Ep. 3 | The EPA's Biggest De-regulatory Push Ever

---

---

Transcript:

Host: Well, howdy folks and welcome back to Nathan's podcast, y'all. Now, for all you energy and compliance professionals tuning in today, you're in for a real treat, I reckon.

Co-host: I think they are.

Host: This here is episode three, and we're fixing to do a deep dive into some uh some mighty big news out of Washington news that's got the potential to really shake things up for American manufacturing. And I reckon for the better.

Co-host: Definitely a lot to unpack.

Host: We've got a whole stack of the latest from Nathan's newsletter and the EPA itself, and we're going to break it all down for you. We aim to cut through the noise and get you the straight facts.

Co-host: No noise, just facts.

Host: That's right. So, to kick things off, it looks like EPA administrator Lee Zeldon just recently announced a pretty significant move calling it, get this, the greatest day of deregulation in US history. 31 historic actions to be exact. What's the headline here for our listeners?

Co-host: Well, the core of these actions, as outlined in Nathan Hammer's newsletter and confirmed by the EPA, is a broad reconsideration of numerous environmental regulations that acted in previous administrations. The stated goals are to unleash American energy, lower the cost of living, revitalize the auto industry, restore the rule of law, and empower states.

Host: Okay, so 31 actions. That sounds like a whole heap. Can we highlight some of the key areas that would directly impact our folks in energy and compliance?

Co-host: Absolutely. Several areas really stand out. Firstly, there's a significant focus on the energy sector. This includes a reconsideration of regulations on power plants, specifically the clean power plant 2.0 as well as regulations impacting the oil and gas industry often referred to as OKCO OBC.

Host: Right.

Co-host: The mercury and air toxic standards or MATS as they're known that targeted coal fighter power plants are also under review along with the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program.

Host: Now for someone in the power generation business a clean power plan 2.0 has been well let's just say it's been a thorn in their side. What's the potential impact of reconsidering that?

Co-host: Well the original clean power plan aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel fired power plants. Reconsideration opens the door to potentially less stringent regulations which could impact future investment decisions, operational costs, and compliance requirements for these facilities. Groups like Always on Energy Research suggest this is good news for consumers, potentially preventing blackouts and cost increases. America's Power also echoes this, emphasizing the need for reliable and affordable electricity and pointing out concerns about premature coal plant exposures due to previous regulations.

Host: Interesting. Interesting. So, it sounds like there are concerns that maybe the push for cleaner energy has come at the cost of reliability and affordability. And what about the oil and gas folks? What should they be paying attention to?

Co-host: The reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry. Those OBC regulations, that's key. These regulations typically cover methane emissions and other air pollutants from oil and gas operations. Less stringent rules could ease compliance burdens and potentially lower operating costs. Additionally, the risk-management program rule, which governs safety at oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities, is being re-evaluated with the current administration arguing the previous rule made these facilities less safe.

Host: Well, that's a pretty strong statement, isn't it? Yeah. That the previous rules were actually making things less safe.

Co-host: But I guess that's what they're saying.

Host: That is what they're saying. Yeah.

Host: Okay. Methane emissions are a hot topic these days. We actually saw in Nathan's newsletter that the House and Senate passed a resolution targeting the EPA's methane fee. How does this deregulatory push connect with that?

Co-host: That's a crucial point. The methane fee or waste emissions charge from the inflation reduction act imposed increasing costs on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. The resolution to remove this fee aligns perfectly with the broader deregulatory agenda of reducing costs and burdens on the American energy industry.

Host: Okay. As Representative Fluger and others argued, the fee was seen as a tax that could hinder domestic energy production. So, it seems like there's this debate, right, about whether it's better to incentivize lower emissions with a fee or if that ultimately hurts American businesses,

Co-host: right?

Host: That's a tough one. Beyond energy, the newsletter also mentions a reconsideration of vehicle regulations. How might that affect the auto industry and related compliance?

Co-host: The EPA is reconsidering light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty vehicle regulations that form the basis for electric vehicle mandates.

Host: Oh, this could lead to changes in future emission standards and the pace of transition to electric vehicles impacting manufacturers long-term planning and the types of vehicles available to consumers.

Co-host: So potentially slowing down the transition to electric vehicles.

Host: potentially. Yes.

Host: Interesting. There's also a mention of reconsidering the 2009 endangerment finding related to greenhouse gases. That sounds pretty fundamental. What's the significance of that?

Co-host: The 2009 endangerment finding declared that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare providing the legal foundation for many subsequent climate regulations. Reconsidering this finding could have far-reaching implications, potentially challenging the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes, this is a move with significant legal and policy ramifications, questioning the scope of the EPA's regulatory power. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform sees this as unwinding years of overregulation based on a false finding.

Host: Wow. So, that one sounds like it could really be a gamechanger if they actually go through with reconsidering that finding.

Co-host: Yeah, it's a big one.

Host: It seems like a lot of these actions are framed as reducing costs and supporting American businesses. We even saw US Steel expressing their support, noting it could help keep steel production in the USA. But what about the environmental side of things? Are there concerns being raised?

Co-host: Well, while the sources provided primarily focus on the economic benefits and the perspective of those supporting deregulation, it's important for you, the listener, to consider the potential environmental implications. Less stringent regulations could lead to increased emissions and potentially impact air and water quality. However, the current narrative emphasizes a balance between environmental protection and economic growth. With administrator Zelden stating, "The goal is to protect the environment while unleashing American energy".

Host: So, it sounds like a bit of a balancing act, right? Trying to find that sweet spot between supporting American businesses and protecting the environment.

Co-host: Exactly.

Host: And it's never easy. One Another interesting development mentioned was the termination of some grant agreements related to the greenhouse gas reduction fund. What was that all about?

Co-host: EPA administrator Zelden terminated grant agreements under the Biden Harris administration's $20 billion greenhouse gas reduction fund, citing concerns about program integrity, the award process, potential fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as misalignment with the agency's priorities.

Host: So, they're pulling the plug on some of those grants. Interesting.

Co-host: He specifically mentioned ISS issues like the director of the fund overseeing a grant to his former employer and funding going to groups with political connections.

Host: Oh wow.

Co-host: This action suggests a shift in how the EPA intends to allocate resources for environmental initiatives.

Host: Okay. So it seems like they're really trying to change the way the EPA is approaching these issues. And it looks like this isn't happening in a vacuum. There's mention of restructuring the regional haze program and prioritizing the coal ash program.

Host: Can you briefly touch on those?

Co-host: Sure. The regional haze program aims to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. Restructuring it could involve changes to how states develop and implement plans to reduce haze-causing pollutants potentially impacting energy facilities and other industrial sources. Prioritizing the coal ash program or the CCR program as it's known suggests an effort to expedite state permit reviews and update regulations related to the disposal of coal combustion residuals which is important for the coal power industry.

Host: Okay, so a lot of moving pieces here. This has been a whirlwind of information, but it sounds like a really significant shift in the regulatory landscape. For our listeners in energy and compliance, staying on top of these potential changes is going to be crucial.

Co-host: Absolutely.

Host: I mean, this is potentially a whole new ballgame, right?

Co-host: It could be.

Host: What advice would you give to folks who are trying to navigate all of this?

Co-host: Well, I think the key is to stay informed, to really dig into the details of these proposed changes and try to understand how they might impact your specific operations.

Host: Okay. So, do your homework.

Co-host: Exactly. Don't just rely on headlines. Look at the actual proposals, the regulatory text, talk to your legal counsel, and be prepared to adapt as things evolve.

Host: Sounds like good advice to me. Well, folks, this deep dive into the EPA's deregulatory actions really shows a clear move towards prioritizing American energy production and reducing regulatory burdens, at least according to the information we have here. Right. Whether you see this as a positive step towards what administrator Zelden called a great American comeback or have concerns about the potential environmental implications. It's undeniable that these changes will have a significant impact on the energy and compliance sectors.

Host: But I reckon it'll be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Co-host: It certainly will. And what I think is especially fascinating here is the sheer scope of the proposed changes and the speed at which they're being pursued.

Host: You're right about that. It's moving fast.

Co-host: For energy and compliance professionals, understanding the details of these reconsiderations, tracking their progress through the regulatory process, and assessing the potential impacts on their operations will be paramount. This raises an important question for you, the listener. How will these potential shifts in regulation reshape your long-term strategies and compliance obligations?

Host: That's the million-dollar question right there.

Co-host: and one that we'll all be grappling with in the months and years ahead. Well, folks, that about wraps up our deep dive for today. It's certainly an interesting time for American manufacturing, and I'm personally optimistic about what these changes mean for our industries. If you want to keep up with all the latest and connect with the man behind this newsletter, be sure to head on over to nathanhammer.substack.com. There's always more to unpack and Nathan's got you covered. Until next time,

Host: see you then.

Co-host: Take care.