Last Thursday, June 30, the Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. EPAAccordingly, due to the absence of clearer regulations from the Congress, EPA does not have the power to administer the planned fundamental restructuring of the electricity generation sector of the economy. More generally, the Supreme Court stated that in cases involving “big questions,” including regulations that affect large parts of the economy, the government must demonstrate “a clear mandate to of parliament” to support sweeping regulatory efforts.
Do you think such a decision by the Supreme Court might cause various regulators to slow down and reconsider a bit before proceeding with other questionable plans to restructure the basic economy? copy? That’s not how these bureaucracies work. And that is the case most especially for energy industry regulators, sometimes called the “climate change” arena, where officials are burning with the legitimate religious fervor they have. believe that they allow them to send evil sinners to hellfire. .
And so, with the Supreme Court’s decision, a number of agencies quickly stepped up efforts to squeeze the oil and gas industries with regulatory restrictions that essentially disallow the courts or anyone else stop them. Thousands of pages of regulations provide them with thousands of arguments to claim that they have “explicit congressional authorization,” any of which may stick. Now they are out to point out who is the boss.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan wasted no time getting a statement on the afternoon of June 30. Excerpt:
[W]e is committed to using the full range of EPA authorities to protect communities and reduce pollution that is causing climate change. . . . EPA will work to legally establish and implement environmental standards to meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental harm.
In other words, we will have to find other ways to implement the restrictions we want to do. The very next day, July 1, David Blackmon at Forbes reported that “EPA Targets Permian Basin, Expands Biden’s Oil War.” The Permian Basin is now largest oil and gas producing region in the United States, providing about 40% of the country’s oil and 15% gas production. The Permian Basin is also the site of about 40% of the nation’s active rigs. And so it looks like the EPA is preparing to declare the Permian Basin a so-called “failure zone” for ozone. Blackmon:
[T]The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced [this week that] it could soon issue a ruling declaring that much of the Permian Basin is in a state of “failure” under the agency’s ozone regulations. If such a declaration were made, it would constitute a direct attack by the government on America’s most dynamic and productive oil producing region to date and the most productive natural gas region. second highest in the country.
What is the impact of such a claim on current and future U.S. domestic oil and gas production? Blackmon again:
Putting the Permian Basin in disrepair would force the number of rigs in the region to drop significantly, severely limiting efforts by domestic industry to increase U.S. oil production at a time when the global oil market There is a serious shortage of demand.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott was quick to call on the Biden Administration to back down, saying the EPA “Failure claims” can interfere with oil production in Texas, which can lead to pump prices skyrocketing by reducing output, increasing that production cost, or doing both. “ But Blackmon notes that the plan comes from an office appointed by an anti-fossil activist Biden, and so could be a core element of the administration’s agenda:
Mr. Biden has appointed Joe Goffman, one of many anti-fossil fuel activists currently holding senior positions at his various agencies, to head the EPA’s Office of Radiation and Atmosphere action department. That appointment could have been made with this particular policy action.
Meanwhile, at the Ministry of Home Affairs, July 1 is also the date of the issuance of a legally mandated 5-year offshore oil and gas lease plan. Groom Nicholas at Reuters has a summary here. The bottom line is, we’re going to stop leasing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts entirely, but maybe we’ll allow a little in the Gulf of Mexico or Cook Inlet (Alaska). The number of auctions over a 5-year period will range from “0 to 11” and it is assumed that we will be polling the public to know which direction to go. But Home Secretary Deb Haaland in a statement leaves no doubt where she wants and expects this to come in:
“From Day One, President Biden and I have made clear our commitment to the transition to a clean energy economy,” Haaland said in a statement. “Today, we present an opportunity for the American people to consider and comment on the future of offshore oil and gas leasing. The time for the public to consider our future is now.”
There is a 90-day period for public comment. You can be sure that environmental groups will flood the area with thousands of comments supporting the “no” approach of stopping all offshore leases.
Other agencies were eerily silent following the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision. Notable among them are the SEC and the Federal Reserve, both of which recently ventured to add “climate change” to their mandates with only the most questionable statutory backing. Neither of them gave any indication of intent to slow down.
And then on July 2, President Biden issued his now famous tweet Blame the petrol price hike at the pump station on gas station owners:
My message to the companies that run gas stations and set prices at the pump is simple: this is a time of war and global danger. The discount you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you pay for the product. And do it now.
An entire bureaucracy is going on under this guy’s direction to stop oil and gas production in any way they can think of, but he has the guts to blame the high prices on ” gas station operators”, most of which are small independent companies. businesses.
Related
