is a sign of things to come in the wake of the court’s June ruling that overturned Chevron deference, a precedent that formerly gave federal agencies broad power to essentially interpret the law themselves in instances of statutory ambiguity, former high-ranking EPA officials told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I do think we’re going to see more of this in a post-Chevron world, particularly when an agency tries to go beyond the congressional intent or the longstanding regulatory practices of the agency,” Andrew Wheeler, who served as EPA administrator for former President Donald Trump, told the DCNF. “This power plant rule is supposed to be fuel switching, and this section of the Clean Air Act has not done that in the past. I think when you deviate from standard practices, you’re going to see more post-Chevron challenges.”

‘Entirely Unachievable’: Biden EPA Locks In Stringent Emissions Rule For Heavy-Duty Vehicles To Fight Climate Change https://t.co/hTI7251lp1

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 30, 2024

Each of the 17 cases pending against the EPA were filed in the weeks that followed the court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference, according to SCOTUSblog. Beyond the 11 applications that pertain directly to the EPA’s power plant regulations, there are also six taking aim at the agency’s May 7 action establishing new National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and one application does not have to do with the EPA.

If enforced, the EPA’s power plant rules will require existing coal plants to control 90% of their emissions by 2032 if they want to run after 2039, and the regulations will also mandate new natural gas-fired plants to do the same in order to stay open past 2039, according to the agency. Critics of the EPA’s power plant rules have characterized the regulations as a de facto attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which overturned the Obama EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan.”

Plaintiffs in the various applications sitting on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket — sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket” — include states, such as Oklahoma and North Dakota, and industry stakeholders like Continental Resources and America’s Power. While it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up all or even many of these cases, it has the opportunity to seize on at least one of the opportunities in the emergency docket to take on one of the most aggressive regulations promulgated during President Joe Biden’s term in office.

“To me, it’s very exciting, because it is an available legal tool that I think will be really important to push back against this administration’s continued disregard for clear lines of the law,” Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff for the Trump EPA, told the DCNF regarding the post-Chevron deference legal landscape.

Dems’ Climate Bill Overrules Supreme Court, Expands EPA’s Control Over Energy Industryhttps://t.co/mhG3FJvxoz

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 25, 2022

Gunasekara likened the Biden EPA’s approach to major regulations as “a little bit of the spaghetti-against-the-wall approach,” but also gave the agency some credit for generally being strategic in pursuit of its agenda. However, the agency may have made a miscalculation by rushing to finalize major rules quickly in hopes of avoiding possible Congressional Review Act (CRA) actions if a second Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress came into power in November, according to Gunasekara and Wheeler.

“They are giving the Supreme Court numerous opportunities to take a shot at fundamental legal problems with this administration’s regulatory activity,” Gunasekara said of the EPA.

Wheeler agreed that the EPA may have blundered in rushing out major rules to beat CRA deadlines at the expense of being able to hedge their work against a post-Chevron deference future.

“I think the Biden administration made a strategic error in trying to push these regulations out prior to the artificial deadline of the Congressional Review Act,” Wheeler told the DCNF. “I said this at the time, they should have waited for the Loper decision so that they could incorporate the Supreme Court’s decision into their cases to make their regulations stronger. They made a conscious decision to try to get as many of these regulations through the process before the artificial Congressional Review Act deadline, knowing that the Loper decision was coming. And I think they should have waited.”

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

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.