Podcasts about Clean Power Plan

Keywords: OSHA compliance, EPA enforcement, workplace safety trends, political shifts in safety, George W. Bush OSHA, Obama EPA policies, Trump administration deregulation, Biden OSHA enforcement, Chevron deference, safety consultant strategies, regulatory trends, environmental health policies, workplace fatalities data, nonfatal injuries trends, DAFW cases, safety compliance strategies, voluntary protection programs, Clean Power Plan rollback, WOTUS repeal, silica standards enforcement, heat stress standards, COVID-19 workplace safety, OSHA budget trends, EPA penalties, enforcement under Trump, OSHA inspections, Biden climate policies, safety consultant podcast, regulatory compliance trends. In this episode of the Safety Consultant Podcast, Sheldon Primus explores how Democratic and Republican administrations differ in their approaches to OSHA and EPA compliance. From enforcement intensity and new regulations under Democrats to deregulation and voluntary compliance programs under Republicans, Sheldon introduces how he breaks down the data and trends across the George W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. Discover how these political shifts impact workplace safety, environmental health, and what safety consultants can do to help clients stay ahead of the curve. This episode sets the stage for upcoming discussions on the reversal of Chevron deference and its implications for OSHA and EPA rulemaking.

Do courts have the expertise to decide on important environmental law issues? Pam Karlan and Rich Ford speak with environmental law expert Debbie Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford, about recent Supreme Court decisions affecting environmental and administrative law--including the Court's decision to overturn decades of settled law by overturning Chevron. What are the implications of the Court's recent blockbuster environmental decisions--the impact on the Clean Air Act, and broader consequences for regulatory agencies and environmental policies. Tune in to explore how these legal shifts could reshape the landscape of environmental regulation in the United States.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Deborah Sivas >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00)  Chapter 1: Introduction and OverviewPam and Rich welcome Professor Debbie Sivas from Stanford's Environmental Law Clinic. They provide an overview of significant Supreme Court cases impacting environmental and administrative law, highlighting the pivotal Loeb or Wright decision that ended Chevron deference.(00:02:06) Chapter 2: Chevron Deference and Its Implications Explained Discussion on the historical context and implications of Chevron deference, with Debbie Sivas explaining its significance and how its removal might affect future legal interpretations and administrative agency power.(00:09:12) Chapter 3: Expert Opinions vs. Judicial InterpretationsExamination of the Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation versus agency expertise, highlighting cases like Ohio against EPA and the challenges posed by the court's stance on scientific and technical matters.(00:16:12) Chapter 4: The Role of the Major Questions Doctrine and Non-Delegation DoctrineAnalysis of the Major Questions Doctrine's impact on regulatory power and the potential resurgence of the Non-Delegation Doctrine, focusing on how these legal principles shape environmental policy and agency authority.(00:18:57) Chapter 5: The Ohio Against EPA Case and Its Broader ImplicationsDetailed discussion on the Ohio against EPA case, its current status, and the implications of the Supreme Court's emergency stay decision on future regulatory actions and environmental protections.

President and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, Peter Gregg, in conversation with host Francis Bradley about the evolving state of electricity in Nova Scotia. Revisiting themes they spoke about three years ago on the podcast, they discuss the decarbonization of Nova Scotia's electricity system, the impact of federal policies, the increasing frequency and impact of extreme weather. They also focus on the province's Clean Power Plan, the failure of the Atlantic Loop initiative and what says about complex inter-jurisdictional projects, and how reliability and affordability will be front and centre as Nova Scotia aims for an 80 per cent decarbonized grid by 2030. They close the conversation with Peter's recommendation for an addition to the Flux Capacitor Book Club.

(2:00) Our Pier-less Military — Needlessly Complex, Expensive FailuresThe Gaza Pier is Gone with the Wind — a boondoggle, Rube Goldberg project that necessitated by spineless politicians' subservience to Israel blockade of food aidWATCH the flotsam ruins and the mockeryStill no food deliveriesRussian jamming has completely destroyed the accuracy of "smart" munitions —  complex, expensive, and broken(27:58) The Only Border That is NOT a "National Security Interest" of the Empire is USA Southern BorderSpecial forces colonel engages 2 Chechens taking pictures of his home and family, kills oneTwo illegal aliens apprehended as they try to enter Marine base in Virginia(37:16) NATO's Pearl Harbor…passive aggressive war…aggressive abroad, passively leaving border openUK government tells citizens to prep — food, water, wind up torches, etcWhy now?  Is war coming?Rishi Sunak, already behind in the polls, pushes a military draft, an idea floated previously in response to RussiaIt's no longer a secret — openly talking about USA weapons used against Russia(54:59) Tim Pool Tries to Memory-Hole 2020 Trump TyrannyTrump will "consider" prosecuting FauciWATCH Trump says it was Biden who made Fauci King, but we've got the clips that show just the opposite.WATCH just before 2020 election, Trump supporters begged him to fire FauciWATCH why Trump didn't fire FauciWATCH Trump tries to sell the lie that Governors did it…here's the proof it was TrumpWATCH Trump says he stopped GOF — NO, he reinstated it after it had been stopped in 2014WATCH Trump pretends he will pardon Assange(1:36:09) How the Trump crew tried to rig the Libertarian ConventionPacking the houseStolen reserved seatsSecret Service confiscated rubber "debate chickens"Listener asks about Dr. Shiva(1:49:51) DEI Death Panels for Transplants A "diversity" point system of financial rewards and punishment to incentivize a racist allocation of kidney transplants (2:03:17) Strategic Shortages of Energy by Democrats at War with AmericaBiden to empty Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to temporarily lower gas prices over the 4th of July holiday for personal political gainNewsom's war on gasoline negatively impacts even neighboring Democrat statesEPA's "Clean Power Plan 2.0" — to ensure that you get "Net Zero" energy and "Net Zero" reliability(2:45:09) World Invocation Day and the UN's Occult Religion The pursuit of "spiritual energy", "ascended masters", "solar angels", in establishing global government.  How does "Theosophy" connect political figures of both parties — from Eleanor Roosevelt to Michael Flynn? The REAL Uni-Party (2:53:15) The UN is fine with Satanism and the Occult, but don't take out Christian ads on Washington, DC buses.  Lawsuit over DC hostility to and censorship of Christian speechFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

News

News

News

News

The province is abandoning the Atlantic Loop project. Nova Scotia is instead investing in more onshore wind and solar energy, and expanding our transmission link with New Brunswick. Rachel Doran from Clean Energy Canada weighs in.

In May, the EPA proposed a new rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. This is a third attempt by the EPA to regulate these emissions. The Supreme Court struck down the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA, which was the first time the Court formally acknowledged and explicitly relied on the “major questions” doctrine. The DC Circuit had previously struck down the Trump Administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule and, although West Virginia involved an appeal of that decision, the Supreme Court did not rule on the Trump Administration's rule.The new rule's supporters say it's well in line with EPA's statutory authority, the state of the electric markets, and available emissions-reduction measures. Its opponents say it is legally flawed and threatens grid reliability. What are the potential legal and policy issues associated with the proposed rule? Does it raise “major questions” issues? Is the agency relying upon unproven technology in violation of the statutory requirement that its standards be based only on the “best system of emission reduction” that “has been adequately demonstrated?” Does this rule violate state prerogatives for regulating existing sources? Join us as we explain the rule and then discuss the legal and policy issues it raises.Featuring:Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLPKevin Poloncarz, Partner, Covington & Burling LLPJustin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC[Moderator] Daren Bakst, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On this episode Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law professor at Georgetown University and former Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy during the Obama administration. The focus of the episode is centered around major Supreme Court decisions on environmental law over the past two decades. The two begin by discussing Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case where the Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Heinzerling explains that during the Bush administration, the EPA denied a petition to regulate greenhouse gases, arguing it lacked authority and did not want to regulate. Environmental groups challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court ruling the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act's broad definition of “air pollutant” (0:00-7:54). The pair then discuss how Massachusetts v. EPA established clear statutory authority for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses and shaped the Obama administration's regulatory actions. Fifteen years later, and after a complicated procedural history, the Supreme Court reviewed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In that case, in striking contrast to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. In West Virginia, the Court also embraced the “major questions doctrine,” which presumes against broad agency regulatory authority on major policy issues (7:55-27:40). On the Clean Water Act, Heinzerling and Livermore trace a similar pattern. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Court upheld federal jurisdiction over wetlands with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters, but the recent Sackett v. EPA (2022) severely restricted federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (27:41- 40:01). Heinzerling expresses concern that the current Supreme Court's skepticism of agency regulation will constrain executive and agency actions to address environmental problems like climate change. She finds the road traveled in just less than two decades from Massachusetts v. EPA to be “sobering.” Livermore concludes by noting that although some environmentalists believe that the courts could be a useful venue for promoting a strong response to climate change, with the current Court, that seems highly unlikely (40:02-56:45).

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus. Lazarus is the author of the book “The Making of Environmental Law”, which is now out in its second edition. On of the key takeaways from Lazarus' book is that environmental law is especially difficult because environmental science and economics collide with the lawmaking system. Ecosystems naturally spread cause and effect out over time and space. Therefore, activities that occur in one place at one time have consequences that arise at another place and time. Regulation and lawmaking systems struggle with this because these laws regulate people at one place in time for the benefit of another group at another time, leading to substantial distributional consequences. (0:36-16:03) The distributional effects of environmental law have also contributed to the current polarized political situation regarding environmental action. In a state like West Virginia, there were political gains to be made by the Republican party by opposing climate regulation, because of the local economic costs of reducing the nation's reliance on coal. As the parties vie for different constituencies, polarization naturally arises when groups opposed to or supportive of environmental protection sort into the two parties. This dynamic has played out over many issues in the past decades, but environmental policy may be particularly prone. (17:50-31:05) The two then discuss environmental justice and its ties to the polarization of environmental law. Lazarus reflects on how his view of the topic was changed when a student in his hazardous waste class inquired about his theory that waste sites are more prevalent in minority neighborhoods. That interaction ultimately led Lazarus to rethink how he approached environmental law to focus more on race, class, and fairness issues. (33:30-44:21) The conversation wraps discussing polarization and the role of the courts. Lazarus offers his view that attention to fairness issues and the commercial opportunities presented by environmental transitions can help build a bipartisan coalition in favor of environmental protection. The two then discuss the two most recent major environmental cases in the Supreme Court: West Virginia v EPA and the Sackett case. For Lazarus, the West Virginia decision to uphold the repeal of the Clean Power Plan was irresponsible but not out of bounds; it prevented an ambitious future plan for environmental protection, which had a solid, but not unassailable, statutory basis. He sees Sackett because it relied on shoddy interpretation of the Clean Water Act to undermine a longstanding and successful environmental program. Despite this, Lazarus has a somewhat optimistic view of the Court. Even if it will continue to be an obstacle to executive action to protection the environment, if it is possible to pass new environmental legislation to address issues like climate change, he believes that the Court will not get in the way. (47:28-1:06:23)

EELP's Founding Director Jody Freeman, who is also an independent director of ConocoPhillips, and EELP's executive director, Carrie Jenks speak again with Jay Duffy, litigation director at Clean Air Task Force, and Kevin Poloncarz, a partner at the law firm Covington and Burling. Jody, Jay, and Kevin recently joined CleanLaw to discuss the Supreme Court's decision about the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan, and now, with Carrie, talk about EPA's recently proposed greenhouse gas regulation for the power sector and their views on how EPA's approaches were shaped by both the Supreme Court's decision, West Virginia v. EPA, and Congress's enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act. Transcript available here http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-83-Power-Sector-Rule-Jody-Jay-Kevin-Carrie.pdf

  The Biden Administration has just revived the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which is another costly green mandate on the production of electricity in the U.S.  Buckeye Institute Vice President of Policy Rea Hederman Jr. joins us to discuss their new report showing how much more Californians and Ohioans could pay for electricity if the plan takes effect, and how it would subject the rest of the country to the type of green energy mandates that Californians have been struggling to afford for years.

Learning from the lessons of the Obama Administration's failed Clean Power Plan, the Biden EPA is set to launch a new set of rules governing carbon emissions from fossil fueled power plants this week. What's in these rules? What effect are they likely to have on greenhouse gas emissions? And, frankly, what likelihood do they have to stand up against a conservative Supreme Court?Paul dives into the EPA's latest carbon regulations in this latest episode.Follow Paul on LinkedIn.

The EPA is trying again with power plant rules to fight climate change, but this time, the agency is backed up by statutes in the Inflation Reduction Act. It's using these to carefully craft new rules designed to survive legal challenges.  Also, the Africa recipient of this year's Goldman Environmental Prize joins us to share how he organized a community and brought a UK based mining company to justice for polluting a river in Zambia with waste from an open pit copper mine that sickened locals and killed fish.  And in nature, some animals live far longer than humans, and some don't appear to age at all. One species of jellyfish can continually revert back to a juvenile stage, making it essentially immortal. Unlocking nature's secrets to longevity and how humans can live longer.  -- And thanks to our sponsors: Oregon State University. Find out more about how Oregon State is making a difference at leadership.oregonstate.edu/cic. “Nuclear Now”, a new documentary from award-winning director Oliver Stone. Visit NuclearNowFilm.com to learn more. Hold On Bags, with plant-based, non-toxic, 100% home-compostable trash and kitchen bags. Go to holdonbags.com/Earth or enter EARTH at checkout to save 20% on your order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Various options are at play in the EPA's planned greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. In this episode, Lissa Lynch of NRDC discusses the implications.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsA couple of weeks ago, the policy analysts at the Rhodium Group put out a new report showing that the Biden administration's legislative achievements are not quite enough to get it to its Paris climate goals. But those goals could be reached if the legislation is supplemented with smart executive action.Some of the most important upcoming executive actions are EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. The Supreme Court famously struck down Obama's Clean Power Plan — his attempt to address existing power plants — judging it impermissibly expansive. So now EPA has to figure out what to ask of individual plants.The agency's decisions will help shape the future of the US power sector and determine whether the Biden administration gets on track for its climate goals. To talk through those decisions in more detail, I contacted Lissa Lynch, who runs the Federal Legal Group at the NRDC's Climate & Clean Energy Program. We discussed the options before the EPA, the viability of carbon capture and hydrogen as systems of pollution reduction, and whether Biden will have time to complete all the regulatory work that remains.Alright. With no further ado, Lissa Lynch from NRDC. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Lissa LynchThank you for having me.David RobertsThis is a subject that I used to spend a lot of time thinking about back in the day, and it's sort of receded for a while, and now it's back. So it's very exciting for a nerd like me. So I want to just quickly walk through some history with this and then sort of hand it off to you so you can tell us where things stand now, because I don't want to assume that listeners have been obsessively following this now nearly two decade long saga. So let me just run through some history really briefly. So listeners will recall in 2007, there's a big Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, in which the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is eligible to be listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if EPA determines it is a threat to human health.And then shortly thereafter, Obama's EPA officially determined that it is a threat to human health via the endangerment finding. So this is one thing I'm not sure everybody understands, and I just want to get it on the table up front. So for context, the combination of those two things, Mass vs. EPA, plus the endangerment finding, means that EPA is lawfully obliged to regulate greenhouse gases. This is not a choice. This is not something it can do or not do, depending on how it feels or who's president. They have to do it. So then that triggers the obligation, three separate obligations.You have to regulate mobile sources, which Obama did with his new fuel economy regulations, which are still in place, as far as I know. Then you have to regulate new stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which Obama did. And as far as I know, we can come back to this in a second, but as far as I know, those new power plant regulations that Obama passed are still in effect. And then thirdly, you have to regulate existing stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which mainly means power plants. And so Obama's effort to regulate existing power plants is called the Clean Power Plan.People may remember the fuss and ado about the Clean Power Plan as it was under development. Lawsuits were immediately launched. Of course, the Supreme Court took the extremely unusual step of putting the law on hold, basically not letting it go into implementation until it had heard this case. And then it heard the case, rejected the Clean Power Plan on the basis of the newly dreamed up, rectally, extracted Major Questions Doctrine. So that's where we stand now is we've got the mobile regs in place, although Biden is updating those too. I think we've got the new power plant regs in place, although Biden is also updating those.But as for existing power plant regulations, there are basically none. It's been a legal mire and so Biden's got to do those too. So let's talk about what Supreme Court said about the Clean Power Plan in their ruling and how that constrains the sort of solution space that we're looking at now.Lissa LynchSo in West Virginia vs. EPA, that was the Supreme Court decision from last summer. The Supreme Court held that this section of the Clean Air Act that we're talking about here, section 111, does not clearly provide authority for the approach that EPA took in the Clean Power Plan. And what they did there we sort of refer to as generation shifting. In the Clean Power Plan, EPA looked at the power sector as a whole and they concluded that the best system for reducing fossil-fuel-fired power plant emissions was a combination of measures including shifting generation away from dirtier fossil power toward cleaner power.So essentially retiring dirtier power plants and replacing them with renewables.David RobertsRight. So the unit of analysis here was a state's whole power fleet, not the power plant individual, but the whole power fleet.Lissa LynchRight. And the reasoning for that in the Clean Power Plan context was supported by the companies themselves, the power companies themselves and the states who said, yes, this is the way that we are dealing with decarbonizing our fleets. We are looking out across our whole fleets, retiring the dirtiest sources and replacing them with cleaner generation. That's how the existing RGGI program in California cap-and-trade programs work. That's how many of the power companies that have emission reduction or clean energy targets are doing that.David RobertsAnd let's just say Republicans have been saying for decades that regulations are too restrictive and they're not flexible enough and states and power companies need flexibility. And this was perfectly flexible. This is absolutely as flexible as you could make a system. It just said to the state, do whatever you want to do to lower the average emissions of your power plant fleet. And then conservatives got what they wanted and hated it for other reasons.Lissa LynchOne of the things that's important about what is left on the table after this decision is there is still a considerable amount of flexibility on the compliance side. So what the Supreme Court was really dealing with was the method EPA uses for setting the level of the standard, basically setting the target that industry has to meet. So the Supreme Court explicitly took that generation shifting approach off the table for purposes of setting the level of the standard itself. And so after this decision, EPA can still set standards, in John Roberts words, "Based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly."David RobertsRight? So the idea here is EPA, by interpreting the Clean Air Act in such a way as to apply to the power plant fleet overall, and sort of telling states how they have to shape their overall power plant fleets. EPA was assuming too much authority, basically. Like doing something major, despite too major for the words in the Clean Air Act, which I don't want to dwell on this too long, but let's just pause here to acknowledge that. No one then in the ruling, now in the subsequent ruling, since then in all scholarship knows what the hell "major" means or when it is that an agency has crossed the line from proper regulatory interpretation into "Oops, too major."It really just kind of sounds like and seems that major means anything bigger than John Roberts is comfortable with.Lissa LynchRight? I mean, this is one of the really concerning things about the Major Questions Doctrine, just generally is that it is murky and it does have this sort of paralyzing effect on ...David RobertsYes, intentionally.Lissa LynchExactly. It is explicitly anti-regulatory and explicitly sort of intended to stop agencies in their tracks and make them question, oh, is this too major?David RobertsAnd there's no answer. Right. So naturally you're going to be cautious because there's no definition of major. It's just whatever irritates John Roberts when he wakes up one day. So this was the opening salvo, I think, in a longer Supreme Court effort basically to brow-beat agencies into being timid. So anyway, point being EPA can't use the overall power fleet as a sort of benchmark through which to set this standard. So what does that leave? What's the sort of range of motion that we think we still can act in here when we're talking about these new standards?Lissa LynchSo now that we have this Supreme Court decision in place. EPA's got some guidelines, and they can base the next round of standards on, as Justice Roberts put it, measures that make the plants operate more cleanly. So what they're looking for now is a rule that looks more like what traditional pollution regulations of the past looked like based on scrubbers, bag houses, the stuff that you can physically attach onto the plant or do at the plant itself to reduce that plant's emissions. When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, the options are limited.David RobertsWell, let me pause there. Before we get into that, I just want to say one thing that I learned from your writing that I had not known, and I don't know that it's widely known. So there's been talk ever since Mass vs. EPA that bugged conservatives, and they would love to undo that, right? Because they would just love to moot this whole thing by undoing that ruling and saying that CO2 is outside the context of the Clean Air Act and have been muttering about doing that. So the Inflation Reduction Act statutorily locks into place that ruling.Right. It says explicitly CO2 qualifies under the Clean Air Act, and it instructs EPA to develop new standards. So there's no ambiguity about that. And it says EPA needs to set standards that are going to reduce emissions relative to baseline, where the new baseline is taking the Inflation Reduction Act itself and all its subsidies into account. So it's telling EPA calculate what all these subsidies are going to do, what the new sort of business as usual trajectory of emissions would be, and then develop regulations that reduce it further. I didn't know any of that.Lissa LynchYeah, no, this is huge. And I mean, obviously the Inflation Reduction Act is enormous. It is going to accelerate the clean energy progress that we've seen in the last decade or so by many fold. It is a huge, huge deal. And one of the provisions in this quite large law essentially reaffirms EPA's not only statutory authority, but its obligation to go ahead and set CO2 emission standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. And so that's a clear statement from Congress last year.David RobertsClear enough even for John Roberts.Lissa LynchRight. So we have always thought that that authority and obligation under the statute was quite clear, but now it's crystal clear, and they need to move.David RobertsAnd I think it's also important to absorb this new baseline idea, because the IRA itself and all the historical progress since the last round of these regs, the new expected baseline for power plant emissions is much lower now than it was when Oobama's EPA was calculating these things. Which commensurately means you're going to need tighter standards if you want to reduce further than that new baseline.Lissa LynchYeah. And it is kind of wild to look back on ten years ago. So it was ten years ago, 2013, that President Obama announced in his big climate change speech that he was directing his EPA to go ahead and set carbon pollution reduction standards under Section 111 for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. The first time that was being done. So much has changed in ten years in the power sector. And I think anyone listening to this podcast knows we are smack in the midst of a clean energy transition in the power industry. Industry itself says so.The Edison Electric Institute says we are, quote, "In the middle of a profound long term transformation in how energy is generated, transmitted and used." Lazard, the investment firm, estimates that wind costs have fallen by 46%, solar has fallen by 77% over the past decade. So we're just in a totally different world now than we were ten years ago. And so we passed the Clean Power Plan's 2030 emission reduction targets in 2019 without the Clean Power Plan ever having gone into effect.David RobertsWhich in retrospect makes all the Republican arguments about how this is an economy killing regulation and it's too strong and it's unrealistic and there's no way we can move that fast look utterly ludicrous, which we all said at the time, but we had to pretend that it was a real live argument. So they're saying it's too stringent, it's going to destroy the economy. And here we rocketed past it in 2019 without any regs.Lissa LynchRight? And that is part and parcel with each time. There are new ambitious pollution standards set ...David RobertsEvery time.Lissa LynchUnder the Clean Air Act, industry claims the sky is going to fall. This happened with the acid rain program back in the American Electric Power predicted that it was going to destroy the economy of the Midwest. Like the lights are going to go out, the sky is going to fall.Every time and we never learn. We never learn from those previous examples. It's crazy, right?And so the actual costs of complying with the acid rain program and reducing sulfur dioxide ended up being, I think, around a 10th of what industry had estimated. Sulfur scrubbers are now widely used. The program has been a great success. It is this great example of how we can set pollution standards and then innovate to meet them cost effectively and quicker than anyone expects. We do it over and over again.David RobertsOver and over again.Lissa LynchAnd we can do it in this context.David RobertsRight? One more thing. Before we get to what's available for the new standards, we should mention I should mention that when the clean power plant got shut down, the legal obligation to pass regulations on existing power plants then passed to the Trump administration, which did that sort of passed a ... what was it called? The clean America ...Lissa LynchThe Affordable, Clean Energy Plan.David RobertsYes, Affordable Clean Energy, the ACE Plan, which several analyses showed would on net have raised emissions in the power plant sector. So those got shut down in court, too. They were just completely a joke. Ludicrous so that's all the history. So here we are Biden's EPA has got to regulate existing power plants and new power plants. And it can't take this so called outside the fence line holistic approach that the clean power plant took. So it's got to set standards based on what you can do at the individual power plant level inside the fence line, as they say.So what are the options? Actually, I'm talking way too much, but let me get one more thing out of the way and then I'll let you talk. But one of the things that faced the reason I just want people to understand this too, the reason Obama took this approach, the reason Obama's EPA took this outside the fence line holistic approach, is that if you're just restricting yourself to the individual power plant, you're stuck with either marginal improvements, right? You get the boiler to work more efficiently, you tighten up efficiency, and you can sort of marginally 3% to 5%, reduce emissions.Or on the other side, there's carbon capture and sequestration, which especially ten years ago when Obama's EPA was contemplating it, was not very well tested, not very well proven, super expensive. So you either had sort of like a fly swatter or a nuke when it comes to the individual power plant, which is why they went with the holistic approach. So now the holistic approach is off the table. We're back to the fly swatter or nuke problem. So just tell us sort of like, what are the available options here?Lissa LynchYeah, so you kind of covered the two ends of the range, right? On one end, the very low ambition end, you can make minor improvements to the operating efficiency of the plant, the way the plant operates. That was the basis for the standards that the Trump administration issued. And as you noted, improving the efficiency of the plant makes it run better and it can be called upon to run more and therefore can end up increasing its overall emissions. That sort of rebound effect. That's a possibility. You can still reduce emissions through operating efficiency improvements. And I think there's more options that could achieve greater reductions than the ones that the Trump administration included in their rule.But still, we're talking the very low-end, single percentage reductions in the middle, there's this option of cofiring with a lower carbon fuel. So if you're talking about coal plants, you can co-fire that coal plant partially with gas. In a gas plant, you could co-fire partially with hydrogen and you're going to bring the emissions rate of the plant down somewhat. In some of our analysis, we've estimated that a 40% cofiring coal with gas. So cofiring a coal plant with 40% gas gets you about a 20% emission reduction. So it's not nothing, but it also involves additional fossil infrastructure to get gas to a coal plant or additional infrastructure to get hydrogen to a gas plant.And on top of several other issues with hydrogen that we can talk about a little later.David RobertsWell, a legal question, I guess all of this in some respect is arbitrary, but where is the line between forcing fuel-switching, which I think Supreme Court said was out of bounds, and too far, versus a rule that requires cofiring, which is like kind of like halfway to fuel switching? Is there a legal distinction there between those two?Lissa LynchThere's absolutely precedent for requiring cleaner fuels or fuel processes. What the Supreme Court mentioned, at least in dicta, was we don't want to see standards that would force a plant to stop existing. And so essentially, if EPA were to base the standard on total conversion from coal to gas, which some coal plants have undertaken with cheap gas prices, that I think, based on our reading of the decision anyway, would probably be too far. So full conversion probably off the table along with generation shifting. But partial cofiring is actually one of the technologies that the Obama administration considered for their Clean Power Plan, as was carbon capture.And as you noted, the approach that they took in the Clean Power Plan, they selected because it was the most cost effective. So they ruled out carbon capture and cofiring, not because they weren't adequately demonstrated or available, they were just more expensive than the approach that EPA ended up going with.David RobertsBut now we're forced back basically to that more expensive approach.Lissa LynchRight, as I mentioned before, but want to keep reiterating, this is all about setting the level of the standard, finding it's a math problem. EPA looks at the options, and so the options as we see them are efficiency improvements, getting very little cofiring, getting somewhere in the middle, or carbon capture and storage, getting the most amount of emission reductions. They look out at that and they select the best system. Then they apply it to the plant and essentially do a math problem and come out with a number, a numerical limit for the amount of CO2 emission reductions that the plants need to achieve.Then they hand the baton off to the states for existing sources and to the companies for new sources. So this is not a requirement to install that specific technology. It's a way to derive the level of the standard and then pass that off to the states and the companies to comply with.David RobertsRight. EPA sets the standard and then says to states and companies, do what you want.Lissa LynchRight, as long as you can meet this number. Be creative, innovate.David RobertsThe central question is what upon what technology is the number going to be based on exactly? This low-end, this something in the middle, and this high-end, which is carbon capture and sequestration. So here I want to talk about what the sort of arguments are around this. It says in the text of the Clean Air Act that EPA should set the standard based on the best available system. That has to be adequately demonstrated so I just want to dig in a little bit on the technical legal language here. Like what exactly or what have courts interpreted that language to mean exactly?What is required to be adequately demonstrated? A single demonstration plant somewhere? like some good charts and graphs in a lab? Or do you have to be commercial, or does price and, you know, financial viability come into that? Like, what is EPA thinking about when it thinks about what is adequately demonstrated or best?Lissa LynchYes. Okay, so I'm a Clean Air Act lawyer. This is my favorite part. I love the Clean Air Act, and I love to talk about the language of the statute because that's actually what we're really fighting over here. EPA is tasked with establishing the standard of performance, and so that definition is in the statute. They have to determine the degree of emission limitation that can be achieved through the application of the best system of emission reduction that is adequately demonstrated considering cost, energy factors and essentially other factors. And so there's this really defined set of criteria that EPA needs to go through as they're determining what's the best system of emission reduction.So we've been talking about adequately demonstrated that it can't be a made up technology, but it also doesn't have to be widely used by everyone. Already, the Clean Air Act is technology forcing it's forward looking.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchIt requires the regulated source to reduce its emissions commensurate with the best control systems that are available, not the ones that are already sort of out there in use, that plants are choosing to use of their own accord. So again, in a lot of ways, this is analogous to so SO2 scrubbers which were not in widely used, they were not widely produced in the 90s, and there were all these doom and gloom predictions of how much it's going to cost.We're not going to be able to do this. So right now, there's no limit at all on CO2 emissions from power plants. There's been no reason to innovate on carbon capture for power plants, and there is not a ton of projects out there in the world, but there are plenty to serve as an adequate demonstration for purposes of the Clean Air Act. There's essentially three parts here of carbon capture. There's capture, there's transport, and there's storage. And each part of that process is well established and has been in use for decades, especially the capture part. We've been capturing carbon for decades.And so there's plenty of demonstration in both pilot projects and at commercial scale to be applied in the power sector. It doesn't have to be something that's already widely out there.David RobertsSo it's sort of a holistic consideration. And EPA is sort of attempting to apply something like wisdom here. There's a balance of considerations. And I assume, and tell me if I'm wrong, that the usual suspects are arguing to EPA that that would be too strict, that a standard based on CCS would be too strict. And presumably the way they're making that argument is by saying CCS is not the best or adequately demonstrated. So what is their argument? Have you read, like, their briefs, or do they have a specific argument here?Lissa LynchThey do, and they're familiar. It's the same set of arguments that we've seen over and over. It's too costly, we can't do it yet. We're getting there. Just let us do this at our own pace. One of the concerning things is the argument that we need gas now, and we're okay with standards that are based on something we might do in the future. So set the standards only at a level that were ready for CCS, that were ready for hydrogen sometime in the future.David RobertsCCS ready.Lissa LynchCCS ready. Hydrogen ready.David RobertsI love that phrase.Lissa LynchIt's just kicking the can down the road.David RobertsLike your own David Hawkins once said, it's like saying, my driveway is Ferrari ready.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think what's at the heart of this industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture and emissions data from the projects that have been built back that up. That is not to say that EPA needs to go ahead and require a 90% emission reduction from every single coal and gas plant in the country. Right. We think it makes the most sense for EPA to draw some distinctions based on the role that the plants perform on the grid. Right. So there's a big difference between ...David RobertsOh, really?Lissa LynchYes, there's a big difference between plants that are used for baseload power that are running constantly all the time, and those that are used intermittently for reliability as backup power during times of high demand.There does not need to be the exact identical standards on those two types of plants. So plants that are running full time are emitting the most, and they should be required to reduce their emissions to the greatest degree. So we think it makes sense to have a 90% capture based standard for plants that are going to serve as baseload, that are going to run all the time. And it's the most cost effective for those types of plants to install CCS, especially when you consider the tax credit. Plants that are operating intermittently as backup are already emitting less pollution simply by running less.And those plants can face a less stringent standard, stay on the grid as backup, and serve that really important reliability function without being required to install CCS, they can meet a lesser standard.David RobertsIs there a distinction between those two kinds of plants that is clean enough and clear enough to set legal limits around them because there are some fuzzy edge cases? And then, number two, are we sure that EPA like that's within EPA? Sort of. That's not major for EPA to be thinking to be sort of specifying which standards applied based on function based on operations.Lissa LynchYes. So this is the kind of detailed analytical and technical decision making that is well within the expert agency's wheelhouse. This is exactly the type of thing that the experts at the agency are normally tasked by the statute to do. They're the ones who run the numbers and figure out what's most appropriate for the specific type of plant that they're regulating. And in fact, the existing standards for new sources do include these sorts of subcategorization based on the use type of the plant. So this is not something complex and mysterious. This is based on true and visible distinctions between types of plants based on the way that they're used.And I think it really is yet another layer of the sort of flexibility that EPA can and should build into this program. Again, none of this is a particular mandate. And so the states and the companies then have that additional choice. Well, they can run a plant full steam and install controls, or they can run intermittently, keep that plant online and face a lesser limit, or they can retire it and make their own choices about what to replace it with. This is providing more and more levels of choices to the regulated industry to comply in the way that makes sense for them.David RobertsYeah. And something you mentioned in passing, I want to just highlight and put a pin in here, which is that a big argument here on your side is CCS is now being showered with subsidies. Like there are huge subsidies coming down from the Inflation Reduction Act for captured hydrogen, enough to make them economic in some cases or certainly a lot closer. So these are synergistic. I'm saying like the Biden administration's legislation is bolstering the case for these tighter standards because CCS is not just on its own now. Now it's explicitly being helped and shaped and stood up by government grants.Lissa LynchThat's right. And at the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act also contains a ton of money for renewables. And so that level of investment across these types of technologies really changes the overall cost of the regulations. And that's one of the things that EPA has to consider, is the overall cost of compliance to the system. And so again, when these standards are in place and states and companies are looking out across their fleet and saying, oh, what should we do? All of those incentives are going to come into that consideration for them. And it makes renewables really cheap to replace your older dirtier generation with.David RobertsI got one more question about the standard setting before I want to get into the politics a little bit, but some energy heads out there may be familiar with a company called NET Power, which has come up with a new, I guess it's a couple of years old now. They've built one demonstration plan, a new technology that without getting into the technological details, it's really fascinating. I might do a whole pod on it, but basically it burns natural gas. Emits no particulate pollution at all and captures 100% of the CO2 emissions as a purified stream of CO2.So you have in NET Power a natural gas power plant with zero particulate emissions and 100% carbon capture. They've built one, it's running and working. So has there been any talk about using that as a standard? Because that would be 100% carbon reduction. Has NET Power's tech come up in these discussions?Lissa LynchYeah, for sure. I mean, it's very cool, right? It was included, the EPA put out a white paper last year asking for input, sort of preregulatory input on the technologies that are available to reduce emissions, specifically from gas plants. And they took comment on the NET Power approach, which I cannot remember the name of. Allam something.David RobertsAllam Cycle, I think is right. I was trying to think of that.Lissa LynchAnd it is really cool and innovative and I hope that that is a direction that we're going to see any remaining fossil generation go in. And I think we may see that in the proposal. Again, all of what I'm talking about here is we have not seen a proposal from EPA. This is sort of NRDC's perspective on what is possible, justifiable achievable and legally defensible in court. And this is what we've been advocating for before the agency, and then we'll have to see what they come up with. We're expecting a proposal relatively soon, probably within a month or so.David RobertsWhat's really interesting to me about this, just from a political perspective, is it's a sort of weird inversion here of the typical roles. So you've got the power sector, which has been touting CCS for years, to sort of like defend the ongoing existence of fossil power plants. They sort of wave their hands at CCS and say, no, we can go clean too. So they've got Joe Manchin out up there saying, I want to go clean, but I want to do it with fossil. I literally think they've convinced him that they can eliminate their carbon emissions. And traditionally you've had sort of greens and climate people saying that's big and overly complicated and overly expensive and stupid and nobody's ever really going to do it and it's just going to make more sense to switch to clean generation.And so now we've got this odd political inversion where the power companies are saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, CCS is not really ready. We didn't mean "ready ready," we meant just over the horizon is what we meant. That's where they like it. They like CCS just over the horizon. And all of a sudden this is like calling their bluff. Like, oh, you've been talking about this for decades. Well, how about you use it? And then on the green side, on the climate side, you have a similar inversion where now greens and green groups like yours are arguing like CCS.Oh, it's great. Yeah, it's right there, it's ready to go, absolutely ready to serve. As the basis for a standard. It's just odd and funny and I just wonder if you have any comment on the politics of trying to herd the cats in the climate community around this message of like CCS is ready and viable, which I don't think comes naturally to a lot of factions, let's say, within the climate community.Lissa LynchWell, that's well phrased. We're walking a fine line. I think our vision for the power sector and the power industry is one of net zero. And in order to get to net zero, that means a heck of a lot of renewables and a heck of a lot less fossil.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchFor the purposes of setting pollution limits, we need a technological basis and by far and away CCS is the most effective of the options that we've got.David RobertsThat the Supreme Court left us.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think it is very important to have limits on the CO2 emissions from power plants. I think that is sort of the baseline, most important thing from our point of view.David RobertsRight, well, lots of, I mean, reports, we should just say lots of reports have been done saying the legislative progress is great, but it's not enough to reach Biden's stated goal. And to reach Biden's stated goal, you need a whole of administration approach, including these standards.Lissa LynchExactly. And just to put some actual numbers on that, if we want to meet our international and domestic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2030, we need to get our power sector emissions down by 80% from the 2005 sort of peak emissions. We're already about a third of a reduction, 33% -ish reduction since 2005. Our analysis and RDCs of the Inflation Reduction Act puts us now on track to cut our power sector emissions by about 65% by 2030. So that is massive and also not enough.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchAnd our estimate there is somewhere in the middle there's a really wide range of modeling of the Inflation Reduction Act and a lot of work is going to need to be done in order to get those emission reductions that we're sort of showing in that modeling. It's not a foregone conclusion.David RobertsYeah, one of the wildest things going on right now is just the incredible range of projections about what the IRA will do. Right. Like the sort of government came up with, oh, that it's going to spend $370 on these tax credits and then Credit Suisse is like, actually it's more like a trillion. And then I think there was another one last week, it was like actually it's more like a trillion five. So the range of amounts of money that could come out of this bill are just huge. It's so opaque.Lissa LynchIt is. And a lot still remains to be written in all the guidance for these tax credits. But that sort of uncertainty aside, I think the Inflation Reduction Act is going to accelerate a bunch of clean energy and it's going to get us a bunch of emission reductions in the power sector. And at least based on our analysis, that's not quite enough. And we absolutely are going to need limits on the CO2 emissions in addition to investments in clean energy.David RobertsSo maybe the way to summarize is just to say endorsing CCS as the basis of a performance standard is different than endorsing CCS, full stop.Lissa LynchYeah, well put. And I think what we see in the modeling reflects what I've been saying about the decision making that comes once EPA sets the standard. So when we model standards that are based on CCS and we've included the Inflation Reduction Act in the baseline, we overall get to around between 70% and 77% CO2 emission reduction by 2030. And what we're seeing in the actual generation results, there is some CCS deployment and also a ton of clean energy.David RobertsThis is my next question, actually, and you're here answering it before I even ask it, but I just wanted to ask, as a matter of curiosity, has someone modeled what would happen if EPA sets the standards where you are endorsing and what does the modeling say about the decisions power companies are going to make? Like how many fossil fuel plants will shut down versus installing CCS? I don't know if there's like an easy answer to that.Lissa LynchWell, so we have done lots of modeling and we've been doing it for quite a while because even before this Supreme Court decision last summer, we were anticipating that EPA was going to be constrained and in this sort of inside the fence line way. And so we've really been looking for ways to get the most ambition and the most emission reductions out of these sort of source specific basis for the standards. That range that I gave you is based on CCS and partial CCS runs. So 70% to 77% overall emission reductions depending how much you crank the dial on the ambition.But still with some of those sort of flexibilities that I talked about in terms of the type of use of the plant and what we see in those runs is renewables and energy storage capacity tripling from now to 2030 and quadrupling by 2035. And I think that is in large part based on these new Inflation Reduction Act tax credits being just so much more cost effective. And we still do see some retrofits with carbon capture and storage and some new builds of gas with carbon capture, but not a massive amount. And so there is some uptake of the technology and there's also some reinvestment in clean energy and that kind of tracks with what you would expect, right?And that kind of goes back to that was essentially what EPA was counting on and basing their standards off of in the Clean Power Plan and that's why they did it that way. I think we can do it this way. And that carbon capture and storage based best system of emission reduction can be shown to be available to the plants that could use it. And not all plants are going to make that choice. It's going to be up to the states and the companies to look at their options and choose whether they want to keep that plant online, and that should work.David RobertsSo NRDC is recommending a CCS based standard for both existing-source regs and new-source regs. Is there any difference between those two that's worth sort of pulling out here?Lissa LynchYeah, so I think industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture. And so given that that technology exists, we think it should be used to set the standard for at least the plants that are operating at full bore, both new and existing. When you're building a new plant, you have much greater options in terms of where you're sighting it, how you're building it. You should be required to use the latest and greatest technology on a brand new plant. So that's pretty straightforward for existing plants because they're all over the place. We rely on them already for power.There needs to be more flexibility, there needs to be more of a phase-in sort of glide path to compliance and some flexibility for how you're going to comply and some exemptions for those plants that are going to commit to retire. You don't want to make them retrofit right before they're expected to retire, you want to just let them plan to retire at the natural end-of-life of the plant. And so giving that flexibility on the existing source side is going to be really important and has long been part of the way that the section 111 standard setting has worked to differentiate between new and existing plants.David RobertsSo, CCS based standard in both cases, but maybe more flexibility and implementation for the existing plants.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsIf EPA does use CCS or hydrogen, something like that, as the basis for its performance standard, does it have any say at all in the details of sort of how CCS or hydrogen are used or measured? Because Volts listeners just got an hour and a half earful of discussion of the clean Hydrogen Tax Credits last week, and the details are many, and they make a big gifference in how clean hydrogen is used, how it's measured sort of how its carbon intensity is assessed, how much end users are allowed to claim reductions from using it, et cetera, et cetera. Does EPA get into any of that? Or is this purely just, we're using this tech as a way to set the numerical standard, but the details of how a power plant might implement this is somebody else's problem.Lissa LynchSo they absolutely have some authority over how it gets used to comply with this standard. So for purposes of standard setting, they're looking kind of broadly at what the technology is capable of achieving, how it's been used in the past, how it could apply to power plants that exist now in terms of compliance, though, they've got the authority over CO2 essentially in this rulemaking. And so if a plant is going to demonstrate compliance using carbon capture and storage or hydrogen, they can absolutely include the types of rigorous monitoring and verification requirements they would need to see in order for a plant to be demonstrating compliance using one of these technologies.David RobertsRight? So they can get into saying, here's what does and doesn't qualify as full CCS like measured every so often, or this kind of geographical storage. They can't get into that?Lissa LynchI absolutely think so. I think they have authority to say you need to have rigorous monitoring and verification from the point of capture to the point of sequestration. And that needs to be part of your demonstration of compliance for using carbon capture. For hydrogen ... It's a little trickier.David RobertsI'm very aware at the moment.Lissa LynchTo the extent that there is going to be a pathway for hydrogen to be used for compliance, it's got to take into account where that hydrogen comes from, how it's made in order to avoid net emissions increases. And I think they absolutely have that authority. Given that the purpose of this is for the best system of emission reduction, they've got to ensure that it is truly reducing emissions.David RobertsMaybe they can just borrow whatever treasury comes up with for the hydrogen.Lissa LynchAssuming it's good.David RobertsYes, true. If EPA doesn't go with CCS, doesn't go with the high end here, what do you think it will do? Will it fall back to something medium, something in the fuel blending sort of range? And just more broadly, do we have any sense at all of what EPA is thinking or which direction it's going or what to expect?Lissa LynchI think in terms of publicly facing tea leaves, what we've got to look at really is that white paper from last year where they had laid out the options and said, hey, give us some comments on what you think of these options for reducing CO2 emissions from combustion turbines. From everything that we have seen from this administration, we are hoping that they're going to be ambitious. They know that this is a critical moment. They know that this is an important wedge of emissions, that the power sector is still a really significant percentage of our emissions, roughly a quarter, and that we need standards on those CO2 emissions and they need to be strong.And it's not going to be worth all this work, honestly, if they don't make them strong. And so that has been our message to the administration, is, look, if you're going to go through the trouble of doing this all over again, let's make it worth it.David RobertsIs Manchin he's like the monster under my bed at this point. Is there some way Manchin could burst out of the closet and screw this up somehow? Or is he ...Lissa LynchI hesitate to even speculate.David RobertsCan I just not think about him in this respect, or does he have some way that he could theoretically muck this up, or is this something that's finally just sort of beyond his reach?Lissa LynchI think for now, the ball is in EPA's court to come out with a proposal and to take public comments and to consider them. And so for right now, this is an EPA project. Once it's finalized, it will presumably be subject to a Congressional Review Act resolution, and it will depend on who is in charge as to what happens there. And so that's when Congress gets to have its veto opportunity over regulations, which is unfortunate, but it is the world we're living in.David RobertsAnd does that just require a majority or a supermajority?Lissa LynchI believe it's just a majority, but it can be blocked by the President.David RobertsRight. And by the time there's a new president, it'll be too late. We're coming in under the deadline that the Congressional Review Act, if it's going to happen at all, would happen under Biden and thus would be vetoed. So that's not really ...Lissa LynchAnd so that takes place at the final rule. So we're only at the proposal stage. We've got a long way to go.David RobertsIs it going to get done under the Congressional Review Act just to just explain to listeners? Congressional Review Act says basically Congress can undo or veto a regulation basically within a certain window of it being finalized which is 60 ...Lissa Lynch60 working days, which does not equal the calendar days.David RobertsRight. So what you want to do is get your regulations on the books more than 60 working days prior to the next presidential election.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsJust so you're sure your guys in charge, if it happens.Lissa LynchThe date that we are looking at is next April, roughly a year from now, for all of these regulations. Right. Like it's not just ...David RobertsThere's a lot these are not the only ones. There's a lot of there's a big backlog.Lissa LynchIt is. And we are seeing the use of the Congressional Review Act right now as we speak in this Congress with attempts to invalidate the rules that the administration has recently finalized. It is a terrible tool. It is not a good thing.David RobertsIt's a Newt Gingrich special, isn't it? Am I right about the history? Of course, like so many malignant things in our government treat.Lissa LynchBut it is the world we're living in, and I think the administration is aware of the timeline that's facing them next year.David RobertsInteresting. So you think a proposed rule is going to show up in the next month or two?Lissa LynchYeah, we're expecting a proposed rule maybe by the end of April. And then when ... you know what happens, that gets published in the Federal Register. There's an opportunity for public comment. There's public hearings. And so there will be sort of a flurry of activity as everybody gets their comments in, and then the agency has to review those comments and address them in the final rule. That's part of the sort of Administrative Law 101. And then they have to issue the final rule and demonstrate yeah, we heard all your comments, and this is why we made the decisions that we made.David RobertsAnd that's when the lawsuits kick off.Lissa LynchAnd that's when the lawsuits start. Exactly. We do it all over again. It's the circle of life.David RobertsYes. And what do you think of the chances that this Supreme Court ends up hearing a case on this again? Do you think the conservatives can mount a legal case plausible enough to get it back into the Supreme Court?Lissa LynchI would never speculate about what this Supreme Court will do, because who knows, right? Our job is to make this thing as airtight as possible. And Chief Justice Roberts gave us some guidelines and a roadmap in the West Virginia decision. He told us what he's looking for, and it's this sort of traditional looking approach to pollution control. And so that's what we're operating under. And we are urging EPA to follow those guidelines and do the most that they can within those constraints, and we'll be there to defend it with them if it comes down to that.David RobertsAll right, awesome. Lissa Lynch of NRDC, thank you for coming and forecasting and explaining all this with us. Maybe we'll talk again in that distant future day when these things are actually on the books and the lawsuits have started. We'll talk again.Lissa LynchThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Commissioner Ellen Nowak joined the Electric Wire podcast to reflect back on her 11 years at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, as her term comes to a close on March 1, 2023. Nowak joined episode co-hosts Sen. Julian Bradley (R-Franklin), Chair of Wisconsin's Senate Committee on Utilities and Technology, and CFC Executive Director Kristin Gilkes to recall memories from the past decade at the PSCW, including her work on issues such as modeling and educating about the impacts of the proposed Clean Power Plan, Economic Development Rates, overseeing the Focus on Energy program, cyber security issues, NARUC leadership, and much more. Interview begins just before the 5:00 mark. Links mentioned in the episode: NARUC Resolution: https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/64709C9B-1866-DAAC-99FB-CE1E322EBACF?_gl=1*qvn4o7*_ga*MTI3NTY0MjgwMS4xNjc3MTg5MjUw*_ga_QLH1N3Q1NF*MTY3NzE4OTI1MC4xLjEuMTY3NzE4OTI1My4wLjAuMA Electric Wire podcast, Episode 9 – Utility Regulation and Protecting Customers (with Commissioner Ellen Nowak) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5szygleajsI&t=618s

Mandy Gunasekara joins to discuss this month's policy focus: The Painful Reality of Expensive Heat. It's no coincidence that we picked this topic for February, typically the coldest month of the year. We look at the reasons you are paying more than ever to heat your home, why rolling brownouts and blackouts are more common, and why the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) trend ultimately increases global emissions. Finally, we discuss the launch of the new Center for Energy and Conservation.Mandy Gunasekara is a senior policy analyst at Independent Women's Forum. She is a veteran Republican climate and energy strategist, communicator, and environmental attorney with a well-earned reputation for delivering results. In 2020, she became a Principal at Section VII Strategies, a boutique energy, environmental, and tax policy consulting firm. Previously, Mandy served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where she set and implemented environmental policy priorities for the Trump-Pence administration. Prior to that, Mandy was the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. In this role, Mandy was the chief architect of the Paris Accord withdrawal and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. --She Thinks is a podcast for women (and men) who are sick of the spin in today's news cycle and are seeking the truth. Once a week, every week, She Thinks host Beverly Hallberg is joined by guests who cut through the clutter and bring you the facts. You don't have to keep up with policy and politics to understand how issues will impact you and the people you care about most. You just have to keep up with us. We make sure you have the information you need to come to your own conclusions. Because, let's face it, you're in control of your own life and can think for yourself. You can listen to the latest She Thinks episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community. Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most: https://iwf.org/connect. Independent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day. Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel. Follow IWF on social media: - on Twitter- on Facebook- on Instagram#IWF #SheThinks #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

ESG Decoded is a podcast powered by ClimeCo to share updates related to business innovation and sustainability in a clear and actionable manner. Annually observed in February, Black History Month recognizes the contributions and achievements made by those across the African diaspora. In this episode, we highlight a previous guest on the podcast and African American leader, Monique Cunningham, who drives transformation in the ESG space. To excel in today's competitive business environment, a successful ESG Leader needs a balance of compliance, sustainability, and project management skills backed by robust policy design expertise. In this episode, Kaitlyn Allen talks with Dr. Monique Cunningham, who has over 15 years of experience leading strategic ESG projects for high-profile organizations, including St. Thomas University, the City of Tallahassee, and the Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc. (OICA). Professional experience across the E, S, and G of ESG is rare, but Dr. Cunningham has it! In addition to her vast experience as a risk management and compliance professional, she holds a Doctorate in Law and Policy from Northeastern, an MBA from Nova Southeastern University, and a Bachelor's in Biology from Barry University. Listen as Kaitlyn and Monique remind us that the ‘G' in ESG is foundational; you cannot have the ‘E' and the ‘S' without Governance. The oversight and implementation of any ESG program or policy cannot occur in isolation; all ESG priorities must interlace throughout the organization. This is where governance becomes an elevated component of the process. The approach to governance must be in tandem with an organization's mission and values while aligning with its approach to compliance and risk mitigation matters. Make sure to subscribe to ESG Decoded on your favorite streaming platforms and our new YouTube Channel so that you're notified of our vodcast episodes! Don't forget to connect with us on our social media channels. Enjoy this episode! Interested in being a guest on the podcast? For consideration and scheduling, please fill out this form. Resource Links Monique Cunningham, LP.D, MBA, CSM, CCEP | LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/moniquencunningham/ Dissertation by Dr. Monique Cunningham: Florida and the Clean Power Plan: a state, a federal regulation, and a climate situation. (northeastern.edu): https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:cj82np663/fulltext.pdf Compliance Professional Resources (CCEP | SCCE Official Site: https://www.corporatecompliance.org/certification/become-certified/ccep Certified Environmental and Safety Compliance Officer (CESCO) | NREP: https://www.nrep.org/certifications/certified-environmental-and-safety-compliance-officer-cesco

In this episode of Commitment Matters, Mary speaks with Steve Gottheim, General Counsel for ALTA. You can contact Steve via email.During their conversation, Steve or Mary mentioned: Read up on the latest happenings in Congress here.The Major Questions Doctrine is described as the intention of clear congressional authority that Congress needs to carry when putting on a regulation that has significant economic or political impacts.An example of Major Questions Doctrine was West Virginia v. EPA and the Clean Power Plan. Read more about the case here.Steve specifically mentions the Administrative Procedures Act.This article offers a breakdown to understand more of the Dodd Frank Act, what it's comprised of and its implications. Mary and Steve discuss the authority behind TRID and RESPA regulation.Steve outlines Chevron deference and explains how it's connected to Major Questions Doctrine in case discussions. Here is an outline of Chevon U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the case in which the term Chevron deference comes from. Steve relates these concepts from the title and real estate perspective through Title X (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) and Title XIV (Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) of Dodd Frank.Read about the Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd.(CFSA), CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) case here. Steve explains how APA challenges work.Amicus briefs are usually filed in appellate courts by businesses, government entities and other associations toward a specific case to show the impact a case may have on people outside the parties involved. Take a look at some of the most recent examples of amicus briefs.You can now reach the Commitment Matters Podcast via phone! Got a topic or guest idea you want featured? Leave us a voice message at 214.377.1807 or email us at podcasts@ramquest.com.Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit RamQuest.com/podcast to download the latest episode.Lastly, we love to see when and how you're listening. Share our posts, or create your own and tag them: #CommitmentMattersPodcast

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA ruled that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to require a systematic shift to cleaner sources of electricity generation. Many fear this decision will be devastating to the agency's and the executive branch's ability to move the U.S. away from carbon-intensive energy sources and toward cleaner resources to address climate change in the accelerated timeline necessary to avoid its worst impacts. So, in this episode, Chad Reed sits down with Max Rodriguez, an attorney with Pollock Cohen and the primary author of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of 192 Members of Congress supporting the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. Max discusses in depth the history and justiciability of the case, the major questions doctrine underpinning it, the potentially far-reaching implications of the decision and the related non-delegation doctrine for federal environmental regulations going forward, and much more.Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed after this episode was recorded, amends the Clean Air Act to add several specific new programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide funding to the states to develop their own plans. Taken together, these provisions go a long way towards addressing the view of the 6-3 majority in West Virginia v. EPA that Congress has not been clear enough regarding the EPA's authority to tackle climate change. However, the new law may still fall short of granting EPA the authority to revive the generation-shifting approach struck down by the Court in this case. Links:West Virginia v. Environmental Protection AgencyBrief of 192 Members of Congress as Amici Curiae in Support of RespondentsArticle: The Inflation Reduction Act doesn't get around the Supreme Court's climate ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, but it does strengthen EPA's future abilities (The Conversation, August 24, 2022)Episode recorded: August 8, 2022

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, August 25th, 2022. Hope your week has been going well as we head in for yet another weekend, which means it’s probably a good time to remind you, about our conference! FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is 6-weeks away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-announces-plans-for-student-debt-relief?utm_campaign=64487 Biden announces plans for student debt relief On Wednesday, President Joe Biden formally announced the cancellation of $10,000 of student loan debt per borrower, and stressed the importance of higher education despite skyrocketing tuition costs. He did not address lowering tuition costs, or that it may be unfair to borrowers who paid their loans despite difficulties, and without forgiveness. https://rumble.com/v1h7d6v-biden-heres-what-my-administration-is-gonna-do-to-provide-more-breathing-ro.html - Play Video Biden said that around 90 percent of those that would qualify for the relief make under $75,000 per year. In addition to the initial $10,000, those that received Pell Grants would qualify to receive an additional $10,000 in cancellation debt, coming to a total of $20,000. He stressed that 95 percent of borrowers would benefit from these actions. And of the 43 million borrowers that would have debt cancelled, roughly 60 percent of those, 27 million people, are Pell Grant borrowers. Nearly 45 percent of people who took out federal student loans would be have the entirety of their federal student loans cancelled under this action. In his third point, Biden said that his administration would be fixing the student loan program system itself. Students would have their payments capped at 5 percent of their discretionary income for loan payments, down from 10 percent. He also said that after 20 years, a borrower’s payment obligation would be reached, and no further payment would be required. Biden also said that his administration would be fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which encourages graduates to pursue public service in exchange for forgiven loans. These fields include teaching, law enforcement, charity work, and military service, and those that serve in these positions and make loan payments for 10 years would have the remainder of their balance forgiven. After concluding his speech, Biden only addressed one question from the press regarding whether he had advanced notice of the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago. Questions regarding the fairness of the student loan debt cancellation for those who had repaid their loans already were not answered. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-lacks-authority-student-debt-handout-pelosi-warned-last-year Biden lacks authority for student debt handout, Pelosi warned last year last year, Pelosi poured cold water on the idea, saying that such a move was something reserved for an act of Congress, not the executive. https://twitter.com/i/status/1420417022786261002 - Play Video Her statements were in sharp contrast to those of Sen. Schumer, who claimed that the president could do such a sweeping move "with the flick of a pen." Alright, enough about this debt forgiveness, let’s head back to California! https://justthenews.com/nation/states/report-california-likely-ban-sales-gas-powered-cars-2035?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs California likely to ban sales of gas-powered cars by 2035 California this week is likely to enact a major rule to ban the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035, multiple media outlets reported on Wednesday. The regulation is expected to be handed down by the state's California Air Resources Board, which is set to vote on the matter on Thursday. Currently, 12 percent of cars sold in California are required to be fossil fuel-free. Estimates put the number of fully electric cars on the road in the U.S. at just under one percent. California is estimated to have nearly 30,000,000 drivers registered within the state. Supporters of the law praised its ambitious goals. “The climate crisis is solvable if we focus on the big, bold steps necessary to stem the tide of carbon pollution,” Gov. Gavin Newsom told media in a statement. Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who has worked with the EPA under multiple presidential administrations, told the New York Times that the development was "huge." https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/uvalde-families-to-file-27-billion-civil-lawsuit-against-police-gunmaker-over-school-shooting/ Uvalde families to file $27 billion civil lawsuit against police, gunmaker over school shooting The families of the victims and survivors of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, are preparing to file a massive lawsuit against the local and state police, the shop that sold gunman Salvador Ramos his weapon and the manufacturer who made the gun. Attorney Charles Bonner announced Sunday that he is filing a $27 billion civil rights lawsuit against the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Police Department, school police chief Pete Arredondo, sheriff’s offices, the Texas Rangers, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Border Patrol, the Uvalde Independent School District school board, the Uvalde City Council and the City of Uvalde. Also listed in the lawsuit are gun manufacturer Daniel Defense and Oasis Outback, where Ramos bought the gun. “People have a right to life under the 14th Amendment, and what we’ve seen here is that the law enforcement agencies have shown a deliberate conscious disregard of the life,” Bonner told KSAT. “Everyone in this world are hurting and bleeding about what is happening here in Uvalde. And it’s up to us to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Nineteen students and two teachers were gunned down inside their classrooms on May 24 as hundreds of police officers poured into the school and stood by as Ramos laid waste to the school. Arredondo, the on-scene commander, was placed on unpaid leave in late June and the school superintendent has recommended he be fired. The 376 responding officers “failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety,” according to the report. Bonner said he is preparing the lawsuit to file in September. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-government-imposes-first-of-its-kind-fee-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions_4684606.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport Federal Government Imposes First-of-Its-Kind Fee on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hidden deep within the over 700 pages of the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a brand-new provision intended to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, the IRA establishes the “Methane Emission Reduction Program” under a new section in the Clean Air Act, allowing the EPA to impose a fee on certain “climate pollutions.” Importantly, this is the first time the federal government has ever imposed a fee on any GHG emission and is part of Congress’ effort to bolster the EPA’s power to address the “climate crisis.” In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA didn’t have the authority under the Clean Air Act or the Clean Power Plan to essentially force power plants to transition more towards wind and solar. Moreover, SCOTUS determined that the interpretive question raised under the Clean Power Plan fell under the “major questions doctrine,” which states that Congress must make a “clear statement” if it wants to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” Notably, the ruling expressly limited the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, which President Joe Biden called “devastating.” Biden further added that he planned to “find ways that we can, under federal law, continue protecting Americans from harmful pollution, including pollution that causes climate change.” The IRA includes several tax credits, incentives, and grants, totaling $369 billion for “Energy Security and Climate Change investments.” And the above investments include over $1.5 billion to the EPA for “grants, rebates, contracts, loans” and “other activities” to reduce GHG emissions in the natural gas and oil sector. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and the EPA reports that methane emissions accounted for 11 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2020. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) accounted for 79 percent. Further, Biden made it clear that by 2030, he wants GHG emissions reduced by 40 percent compared to 2005 levels. And reduction levels of that amount require significant transformation. The IRA’s passage and its implementation of a methane charge put Biden’s goals within reach. Indeed, the Department of Energy reports that thanks to the IRA, the United States will not only meet the 40 percent reduction goal but exceed it as it now projects GHG emissions at 50-52 percent below 2005 levels. Interestingly, according to the EPA, the primary source for methane emissions isn’t natural gas or oil—it’s livestock. Before we go today, we gotta wrap up with sports right? https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/kevin-durant-moving-forward-with-nets-after-trade-demand-saga/ Kevin Durant ‘moving forward’ with Nets after trade demand saga Kevin Durant is staying put in Brooklyn. And the Nets aren’t just running it back for a year — they’re together for the long term. Nets general manager Sean Marks said in a statement Tuesday that after a face-to-face to clear the air, the Nets and Durant — who’d first requested a trade, then the firing of Marks and coach Steve Nash in order to stay — are “moving forward” together to chase the franchise’s first-ever NBA championship. A highly placed Nets source amplified that this was not simply a case of cajoling Durant to stay for the upcoming season, to take a final all-or-nothing shot at a title with Kyrie Irving before trading him next summer. While Durant could always make another heel turn, all parties left that meeting at least expecting this to be a long-term marriage, albeit one with plenty to work through. The Post had reported weeks ago that Durant was trending toward being present at training camp, which starts Sept. 27. But after this meeting the Nets expect Durant to fulfil the four-year, $198 million extension he signed last August that kicks in this upcoming season. It remains to be seen how much reconciliation is needed between Durant and the men he tried to get fired. It should also be noted that he went from inking a deal without a no-trade clause or trade kicker a year ago to requesting a trade in June, from wanting his GM and coach fired two weeks ago to supposedly buying in now. The drama brings to mind the summer 2007 episode when Kobe Bryant went on LA radio and requested a trade from the Lakers. But after testing the market and finding nothing to approximate the all-time great, the Lakers held onto him and reached the Finals that following season, with Bryant winning MVP This has been your CrossPolitic Daily NewsBrief. If you liked the show, share it far and wide. If you’d like to sign up for a club membership, sign up for our conference in Knoxville, or sign up for our magazine, you can do all of that at fightlaughfeast.com. And as always, if you’d like to send me a news story, ask about our conference, or become a corporate partner of CrossPolitic, email me, at garrison@fightlaughfeast.com. For CrossPolitic News, I’m Garrison Hardie. Have a great day, and Lord bless.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, August 25th, 2022. Hope your week has been going well as we head in for yet another weekend, which means it’s probably a good time to remind you, about our conference! FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is 6-weeks away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-announces-plans-for-student-debt-relief?utm_campaign=64487 Biden announces plans for student debt relief On Wednesday, President Joe Biden formally announced the cancellation of $10,000 of student loan debt per borrower, and stressed the importance of higher education despite skyrocketing tuition costs. He did not address lowering tuition costs, or that it may be unfair to borrowers who paid their loans despite difficulties, and without forgiveness. https://rumble.com/v1h7d6v-biden-heres-what-my-administration-is-gonna-do-to-provide-more-breathing-ro.html - Play Video Biden said that around 90 percent of those that would qualify for the relief make under $75,000 per year. In addition to the initial $10,000, those that received Pell Grants would qualify to receive an additional $10,000 in cancellation debt, coming to a total of $20,000. He stressed that 95 percent of borrowers would benefit from these actions. And of the 43 million borrowers that would have debt cancelled, roughly 60 percent of those, 27 million people, are Pell Grant borrowers. Nearly 45 percent of people who took out federal student loans would be have the entirety of their federal student loans cancelled under this action. In his third point, Biden said that his administration would be fixing the student loan program system itself. Students would have their payments capped at 5 percent of their discretionary income for loan payments, down from 10 percent. He also said that after 20 years, a borrower’s payment obligation would be reached, and no further payment would be required. Biden also said that his administration would be fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which encourages graduates to pursue public service in exchange for forgiven loans. These fields include teaching, law enforcement, charity work, and military service, and those that serve in these positions and make loan payments for 10 years would have the remainder of their balance forgiven. After concluding his speech, Biden only addressed one question from the press regarding whether he had advanced notice of the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago. Questions regarding the fairness of the student loan debt cancellation for those who had repaid their loans already were not answered. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-lacks-authority-student-debt-handout-pelosi-warned-last-year Biden lacks authority for student debt handout, Pelosi warned last year last year, Pelosi poured cold water on the idea, saying that such a move was something reserved for an act of Congress, not the executive. https://twitter.com/i/status/1420417022786261002 - Play Video Her statements were in sharp contrast to those of Sen. Schumer, who claimed that the president could do such a sweeping move "with the flick of a pen." Alright, enough about this debt forgiveness, let’s head back to California! https://justthenews.com/nation/states/report-california-likely-ban-sales-gas-powered-cars-2035?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs California likely to ban sales of gas-powered cars by 2035 California this week is likely to enact a major rule to ban the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035, multiple media outlets reported on Wednesday. The regulation is expected to be handed down by the state's California Air Resources Board, which is set to vote on the matter on Thursday. Currently, 12 percent of cars sold in California are required to be fossil fuel-free. Estimates put the number of fully electric cars on the road in the U.S. at just under one percent. California is estimated to have nearly 30,000,000 drivers registered within the state. Supporters of the law praised its ambitious goals. “The climate crisis is solvable if we focus on the big, bold steps necessary to stem the tide of carbon pollution,” Gov. Gavin Newsom told media in a statement. Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who has worked with the EPA under multiple presidential administrations, told the New York Times that the development was "huge." https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/uvalde-families-to-file-27-billion-civil-lawsuit-against-police-gunmaker-over-school-shooting/ Uvalde families to file $27 billion civil lawsuit against police, gunmaker over school shooting The families of the victims and survivors of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, are preparing to file a massive lawsuit against the local and state police, the shop that sold gunman Salvador Ramos his weapon and the manufacturer who made the gun. Attorney Charles Bonner announced Sunday that he is filing a $27 billion civil rights lawsuit against the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Police Department, school police chief Pete Arredondo, sheriff’s offices, the Texas Rangers, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Border Patrol, the Uvalde Independent School District school board, the Uvalde City Council and the City of Uvalde. Also listed in the lawsuit are gun manufacturer Daniel Defense and Oasis Outback, where Ramos bought the gun. “People have a right to life under the 14th Amendment, and what we’ve seen here is that the law enforcement agencies have shown a deliberate conscious disregard of the life,” Bonner told KSAT. “Everyone in this world are hurting and bleeding about what is happening here in Uvalde. And it’s up to us to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Nineteen students and two teachers were gunned down inside their classrooms on May 24 as hundreds of police officers poured into the school and stood by as Ramos laid waste to the school. Arredondo, the on-scene commander, was placed on unpaid leave in late June and the school superintendent has recommended he be fired. The 376 responding officers “failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety,” according to the report. Bonner said he is preparing the lawsuit to file in September. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-government-imposes-first-of-its-kind-fee-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions_4684606.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport Federal Government Imposes First-of-Its-Kind Fee on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hidden deep within the over 700 pages of the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a brand-new provision intended to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, the IRA establishes the “Methane Emission Reduction Program” under a new section in the Clean Air Act, allowing the EPA to impose a fee on certain “climate pollutions.” Importantly, this is the first time the federal government has ever imposed a fee on any GHG emission and is part of Congress’ effort to bolster the EPA’s power to address the “climate crisis.” In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA didn’t have the authority under the Clean Air Act or the Clean Power Plan to essentially force power plants to transition more towards wind and solar. Moreover, SCOTUS determined that the interpretive question raised under the Clean Power Plan fell under the “major questions doctrine,” which states that Congress must make a “clear statement” if it wants to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” Notably, the ruling expressly limited the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, which President Joe Biden called “devastating.” Biden further added that he planned to “find ways that we can, under federal law, continue protecting Americans from harmful pollution, including pollution that causes climate change.” The IRA includes several tax credits, incentives, and grants, totaling $369 billion for “Energy Security and Climate Change investments.” And the above investments include over $1.5 billion to the EPA for “grants, rebates, contracts, loans” and “other activities” to reduce GHG emissions in the natural gas and oil sector. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and the EPA reports that methane emissions accounted for 11 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2020. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) accounted for 79 percent. Further, Biden made it clear that by 2030, he wants GHG emissions reduced by 40 percent compared to 2005 levels. And reduction levels of that amount require significant transformation. The IRA’s passage and its implementation of a methane charge put Biden’s goals within reach. Indeed, the Department of Energy reports that thanks to the IRA, the United States will not only meet the 40 percent reduction goal but exceed it as it now projects GHG emissions at 50-52 percent below 2005 levels. Interestingly, according to the EPA, the primary source for methane emissions isn’t natural gas or oil—it’s livestock. Before we go today, we gotta wrap up with sports right? https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/kevin-durant-moving-forward-with-nets-after-trade-demand-saga/ Kevin Durant ‘moving forward’ with Nets after trade demand saga Kevin Durant is staying put in Brooklyn. And the Nets aren’t just running it back for a year — they’re together for the long term. Nets general manager Sean Marks said in a statement Tuesday that after a face-to-face to clear the air, the Nets and Durant — who’d first requested a trade, then the firing of Marks and coach Steve Nash in order to stay — are “moving forward” together to chase the franchise’s first-ever NBA championship. A highly placed Nets source amplified that this was not simply a case of cajoling Durant to stay for the upcoming season, to take a final all-or-nothing shot at a title with Kyrie Irving before trading him next summer. While Durant could always make another heel turn, all parties left that meeting at least expecting this to be a long-term marriage, albeit one with plenty to work through. The Post had reported weeks ago that Durant was trending toward being present at training camp, which starts Sept. 27. But after this meeting the Nets expect Durant to fulfil the four-year, $198 million extension he signed last August that kicks in this upcoming season. It remains to be seen how much reconciliation is needed between Durant and the men he tried to get fired. It should also be noted that he went from inking a deal without a no-trade clause or trade kicker a year ago to requesting a trade in June, from wanting his GM and coach fired two weeks ago to supposedly buying in now. The drama brings to mind the summer 2007 episode when Kobe Bryant went on LA radio and requested a trade from the Lakers. But after testing the market and finding nothing to approximate the all-time great, the Lakers held onto him and reached the Finals that following season, with Bryant winning MVP This has been your CrossPolitic Daily NewsBrief. If you liked the show, share it far and wide. If you’d like to sign up for a club membership, sign up for our conference in Knoxville, or sign up for our magazine, you can do all of that at fightlaughfeast.com. And as always, if you’d like to send me a news story, ask about our conference, or become a corporate partner of CrossPolitic, email me, at garrison@fightlaughfeast.com. For CrossPolitic News, I’m Garrison Hardie. Have a great day, and Lord bless.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, August 25th, 2022. Hope your week has been going well as we head in for yet another weekend, which means it’s probably a good time to remind you, about our conference! FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is 6-weeks away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-announces-plans-for-student-debt-relief?utm_campaign=64487 Biden announces plans for student debt relief On Wednesday, President Joe Biden formally announced the cancellation of $10,000 of student loan debt per borrower, and stressed the importance of higher education despite skyrocketing tuition costs. He did not address lowering tuition costs, or that it may be unfair to borrowers who paid their loans despite difficulties, and without forgiveness. https://rumble.com/v1h7d6v-biden-heres-what-my-administration-is-gonna-do-to-provide-more-breathing-ro.html - Play Video Biden said that around 90 percent of those that would qualify for the relief make under $75,000 per year. In addition to the initial $10,000, those that received Pell Grants would qualify to receive an additional $10,000 in cancellation debt, coming to a total of $20,000. He stressed that 95 percent of borrowers would benefit from these actions. And of the 43 million borrowers that would have debt cancelled, roughly 60 percent of those, 27 million people, are Pell Grant borrowers. Nearly 45 percent of people who took out federal student loans would be have the entirety of their federal student loans cancelled under this action. In his third point, Biden said that his administration would be fixing the student loan program system itself. Students would have their payments capped at 5 percent of their discretionary income for loan payments, down from 10 percent. He also said that after 20 years, a borrower’s payment obligation would be reached, and no further payment would be required. Biden also said that his administration would be fixing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which encourages graduates to pursue public service in exchange for forgiven loans. These fields include teaching, law enforcement, charity work, and military service, and those that serve in these positions and make loan payments for 10 years would have the remainder of their balance forgiven. After concluding his speech, Biden only addressed one question from the press regarding whether he had advanced notice of the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago. Questions regarding the fairness of the student loan debt cancellation for those who had repaid their loans already were not answered. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-lacks-authority-student-debt-handout-pelosi-warned-last-year Biden lacks authority for student debt handout, Pelosi warned last year last year, Pelosi poured cold water on the idea, saying that such a move was something reserved for an act of Congress, not the executive. https://twitter.com/i/status/1420417022786261002 - Play Video Her statements were in sharp contrast to those of Sen. Schumer, who claimed that the president could do such a sweeping move "with the flick of a pen." Alright, enough about this debt forgiveness, let’s head back to California! https://justthenews.com/nation/states/report-california-likely-ban-sales-gas-powered-cars-2035?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs California likely to ban sales of gas-powered cars by 2035 California this week is likely to enact a major rule to ban the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035, multiple media outlets reported on Wednesday. The regulation is expected to be handed down by the state's California Air Resources Board, which is set to vote on the matter on Thursday. Currently, 12 percent of cars sold in California are required to be fossil fuel-free. Estimates put the number of fully electric cars on the road in the U.S. at just under one percent. California is estimated to have nearly 30,000,000 drivers registered within the state. Supporters of the law praised its ambitious goals. “The climate crisis is solvable if we focus on the big, bold steps necessary to stem the tide of carbon pollution,” Gov. Gavin Newsom told media in a statement. Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who has worked with the EPA under multiple presidential administrations, told the New York Times that the development was "huge." https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/uvalde-families-to-file-27-billion-civil-lawsuit-against-police-gunmaker-over-school-shooting/ Uvalde families to file $27 billion civil lawsuit against police, gunmaker over school shooting The families of the victims and survivors of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, are preparing to file a massive lawsuit against the local and state police, the shop that sold gunman Salvador Ramos his weapon and the manufacturer who made the gun. Attorney Charles Bonner announced Sunday that he is filing a $27 billion civil rights lawsuit against the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Police Department, school police chief Pete Arredondo, sheriff’s offices, the Texas Rangers, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Border Patrol, the Uvalde Independent School District school board, the Uvalde City Council and the City of Uvalde. Also listed in the lawsuit are gun manufacturer Daniel Defense and Oasis Outback, where Ramos bought the gun. “People have a right to life under the 14th Amendment, and what we’ve seen here is that the law enforcement agencies have shown a deliberate conscious disregard of the life,” Bonner told KSAT. “Everyone in this world are hurting and bleeding about what is happening here in Uvalde. And it’s up to us to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Nineteen students and two teachers were gunned down inside their classrooms on May 24 as hundreds of police officers poured into the school and stood by as Ramos laid waste to the school. Arredondo, the on-scene commander, was placed on unpaid leave in late June and the school superintendent has recommended he be fired. The 376 responding officers “failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety,” according to the report. Bonner said he is preparing the lawsuit to file in September. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-government-imposes-first-of-its-kind-fee-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions_4684606.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport Federal Government Imposes First-of-Its-Kind Fee on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hidden deep within the over 700 pages of the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a brand-new provision intended to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) power to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, the IRA establishes the “Methane Emission Reduction Program” under a new section in the Clean Air Act, allowing the EPA to impose a fee on certain “climate pollutions.” Importantly, this is the first time the federal government has ever imposed a fee on any GHG emission and is part of Congress’ effort to bolster the EPA’s power to address the “climate crisis.” In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA didn’t have the authority under the Clean Air Act or the Clean Power Plan to essentially force power plants to transition more towards wind and solar. Moreover, SCOTUS determined that the interpretive question raised under the Clean Power Plan fell under the “major questions doctrine,” which states that Congress must make a “clear statement” if it wants to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” Notably, the ruling expressly limited the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, which President Joe Biden called “devastating.” Biden further added that he planned to “find ways that we can, under federal law, continue protecting Americans from harmful pollution, including pollution that causes climate change.” The IRA includes several tax credits, incentives, and grants, totaling $369 billion for “Energy Security and Climate Change investments.” And the above investments include over $1.5 billion to the EPA for “grants, rebates, contracts, loans” and “other activities” to reduce GHG emissions in the natural gas and oil sector. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and the EPA reports that methane emissions accounted for 11 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2020. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) accounted for 79 percent. Further, Biden made it clear that by 2030, he wants GHG emissions reduced by 40 percent compared to 2005 levels. And reduction levels of that amount require significant transformation. The IRA’s passage and its implementation of a methane charge put Biden’s goals within reach. Indeed, the Department of Energy reports that thanks to the IRA, the United States will not only meet the 40 percent reduction goal but exceed it as it now projects GHG emissions at 50-52 percent below 2005 levels. Interestingly, according to the EPA, the primary source for methane emissions isn’t natural gas or oil—it’s livestock. Before we go today, we gotta wrap up with sports right? https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/kevin-durant-moving-forward-with-nets-after-trade-demand-saga/ Kevin Durant ‘moving forward’ with Nets after trade demand saga Kevin Durant is staying put in Brooklyn. And the Nets aren’t just running it back for a year — they’re together for the long term. Nets general manager Sean Marks said in a statement Tuesday that after a face-to-face to clear the air, the Nets and Durant — who’d first requested a trade, then the firing of Marks and coach Steve Nash in order to stay — are “moving forward” together to chase the franchise’s first-ever NBA championship. A highly placed Nets source amplified that this was not simply a case of cajoling Durant to stay for the upcoming season, to take a final all-or-nothing shot at a title with Kyrie Irving before trading him next summer. While Durant could always make another heel turn, all parties left that meeting at least expecting this to be a long-term marriage, albeit one with plenty to work through. The Post had reported weeks ago that Durant was trending toward being present at training camp, which starts Sept. 27. But after this meeting the Nets expect Durant to fulfil the four-year, $198 million extension he signed last August that kicks in this upcoming season. It remains to be seen how much reconciliation is needed between Durant and the men he tried to get fired. It should also be noted that he went from inking a deal without a no-trade clause or trade kicker a year ago to requesting a trade in June, from wanting his GM and coach fired two weeks ago to supposedly buying in now. The drama brings to mind the summer 2007 episode when Kobe Bryant went on LA radio and requested a trade from the Lakers. But after testing the market and finding nothing to approximate the all-time great, the Lakers held onto him and reached the Finals that following season, with Bryant winning MVP This has been your CrossPolitic Daily NewsBrief. If you liked the show, share it far and wide. If you’d like to sign up for a club membership, sign up for our conference in Knoxville, or sign up for our magazine, you can do all of that at fightlaughfeast.com. And as always, if you’d like to send me a news story, ask about our conference, or become a corporate partner of CrossPolitic, email me, at garrison@fightlaughfeast.com. For CrossPolitic News, I’m Garrison Hardie. Have a great day, and Lord bless.

In the historic decision of West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act doesn't authorize EPA to force America's electricity sector to switch to renewable sources. The Court invalidated the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have limited the total allowable greenhouse gas emissions of each state's utility sector under the banner of “performance standards” for power plants. That was the regulatory strategy the EPA had pursued for cutting emissions from electricity generation. Consequently, the decision closes the window on the most viable regulatory route for sweeping climate action by federal agencies without a clear congressional mandate, while raising the bar still higher for options such as NAAQS for greenhouse gases.The decision's linchpin was the Court's holding that the Obama Administration's novel interpretation of a 50-year old statutory provision could not be used to support the broad new powers that EPA had claimed for itself in the Clean Power Plan. Under the court's “major question doctrine,” Congress must speak clearly to delegate “decisions of vast economic and political significance” to an agency. Together with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who in concurrence further elaborated on his view of non-delegation, the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts signaled that the Court is likely to reject major regulatory innovations by federal agencies that are not based on clear statutory authority.Featuring:Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, BerkeleyAdam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, BoeingMario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute[Moderator] James Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan's merits.This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA's use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:-- David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA-- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.-- Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group's Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

In this episode of S&C Critical Insights, Judd Littleton, Julia Malkina and Morgan Ratner introduce the third annual podcast series accompanying S&C's Supreme Court Business Review. The Review summarizes the decisions from each Term that are most relevant to business leaders, and offers practical guidance on the implications of those decisions. Judd, Julia and Morgan preview upcoming episodes and discuss two closely watched administrative law decisions from this Term. The first is National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, in which the Court considered whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had the authority to implement a national COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The second is West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court considered whether the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to issue the Clean Power Plan, which established carbon dioxide emissions limits for coal power plants. They also briefly touch on the Court's decision in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, in which the Court declined to address the continued viability of the Chevron doctrine in a case addressing how the Department of Health and Human Services sets drug reimbursement rates for hospitals treating Medicare patients. S&C's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Led by former Acting Solicitor General of the United States Jeffrey Wall—who has argued more than 30 times before the U.S. Supreme Court—and drawing on the experience of 17 former U.S. Supreme Court clerks and more than 80 former federal circuit court clerks, S&C's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice adeptly handles challenging and high-profile appeals around the country. Our Supreme Court and Appellate lawyers collectively have significant experience before the Supreme Court and scores of other federal and state courts of appeals.

P&C drink and review a homebrewed India Pale Ale, then discuss the recent SCOTUS decision on EPA over-reach. The boys do a quick review of the role of administrative agencies and their authority to regulate, and how that relates to Congressional authority to control things through legislation. Then they look at the specific issues relating to EPA's Clean Power Plan, where they forced coal-burning plants to reduce their emissions to levels based on a switch to natural gas. This case illustrates a big difference between the political left and the right. The left doesn't care as much about legal authority if they agree with the goal. They also love to push the idea of a crisis, because when you're in a crisis, legal authority and procedures don't matter as much. The right puts more of an emphasis on restraints on power and respect for legitimate authority. They don't want government by crisis.

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan's merits.This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA's use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.Featuring: David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPAJustin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.

We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine."

The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, held that the EPA's Clean Power Plan wasn't authorized under the Clean Air Act. Under this rule, the agency was trying to dictate how the entire country generates electricity, mandating a shift from conventional energy to renewable energy. In this debut edition of the Center for Energy, Climate […]

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term last month with a series of high-profile and controversial decisions — including on the case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In that opinion, a 6-3 majority determined the EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants based on the “generation shifting” approach used in the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.Conservative leaders applauded the decision for reigning in regulatory overreach, while liberals and environmentalists expressed shock and dismay at restrictions placed on rules to reduce emissions. What the Supreme Court case ultimately means for climate action is complex. There are regulations the EPA can still pursue. At the same time, a legal shadow now hangs over government agencies amid ongoing gridlock in Congress. To discuss the path forward, Political Climate hosts Julia Pyper and Shane Skelton are joined by Jay Duffy, an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force, who represented a diverse group of environmental and public health organizations in the West Virginia v. EPA case.Listen and subscribe to Political Climate on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher or pretty much wherever you get podcasts! Follow us on Twitter at @Poli_Climate. While you're here, please leave a review! Thank you.Recommended reading:Clean Air Task Force: Supreme Court takes key tool out of EPA's toolbox, but multiple options remain for agency to regulate climate pollutionCanary Media: Supreme Court hamstrings federal efforts to clean up US power sectorCanary Media: Most voters support EPA limiting CO2 pollution from power plants Politico: 'We don't have to pretend anymore': Greens ready to bail on D.C. Political Climate is brought to you by MCE. Today, MCE offers nearly 40 Bay Area communities almost twice as much renewable energy as the state average. The power of MCE is about more than clean energy — it's the power of people over profit. Learn more at mceCleanEnergy.org

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Wednesday July 6h, 2022 FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is just 4-months away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. . 476K Migrant Got-Aways Recorded in 2022 So Far https://www.breitbart.com/border/2022/07/05/exclusive-476k-migrant-got-aways-recorded-in-2022-so-far/ According to Breitbart: “More than 476,000 migrants eluded apprehension by the Border Patrol this fiscal year, according to a source within Customs and Border Protection. The total already eclipses the 389,000 got-aways from FY2021. The source says the number, recorded daily, is based on evidence collected by a range of technology systems and aerial drones that capture images. The metric is usually not released by CBP. Historically, the Border Patrol has relied upon traditional sign-cutting techniques to locate and count footprints and other physical evidence left behind at popular migrant crossings. The latter metric has been all but removed from the equation because manpower is redirected to daily migrant care. The average migrant got-away count, recorded since the fiscal year began in October, remains at roughly 1,700 per day. According to the source, more than 7,000 migrants are arrested by the agency on most days. In some areas, large migrant groups are taxing Border Patrol resources and contributing to the increase in got-aways. As reported by Breitbart Texas, in one Texas border town, 1,772 migrants were apprehended in one day. In April, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified to members of the House Judiciary Committee that there were more than 389,000 got-aways in FY 2021. At the current pace, the total projected number of got-aways will nearly double last year’s count, according to the source. The source says the situation along the southern border will likely worsen. After a recent Supreme Court ruling, DHS will soon end the Trump era Migrant Protection Protocol program also known as Remain in Mexico. DHS Secretary Mayorkas expressed his approval over the ruling that allows the agency to stop returning migrants to Mexico to await asylum processing.” 23 Million California Residents to Receive up to $1,050 in Inflation Relief Funds https://finance.yahoo.com/news/23-million-california-residents-receive-155218841.html According to Yahoo: “On June 30, California approved an inflation relief package — one which will see 23 million residents of the state receive a direct payment of up to $1,050. The $17 billion inflation relief package includes $9.5 billion for tax refunds to help address inflation and offset rising prices. Governor Gavin newsom and Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said in a joint statement” “California’s budget addresses the state’s most pressing needs, and prioritizes getting dollars back into the pockets of millions of Californians who are grappling with global inflation and rising prices of everything from gas to groceries,” “The centerpiece of the agreement, a $17 billion inflation relief package, will offer tax refunds to millions of working Californians. Twenty-three million Californians will benefit from direct payments of up to $1,050. The package will also include a suspension of the state sales tax on diesel, and additional funds to help people pay their rent and utility bills,” they added. The amount of the California inflation relief payments varies depending on the income and dependents in the household, and eligibility is divided into three categories. Payments are expected to be going out to individuals by the end of Oct. 2022 and conclude by the middle of Jan. 2023, according to California’s Franchise Tax Board. Couples filing jointly with an income of $150,000 or less can receive $1,050 with a dependent, and $700 without a dependent. Couples with an income of $150,001 to $250,000 will receive $750 with a dependent and $500 without a dependent. Couples filing jointly with an income of $250,001 to $500,000 are slated to receive $600 with a dependent and $400 without one. For heads of households making $150,000 or less, they qualify for $700 with a dependent and $350 without. Those with an income of $150,001 to $250,000 qualify for $500 with a dependent and $250 without. As for those with an income of $250,001 to $500,000, they qualify for $400 with a dependent, and $200 without.” CPI projections, which are low, project that the average household will experience an increase in about $5K of inflated expenses as a result of inflation…but I think it will be more like $15 to $20K. New York Effectively Nullifies The Supreme Court’s Latest Pro-Second Amendment Decision https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/05/new-york-effectively-nullifies-the-supreme-courts-latest-pro-second-amendment-decision/ According to the Federalist: “New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ushered in the long Independence Day weekend by signing legislation crafted in response to Supreme Court’s recent decision. he U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, both in their homes and in public. On Friday, New York responded that it didn’t care. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ushered in the long Independence Day weekend on Friday by signing into law legislation crafted in response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Just more than a week earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen had declared that New York’s prior “may issue” gun licensing scheme, which prohibited individuals from carrying concealed handguns unless they “demonstrate[d] a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” violated the Second Amendment. In reaching that conclusion, the high court stressed that the right to “bear arms,” by necessity, applies outside the home. The New York legislature responded by calling an extraordinary session and then passing the bill Hochul signed into law on Friday. That hastily passed statute established detailed regulations governing a citizen’s right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon and added restrictive limits to where such concealed weapons could be carried. Both aspects of the New York legislation run headlong into the Supreme Court’s analysis in Bruen—and potentially First Amendment jurisprudence. … The larger constitutional problem with New York’s revised conceal-carry law concerns the state’s attempt to, in essence, declare most public spaces “sensitive locations” in which guns cannot be carried even by permitted individuals. Specifically, the statute makes it a felony to carry firearms “in or upon a sensitive location,” then provides an exhaustive list of sensitive locations which, because of its constitutional significance, is excerpted in full below: (a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts; (b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services; (c) any place of worship or religious observation; (d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos; (e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York; (f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; (g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities; (h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports; (i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health; (j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance; (k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence; (l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health; (m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools; (n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals; (o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption; (p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission; (q) any location being used as a polling place; (r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage; (s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble; (t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage. Merely skimming these provisions confirms the breadth of the new law, which leaves New York residents with few public places where they may legally carry a gun for self-defense. That bottom line strikes to the core of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen that the Second Amendment guarantees a right for law-abiding, responsible citizens to carry a firearm in public for purposes of self-defense. New York’s expansive list of supposedly “sensitive locations” likewise ignores the Supreme Court’s analysis in Bruen.” Armored Republic The Mission of Armored Republic is to Honor Christ by equipping Free Men with Tools of Liberty necessary to preserve God-given rights. In the Armored Republic there is no King but Christ. We are Free Craftsmen. Body Armor is a Tool of Liberty. We create Tools of Liberty. Free men must remain ever vigilant against tyranny wherever it appears. God has given us the tools of liberty needed to defend the rights He bestowed to us. Armored Republic is honored to offer you those Tools. Visit them, at ar500armor.com After SCOTUS win on EPA case, Patrick Morrisey takes aim at SEC https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/satafter-scotus-win-epa-case-wv-ag-patrick-morrisey-takes-aim-sec According to Just the News “After the Supreme Court handed him a win on Thursday limiting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, West Virginia Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey next takes aim at the Biden administration's effort to use its powers to regulate capital markets through the Securities and Exchange Commission to push its environmental agenda. The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the EPA's ability to restrict power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act. Morrisey, who brought the suit on behalf of his coal-dependent state, celebrated the ruling on the John Solomon Reports podcast. The legal implications of the decision far transcend environmental policy alone, according to the attorney general. "We wanted to say this is really about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change, because it was about who gets to make the major decisions of the day, not necessarily what those decisions are, but who gets to make it," said Morrisey. "And the reason that's so important, is because when you have something so fundamental, a vast economic and political significance, you want the people's representatives to make a decision, and to have clear statements, clear lines of delegation to the federal agencies," he added. "And that did not happen here. That's why the court said that it was not going to allow the Clean Power Plan or similar type of regulation to go forward." Morrisey expressed optimism that the ruling would effectively limit overreach by federal regulators and arm states with a legal basis to challenge similar initiatives in the future. "I think it helps really solidify this major questions doctrine, so that you're gonna be able to limit when the bureaucrats can reach down, seize power, and try to take some one strand of ambiguity and turn it into a major rulemaking with incredible burdens on the American people," he said. "And so I am really gratified that the court resolves it on those grounds, as opposed to just merely some technical grounds." Rush toward green energy has left US 'incredibly' vulnerable to summer blackouts, expert warns https://www.foxnews.com/us/rush-green-energy-has-left-us-incredibly-vulnerable-summer-blackouts-expert-warns Did you know renewable energy is putting the country at risk of power outages this summer? The government’s push to renewable energy and away from traditional energy sources is silly. Daniel Turner, founder and executive director at Power the Future told Fox News that he “think(s) the entire country is incredibly vulnerable, because the entire country is facing a huge energy shortage and I don’t think there is any place that is truly safe,", told Fox News. Turner went on to argue that outages will most likely affect the poor and minority neighborhoods. "They will choose what neighborhoods go into darkness," Turner said. "Historically, when we have done this, we have chosen poor and usually minority neighborhoods to do that." Previously planned power outages in states such as California have a history of disproportionately impacting poor neighborhoods, including one instance in 2019 where a poor, mostly Hispanic neighborhood in Sonoma County had its power cut for eight days in October. The deliberate outages not only plunged residents of the area into darkness for days, but the resulting food spoilage strained already tight budgets. "Even if the electricity doesn’t arrive… the bills do," one resident said at the time. "Look who they shut off. Have you ever seen a Kardashian complain about lack of power, or Silicon Valley… Facebook’s headquarters? They’re all fine… they’re never the ones plunged into darkness," Turner said. Washington Post says you need to “calm down and back off” regarding inflation: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6308394937112 Play clip: start to .54 mark This is the Waterboy with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. We appreciate your sharing this news brief with your friends, joining our club, and we hope to see you at our Fight Laugh Feast conference Oct. 6th-8th in Knoxville. You can take all these steps at www.FightLaughFeast.com.

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Wednesday July 6h, 2022 FLF Conference Plug: Folks, our upcoming Fight Laugh Feast Conference is just 4-months away from happening in Knoxville TN, October 6-8! Don't miss beer & psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers which includes George Gilder, Jared Longshore, Pastor Wilson, Dr. Ben Merkle, Pastor Toby, and we can’t say yet…also dont miss our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and stuff for the kids too…like jumpy castles and accidental infant baptisms! Also, did you know, you can save money, by signing up for a Club Membership. So, go to FightLaughFeast.com and sign up for a club membership and then register for the conference with that club discount. We can’t wait to fellowship, sing Psalms, and celebrate God’s goodness in Knoxville October 6-8. . 476K Migrant Got-Aways Recorded in 2022 So Far https://www.breitbart.com/border/2022/07/05/exclusive-476k-migrant-got-aways-recorded-in-2022-so-far/ According to Breitbart: “More than 476,000 migrants eluded apprehension by the Border Patrol this fiscal year, according to a source within Customs and Border Protection. The total already eclipses the 389,000 got-aways from FY2021. The source says the number, recorded daily, is based on evidence collected by a range of technology systems and aerial drones that capture images. The metric is usually not released by CBP. Historically, the Border Patrol has relied upon traditional sign-cutting techniques to locate and count footprints and other physical evidence left behind at popular migrant crossings. The latter metric has been all but removed from the equation because manpower is redirected to daily migrant care. The average migrant got-away count, recorded since the fiscal year began in October, remains at roughly 1,700 per day. According to the source, more than 7,000 migrants are arrested by the agency on most days. In some areas, large migrant groups are taxing Border Patrol resources and contributing to the increase in got-aways. As reported by Breitbart Texas, in one Texas border town, 1,772 migrants were apprehended in one day. In April, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified to members of the House Judiciary Committee that there were more than 389,000 got-aways in FY 2021. At the current pace, the total projected number of got-aways will nearly double last year’s count, according to the source. The source says the situation along the southern border will likely worsen. After a recent Supreme Court ruling, DHS will soon end the Trump era Migrant Protection Protocol program also known as Remain in Mexico. DHS Secretary Mayorkas expressed his approval over the ruling that allows the agency to stop returning migrants to Mexico to await asylum processing.” 23 Million California Residents to Receive up to $1,050 in Inflation Relief Funds https://finance.yahoo.com/news/23-million-california-residents-receive-155218841.html According to Yahoo: “On June 30, California approved an inflation relief package — one which will see 23 million residents of the state receive a direct payment of up to $1,050. The $17 billion inflation relief package includes $9.5 billion for tax refunds to help address inflation and offset rising prices. Governor Gavin newsom and Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said in a joint statement” “California’s budget addresses the state’s most pressing needs, and prioritizes getting dollars back into the pockets of millions of Californians who are grappling with global inflation and rising prices of everything from gas to groceries,” “The centerpiece of the agreement, a $17 billion inflation relief package, will offer tax refunds to millions of working Californians. Twenty-three million Californians will benefit from direct payments of up to $1,050. The package will also include a suspension of the state sales tax on diesel, and additional funds to help people pay their rent and utility bills,” they added. The amount of the California inflation relief payments varies depending on the income and dependents in the household, and eligibility is divided into three categories. Payments are expected to be going out to individuals by the end of Oct. 2022 and conclude by the middle of Jan. 2023, according to California’s Franchise Tax Board. Couples filing jointly with an income of $150,000 or less can receive $1,050 with a dependent, and $700 without a dependent. Couples with an income of $150,001 to $250,000 will receive $750 with a dependent and $500 without a dependent. Couples filing jointly with an income of $250,001 to $500,000 are slated to receive $600 with a dependent and $400 without one. For heads of households making $150,000 or less, they qualify for $700 with a dependent and $350 without. Those with an income of $150,001 to $250,000 qualify for $500 with a dependent and $250 without. As for those with an income of $250,001 to $500,000, they qualify for $400 with a dependent, and $200 without.” CPI projections, which are low, project that the average household will experience an increase in about $5K of inflated expenses as a result of inflation…but I think it will be more like $15 to $20K. New York Effectively Nullifies The Supreme Court’s Latest Pro-Second Amendment Decision https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/05/new-york-effectively-nullifies-the-supreme-courts-latest-pro-second-amendment-decision/ According to the Federalist: “New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ushered in the long Independence Day weekend by signing legislation crafted in response to Supreme Court’s recent decision. he U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, both in their homes and in public. On Friday, New York responded that it didn’t care. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ushered in the long Independence Day weekend on Friday by signing into law legislation crafted in response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Just more than a week earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen had declared that New York’s prior “may issue” gun licensing scheme, which prohibited individuals from carrying concealed handguns unless they “demonstrate[d] a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” violated the Second Amendment. In reaching that conclusion, the high court stressed that the right to “bear arms,” by necessity, applies outside the home. The New York legislature responded by calling an extraordinary session and then passing the bill Hochul signed into law on Friday. That hastily passed statute established detailed regulations governing a citizen’s right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon and added restrictive limits to where such concealed weapons could be carried. Both aspects of the New York legislation run headlong into the Supreme Court’s analysis in Bruen—and potentially First Amendment jurisprudence. … The larger constitutional problem with New York’s revised conceal-carry law concerns the state’s attempt to, in essence, declare most public spaces “sensitive locations” in which guns cannot be carried even by permitted individuals. Specifically, the statute makes it a felony to carry firearms “in or upon a sensitive location,” then provides an exhaustive list of sensitive locations which, because of its constitutional significance, is excerpted in full below: (a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts; (b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services; (c) any place of worship or religious observation; (d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos; (e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York; (f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; (g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities; (h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports; (i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health; (j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance; (k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence; (l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health; (m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools; (n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals; (o) any establishment issued a license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption; (p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission; (q) any location being used as a polling place; (r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage; (s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble; (t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage. Merely skimming these provisions confirms the breadth of the new law, which leaves New York residents with few public places where they may legally carry a gun for self-defense. That bottom line strikes to the core of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen that the Second Amendment guarantees a right for law-abiding, responsible citizens to carry a firearm in public for purposes of self-defense. New York’s expansive list of supposedly “sensitive locations” likewise ignores the Supreme Court’s analysis in Bruen.” Armored Republic The Mission of Armored Republic is to Honor Christ by equipping Free Men with Tools of Liberty necessary to preserve God-given rights. In the Armored Republic there is no King but Christ. We are Free Craftsmen. Body Armor is a Tool of Liberty. We create Tools of Liberty. Free men must remain ever vigilant against tyranny wherever it appears. God has given us the tools of liberty needed to defend the rights He bestowed to us. Armored Republic is honored to offer you those Tools. Visit them, at ar500armor.com After SCOTUS win on EPA case, Patrick Morrisey takes aim at SEC https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/satafter-scotus-win-epa-case-wv-ag-patrick-morrisey-takes-aim-sec According to Just the News “After the Supreme Court handed him a win on Thursday limiting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, West Virginia Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey next takes aim at the Biden administration's effort to use its powers to regulate capital markets through the Securities and Exchange Commission to push its environmental agenda. The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the EPA's ability to restrict power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act. Morrisey, who brought the suit on behalf of his coal-dependent state, celebrated the ruling on the John Solomon Reports podcast. The legal implications of the decision far transcend environmental policy alone, according to the attorney general. "We wanted to say this is really about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change, because it was about who gets to make the major decisions of the day, not necessarily what those decisions are, but who gets to make it," said Morrisey. "And the reason that's so important, is because when you have something so fundamental, a vast economic and political significance, you want the people's representatives to make a decision, and to have clear statements, clear lines of delegation to the federal agencies," he added. "And that did not happen here. That's why the court said that it was not going to allow the Clean Power Plan or similar type of regulation to go forward." Morrisey expressed optimism that the ruling would effectively limit overreach by federal regulators and arm states with a legal basis to challenge similar initiatives in the future. "I think it helps really solidify this major questions doctrine, so that you're gonna be able to limit when the bureaucrats can reach down, seize power, and try to take some one strand of ambiguity and turn it into a major rulemaking with incredible burdens on the American people," he said. "And so I am really gratified that the court resolves it on those grounds, as opposed to just merely some technical grounds." Rush toward green energy has left US 'incredibly' vulnerable to summer blackouts, expert warns https://www.foxnews.com/us/rush-green-energy-has-left-us-incredibly-vulnerable-summer-blackouts-expert-warns Did you know renewable energy is putting the country at risk of power outages this summer? The government’s push to renewable energy and away from traditional energy sources is silly. Daniel Turner, founder and executive director at Power the Future told Fox News that he “think(s) the entire country is incredibly vulnerable, because the entire country is facing a huge energy shortage and I don’t think there is any place that is truly safe,", told Fox News. Turner went on to argue that outages will most likely affect the poor and minority neighborhoods. "They will choose what neighborhoods go into darkness," Turner said. "Historically, when we have done this, we have chosen poor and usually minority neighborhoods to do that." Previously planned power outages in states such as California have a history of disproportionately impacting poor neighborhoods, including one instance in 2019 where a poor, mostly Hispanic neighborhood in Sonoma County had its power cut for eight days in October. The deliberate outages not only plunged residents of the area into darkness for days, but the resulting food spoilage strained already tight budgets. "Even if the electricity doesn’t arrive… the bills do," one resident said at the time. "Look who they shut off. Have you ever seen a Kardashian complain about lack of power, or Silicon Valley… Facebook’s headquarters? They’re all fine… they’re never the ones plunged into darkness," Turner said. Washington Post says you need to “calm down and back off” regarding inflation: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6308394937112 Play clip: start to .54 mark This is the Waterboy with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. We appreciate your sharing this news brief with your friends, joining our club, and we hope to see you at our Fight Laugh Feast conference Oct. 6th-8th in Knoxville. You can take all these steps at www.FightLaughFeast.com.

The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, held that the EPA's Clean Power Plan wasn't authorized under the Clean Air Act. Under this rule, the agency was trying to dictate how the entire country generates electricity, mandating a shift from conventional energy to renewable energy. In this debut edition of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment's PowerCast, leading experts discuss the case, its implications on energy and regulation, the major questions doctrine, and restoring representative government. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I have no patience for all the handwringing by Democratic lawmakers in Washington over the Supreme Court's regressive decisions on abortion and the climate. “This MAGA, regressive, extremist Supreme Court is intent on setting America back decades, if not centuries,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said last Thursday after the Court dumped its final opinions for the term. Well, yes. So what are you going to do about it, Chuck? Last I looked Democrats were still in control of the Senate and House and the presidency. Which means Democrats still have the power to effectively overrule the Supreme Court on reproductive rights and the environment. They must now pass a national abortion rights act which will preempt state laws banning abortions, and a Clean Power Plan that will eliminate the Supreme Court's argument that Congress never authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to do this.These moves are not only crucial to the nation. They're also critical for Democrats facing midterm elections four months from now. Reproductive rights and the environment are hugely galvanizing issues for Democrats and Independents.Some Democrats I talk to expect to lose control over both houses of Congress in the midterms, regardless. Rubbish. Defeatism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Midterm elections are all about turnout. Young people and college-educated voters made all the difference in the last midterms in 2018 — giving Democrats control of the House by a wide margin. While young people usually don't pay much attention to midterm elections, a record 36 percent of them voted in 2018, in contrast to 20 percent in 2014.Turnout of college-educated voters — another critical voting constituency to the Democratic Party, and also a majority of Independents who vote in midterms — also spiked in the 2018 midterms. True, Trump was a driving force for both groups in 2018. But it's not as if Trump has disappeared. His attempted coup continues to this day. Nor would the Supreme Court's extraordinary rightward lurch on reproductive rights and the environment have occurred but for Trump's three Supreme Court appointees. It's also true that Democrats have to cope with a filibuster in the Senate. But they need only fifty votes (plus the Vice President) to carve out exceptions to the filibuster for reproductive rights and for environment. Carve-outs from the filibuster are not uncommon. There have been some 160 of them, including one for confirming Supreme Court nominees (courtesy of Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans). If Republicans regain control of the Senate, you can bet they'll carve out exceptions to the filibuster for whatever they want to do. They may abolish the filibuster altogether. But can Senate Democrats even muster 50 votes for such carve-outs? Joe Manchin and Kyrstin Sinema have signaled before they they won't go along. Even if Manchin and Sinema were reluctant to agree to such carve-outs before, the situation has changed dramatically now that the Supreme Court has reversed Roe and stopped the Clean Power Plan. If reproductive rights are going to be preserved and the planet protected, Democrats must unite, and Manchin and Sinema must join them. If they won't, let the nation see. Don't let Republicans off the hook here, either. Alaska's Lisa Murkowski is up for reelection this fall. She talks a good game about reproductive rights and about the environment. Last February, she and Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins introduced the Reproductive Choice Act, to prevent women's reproductive choices from being weakened or eliminated. And she co-authored with Joe Manchin an oped in the Washington Post about the importance of ending climate change. Hell, Utah's Mitt Romney just published a piece in the Atlantic entitled “America is in denial,” warning about climate catastrophe. Okay, Mitt: Unless you're in total denial that the Supreme Court just gutted the Clean Power Plan, you have to join with Democrats to carve out an exception to the filibuster for the environment and then vote for the Plan. It's time for Democratic lawmakers and anyone else who cares about reproductive rights and the environment to act. Now. At least hold votes and put lawmakers from both chambers on record. Paint a clear contrast ahead of the November midterms. Give voters a reason to turn out. Please consider a paid or gift subscription to help sustain this work. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

My informal weekly coffee with Heather Lofthouse (Executive Director of Inequality Media Civic Action and my former student), discussing the past week. Today we talk about the rogue Supreme Court and what Democrats can — and must — do. In particular, Senate Dems still have the power to carve out filibuster exceptions for reproductive rights, voting rights, and the climate — and then enact national legislation protecting reproductive rights and voting rights, and authorizing the EPA to move forward with the Clean Power Plan rule. Why don't they do so? We also discuss Cassidy Hutchinson's powerful testimony before the House January 6 committee, and what it might mean for prosecuting Trump. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

In Episode 284 of District of Conservation, Gabriella gets reaction from Mandy Gunasekara, former EPA Chief-of-Staff and current IWF Senior Policy Analyst, on the West Virginia v. EPA decision. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that the EPA overstepped its authority in 2015 when limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants a la the Clean Power Plan. Tune in! SHOW NOTES West Virginia v. EPA Decision WSJ: How WV v. EPA Curbs Executive Branch Overreach On the Chevron Rule Follow Mandy Gunasekara's IWF Page and Twitter Account --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/district-of-conservation/support

The Trump administration repealed the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which established guidelines for states to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and issued in its place the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, which eliminated or deferred the guidelines. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE Rule as arbitrary and capricious. One of the challengers, North American Coal Corporation, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to so broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The case was decided on June 30, 2022. The Court held that this case remains justiciable notwithstanding the Government's contention that no petitioner has Article 3 standing, given EPA's stated intention not to enforce the Clean Power Plan and to instead engage in new rulemaking. The Court also held that Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan. Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT joined. Justice GORSUCH filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice ALITO joined. Justice KAGAN filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices BREYER and SOTOMAYOR joined. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

ESG Decoded is the podcast powered by ClimeCo to share relevant updates related to business innovation and sustainability in a clear and actionable manner. To excel in today's competitive business environment, a successful ESG Leader needs a balance of compliance, sustainability, and project management skills - backed by robust policy design expertise. In this episode, Kaitlyn Allen talks with Dr. Monique Cunningham, who has over 15 years of experience leading strategic ESG projects for multiple high-profile organizations, including St. Thomas University, the City of Tallahassee, and the Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc. (OICA). She is the rare professional with experience across the E, S AND G of ESG. In addition to her vast professional experience as a risk management and compliance professional, Dr. Cunningham holds a Doctorate in law and policy from Northeastern, an MBA from Nova Southeastern University, and a Bachelor's in biology from Barry University. Listen as Kaitlyn and Monique remind us that the ‘G' in ESG is foundational – you cannot have the ‘E' and the ‘S' without Governance. The oversight and implementation of any ESG program or policy cannot occur in isolation; all ESG priorities must be interlaced throughout the organization. This is where governance becomes an elevated component of the process. The approach to governance must be in tandem with an organization's mission and values while aligning with its approaches to compliance and risk mitigation matters. Monique possesses a wealth of knowledge for all things ESG. In the ESG landscape, she sees the forest and the trees. She has experience across all pillars, and she understands the governance best practices that drive stakeholder value and mitigate risk. Better still, Monique explains concepts in a way that is easy to understand. Take your time with this topic, and reference the resource boosts below: Dr. Cunningham (1) Monique Cunningham, LP.D, MBA, CSM, CCEP | LinkedIn (2) Florida and the Clean Power Plan: a state, a federal regulation and a climate situation. (northeastern.edu) – Dissertation by Dr. Monique Cunningham Compliance Professional Resources (1) CCEP | SCCE Official Site (corporatecompliance.org) (2) Certified Environmental and Safety Compliance Officer (CESCO) | NREP Isle de Jean Charles Resources (3) HUD Action Plan for Isle de Jean Charles, LA (4) Isle De Jean Charles Resettlement Project | IsleDeJeanCharles.la.gov King Tides Resources (1) King Tides and High Tides | City of Fort Lauderdale, FL (2) King Tides and Climate Change | US EPA Subscribe to ESG Decoded, where you consume your podcasts and connect via social media to share your feedback and topic suggestions. Enjoy this episode!

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – Thursday, March 3, 20224:20 pm: Elle Reynolds, Assistant Editor at The Federalist, joins the show to discuss how the Democrats have quietly adopted covid policies previously pushed by the GOP and used media coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to mask4:38 pm: Utah Senate President Stuart Adams joins the show for his weekly visit with Rod about the 2022 Utah Legislative session, and today they'll discuss what the Senate will be focusing on entering the last day of the session on Friday6:05 pm: Steve Moore, Chief Economist for the Heritage Foundation, joins Rod for their weekly conversation about politics and the nation's economy, and today they discuss the possibility of the Biden administration banning the use of Russian oil in the U.S.6:20 pm: Benji Backer, President of the American Conservative Coalition, joins Rod to discuss his op-ed piece for the Deseret News in which he says young Americans are looking for balance, and not for radical change on climate issues6:38 pm: University of Utah Law Professor Amos Guiora joins the show to discuss his recent paper on how legal and social forces enable the sexual abuse of children6:50 pm: Steve Milloy of the Heartland Institute, and founder of junkscience.com, joins the program to discuss the Supreme Court taking up the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, and why now is not a good time for that plan to be implemented

On February 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear West Virginia v. EPA, one of the most anticipated environmental law cases on the Court's docket in recent years. By way of background, in 2015, EPA issued the “Clean Power Plan.” Using the Agency's authority under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), and styled as a rule to control greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants, the Clean Power Plan would have required states to shift their electric generation mix away from fossil fuels towards renewables, employing a “cap and trade” credit scheme.The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and in 2019 the Trump Administration rescinded it and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, concluding that the Clean Power Plan's design was unambiguously beyond the limits of the Agency's authority under Section 111. In 2021, and over a dissent from Judge Walker, the D.C. Circuit disagreed. And in American Lung Association v. EPA (985 F.3d 914), the D.C. Circuit vacated the Clean Power Plan repeal and Affordable Clean Energy rule, staying the vacatur indefinitely pending further rulemaking because EPA, under the current administration, has declared it will not enforce either rule. The issue before the Court in West Virginia v. EPA is whether, when designing rules under Section 111, EPA is limited to identifying “systems of emission reduction” that can be applied to and at the level of an individually regulated facility, or whether there are no limits to EPA's authority other than the textual commands to consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Federal respondents argue the case is moot and should be dismissed as improvidently granted.This teleforum will discuss the legal issues involved, questions from the bench, and anticipate where the law could be headed. A broader discussion on West Virginia v. EPA, with additional speakers and analysis, will be provided after the Court renders its decision.For accompanying document, click hereFeaturing: --Speaker: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.--Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group's Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

Scientists worldwide largely agree that global warming is occurring. Seventy percent of Americans agree, according to a 2016 poll from Yale University. Still, the U.S. is the only country to reject the Paris Agreement, the government proposed to scrap the Clean Power Plan and the EPA eliminated the climate change section of their website. Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., discusses the realities of climate change.

with Brad Friedman & Desi Doyen

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com