Last year, the Chamber of Commerce, big business’s big lobby group, made a bit of a splash when it subtly changed its position on climate to distance itself from the rankest sort of climate denial it otherwise funds. This year, they continued their feint to the left, focusing on issue ads instead of just electing Republicans, and even going so far as to support a handful of (pro-gas) Democratic politicians.
But as EDF recently pointed out, despite the Chamber “hedging its bets with Democrats now” (per its fired flack), it’s still working against climate action in court, where it’s siding with polluters and the Trump administration on the clean car standards.
No one should be particularly surprised by this, as it tracks completely with their behavior last year when, after their supposed change of heart on climate, they were still filing motions with polluters and by themselves to oppose the Clean Power Plan and defend the Trump administration’s replacement -- the dangerously Orwellian-named Affordable Clean Energy rule.
Speaking of which, the D.C. circuit court recently heard arguments on the rule, and according to the experts who spoke with Dawn Reeves at InsideEPA, things aren’t looking good for the Trump administration’s proposed rule. According to one of the half-dozen sources Reeves quotes, “all three judges did not like the ACE rule,” and said there’s a “high likelihood” it would be struck down.
For less reading of the tea leaves and more of a straight read of the arguments presented over a grueling nine hour virtual hearing, PoliticoPRO’s Alex Guillén covered the seven big take-aways. Ranging from the authority the EPA has to regulate carbon dioxide at all and narrowly targeting coal plants, or by looking at the entire grid writ large, the facts that the rule would only reduce emissions by less than 1 percent, and had no minimum for acceptable levels of pollution for each state’s plan, appear to be looming large in the judges’ minds.
One judge, the recently Trump-appointed Justin Walker, was particularly incredulous that the ACE rule was so lacking in any sort of standard. “I think that’s really hard to wrap my head around. We’re talking about a program to reduce air pollution and it doesn’t even require you to consider how much… pollution you’re reducing?”
That was likely a turning point in the case that one source described to Reeves. Initially, “Walker started out wanting to be the champion for what [Trump’s] EPA was doing”, but “when they sat up and realized ACE doesn’t do anything, that it’s clearly a coal bailout,” that’s when “he finally started really understanding it”.
So if even the Trump appointee is sounding skeptical of how lax this proposed regulation is, that’s certainly something!
That said, a second piece by Reeves at InsideEPA points out that all this may end up being a moot point after November 3rd anyway.
Because if Biden wins, his administration would almost certainly scrap the ACE rule for something more appropriate and less created by polluters. If not, the Trump administration would likely appeal any adverse ruling from the district court up to the Supreme Court, putting the decision in the hands of a handful of judges appointed by Trump after having been cleared by the pro-polluter Federalist society.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: