WolfeNotes.com

Bill Purported to Address Climate Vulnerability Has No Teeth

We are in a climate emergency – these cynical toothless stunts must stop

In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness. ~~~ Al Gore (7/20/08), quoted here.

[Update: Gov. Murphy signed the bill into law on February 4, 2021, and got good press for it. ~~~ end  update]

On December 17, 2020, the Assembly quietly passed a bill (A2745/S2607[1R]) to amend the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) to respond to risks of climate change. The Senate version was passed back in October, so the bill is now on Gov. Murphy’s desk for his consideration.

We urge the Gov. to veto the bill outright – or at least conditionally veto the bill and send it back to the legislature and direct them to put teeth in the bill or abandon the effort in favor of upcoming statewide DEP Climate PACT regulations (despite the fact that those rules will need to be considerably strengthened).

As we explain briefly below, the bill has no teeth, ignores important issues, and could undermine or create conflicts with DEP’s upcoming statewide climate PACT land use regulations and Coastal Management Plan.

The bill would require that:

Wrong Man, Wrong Metaphors, Wrong Ideas, Wrong Policy, Wrong Time

The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters. ~~~ Antonio Gramsci 

Joe Biden is completely out of touch with the political moment and the momentum of history and the urgency of the climate emergency, domestically as well as internationally.

Weimar reprise.

Internationally, Biden thinks the American people and the world are ready for the US to resume “leadership” of the world and that the US is “back at the head of the table”.

This is  rank “American Exceptionalism” and a perverse echo of “Make America Great Again”. Nostalgia for what never was.

The US was never exceptional (except for building an exceptional global military and economic empire and the Neoliberal framework to legitimize and sustain it).

There is no “table” – and if there were, it would be round and a space for partners to dialogue democratically as equals, not rectangular and a forum of hierarchy and domination – and certainly no place for an individual or a country to sit at the “head of the table”. (Joe sounds like Grandpa at Thanksgiving dinner).

Domestically, there is no “aisle” to reach across, there’s a Canyon.

Like the Grand Canyon, the only way across is down and through and up again (rim to rim).

Politically, that means policy choices that Biden is simply incapable of making.

No doubt, Biden will “look forward, not backward” instead of prosecuting Trump administration crimes, just like Obama let war criminals and Wall Street looters off the hook.

We’ll again see Neoliberal policy back in the saddle, with a bipartisan unity slogan backing more “public-private partnerships” on infrastructure and “incentives” (both slogans for more corporate subsidies, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation, and failed market based tools like carbon taxes and pollution trading schemes).

It’s going to get a lot worse, before it gets better (if it gets better).

The recent images of the Trump insurrection – while not surprising – are deeply disturbing, so I thought I’d share a more positive frame and memory.

The photo above was taken during a spring 2009 tour of the Capitol for “NJ Environmental Leaders” sponsored by my friend NJ Congressman Rush Holt.

As I recall, we toured the Capitol and attended a luncheon with Holt and recently installed Obama administration officials involved with environmental and climate policy. Expectations for the Obama administration were very high, but soon to be dashed.

The event was coordinated by Obama White House Climate and Energy staffer Heather Zichal. For Zichal’s full bio, see:

• Jersey Girl Goes All In For Biden – Exposes Corporate Power And Revolving Door

I met Zichal when, as a Rutgers student, she worked as a volunteer with the Political Committee of Sierra Club’ NJ Chapter, and then for NJ Congressmen Holt and Pallone, Senator Kerry’s presidential campaign and then the Obama 2008 campaign.

The NJ Chapter endorsed Holt in the 1998 race for NJ’s 12th Congressional District. Zichal played a role in that decision, which was unusual because it departed from Sierra Club’s national policy, which strongly favored endorsement of incumbents, especially pro-environment moderate Republicans. Holt was running against one term moderate pro-environment Republican Frank Pappas.

I was Acting Director of NJ Sierra Chapter at that time and led the Trenton press conference (in Senate annex) when Sierra announced the Holt endorsement. Holt thanked the Club and made brief remarks.

I first met Holt – who lived in Hopewell Valley and was involved with the local watershed group – during the mid 1990’s controversial land use debates in Hopewell Valley involving the 3.5 million square foot Merrill Lynch Scotch Road project,  the Trenton-ELSA-Hopewell sewer line, and the expansion of the Bristol Myers Squibb facility, which was located just south of Holt’s house. I also lived in Hopewell at the time.

Sierra volunteers convinced Holt – our Holt convinced them – that the politics of fighting sprawl development and advocating the protection of water resources were very politically popular.

Holt’s leadership on those issues played a huge role in his Sierra endorsement and later may have been the deciding factor in his upset win in a Republican leaning suburban swing district.

I think the 2009 luncheon address was by a US Navy official, who spoke about climate as a national security threat.

The one thing I distinctly recall from that luncheon was a question I asked during Q&A.

At the time, the Obama campaign was widely praised for its savvy use of Digital organizing and social media as an organizing tool. They had assembled large lists, including environmental activists.

Probing that success, I specifically asked Ms. Zichal if the Obama White House would continue to use those lists to cultivate grassroots support for their climate policies, which were expected to face strong opposition in Congress.

Zichal’s reply was stunning: she flat out told me and the crowd that there were no plans to conduct that kind of political operation and that as far as she knew, the entire social media campaign infrastructure had been abandoned.

I was – to put it mildly – shocked.

That was when I first knew for sure – long before it became obvious with the selection of Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator, the “all of the above” energy policy, and the half assed effort to pass a cap and trade bill – that Obama was not serious and his rhetoric was nowhere near his actual policy.

At the time, my negative assessment was very poorly received in virtually all quarters.

Sadly, even now, some of my fellow “NJ environmental leaders” never came to share that assessment.

[End notes:

1. As a Sierra professional, I was not involved in Sierra endorsement decisions (they are made by the volunteers). In hindsight, it would have been much better for Sierra to support Holt’s prior 1996 Democratic Primary challenger Carl Meyer of nearby Princeton, who was far more progressive.

I also knew Carl Meyer, who I met before I came to Sierra during the victorious debates over the proposed Mercer County garbage incinerator. I think Carl later was part of the legal team with Chris Hedges in challenging the NDA.

2. Of course, with respect toThe People’s House and speaking of Princeton, there is this political fact:

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

~~~ end]

Days After Voting To Approve LNG Plant, Gov. Now Says He Opposes LNG

If The Gov. Is Serious, Here’s A Regulatory Roadmap to Kill The Project

[Update: I am holding off on posting Part 2 until DEP responds to my OPRA request for the Waterfront Permit, Water Quality Certification, and TCPA documents. Should post 1/13/21. ~~~ end]

This post is in two parts because the issues are complex: Part 1 exposes the Gov.’s lies, while Part 2 will lay out a regulatory path to kill the LNG project should the Gov. really want to do that. Some of the regulatory failings in Part 1 set up the Kill roadmap in Part 2.

Part 1

In a remarkable and embarrassing turn of events – and if true, potentially a huge victory for environmental activists –  NJ Spotlight reports that NJ Gov. Murphy now says he opposes and will seek to block an LNG plant on the Delaware River.

The Gov.’s U-Turn comes just days after his December 9 vote on the Delaware River Basin Commission to approve the project, see:

• Home State Hypocrite NJ Gov. Murphy Approves Fracked LNG Export Plant On The Delaware River

In the week prior to the DRBC vote, we blasted the project – which was opposed by a four state coalition of environmental groups:

• Delaware River LNG Plant Would Make a Mockery Of NY Gov. Cuomo And NJ Gov. Murphy’s Climate Commitments

We also were shocked by and questioned how the LNG project had quietly received Murphy DEP permit approvals a year prior to the controversial DRBC vote:

• Murphy DEP LNG Permit Approval & Suspension Exposes A Rigged And Corrupt DEP Permit System
• Did Senate President Sweeney and/or NJ Gov. Murphy Pressure Regulators To Keep Delaware LNG Export Terminal Under The Radar?

So, while we are pleased to learn that the Gov. now opposes the LNG plant he just voted to approve (a year after his DEP issued permits to approve it), we are highly skeptical of the Gov.’s reported pledge now to try to “block” the project.

I) The Governor’s Press Office Is Flat Out Lying

That skepticism is compounded by two flat out lies the Gov.’s press office told in defending the Gov.’s embarrassing U-Turn.

The Gov. seems to suggest that the LNG project is not what DEP permitted and voted at DRBC to approve. Gov. Murphy seems to think – incorrectly – that the dredging operation/dock and the LNG are two different projects and he only supported the dredging and dock construction.

It is not possible to make this kind of mistake.

Let me be clear, of course, I want to hold the Gov. accountable for his lies and DEP accountable for what appears to be massive incompetence based on flawed regulations.

But, more importantly, I need to elaborate on the lies because if they are accepted then the Gov. and DEP can not kill the project.

Specifically, NJ Spotlight reported:

“The DRBC vote was in support of upholding a dredging permit for the construction of a dock,” Murphy said in a statement issued by his deputy press secretary, Alex Altman, on Tuesday. “It was based upon an extensive and comprehensive scientific and technical analysis of its impact on water quality performed by DRBC staff and examined again during a subsequent hearing.”

The first lie here is that the DRBC vote was NOT only for a dredging permit. The project the DRBC approved explicitly included the LNG export operation. For the wonks, here’s the full DRBC docket on the project, which makes that very clear.

The DRBC Opinion Approving the Resolution for the project makes it clear that DRBC approved an LNG operation:

More than a year before that, here is the DRBC Hearing Officer’s report that formed the basis for the DRBC review and approval:

Keep that phrase “reopen the docket if warranted in light of new information” in mind – we’ll get to it in part 2.

The DRBC Hearing Officer’s report also has another highly significant finding we’ll get to in part 2, see paragraph 358 g.

But first we explain the second lie.

The second lie is that the DEP and the DRBC reviews were NOT  “based upon an extensive and comprehensive scientific and technical analysis of its impact on water quality.”

II)  The DRBC Review Was “Narrow”, Not “Comprehensive”

DEP’s State Geologist, who represents Gov. Murphy on the DRBC and was involved in the DEP permit approvals of the LNG project, admits that the DRBC’s review and approval was “narrow“, while also trying to spin the Gov.’s false distinction between the dredging and dock construction and LNG: (State Impact)

“While New Jersey acknowledges the larger criticisms surrounding the proposed operations of this project, the issue presented to the commission is a narrow one: whether or not to affirm its prior decision that dredging activities related to the construction of a second dock at the marine terminal complex in Gibbstown satisfy the commission’s water quality standards,” said New Jersey geologist Jeff Hoffman, representing that state’s decision to approve the plan.

The DRBC not only failed to comprehensively regulate water quality standards issues.

The DRBC review completely ignored the impacts of climate change on important and comprehensive DRBC water resource management responsibilities under the DRBC Compact.

The DRBC is a powerful institution (State Compacts are established under the US Constitution and the DRBC Compact was created by an act of Congress, signed by President Kennedy). The 4 Delaware watershed State Governors are DRBC’s Commissioners, so this is not some backwater or rinky dink operation. DRBC not only has a broad mission and broad authority, but it also has broad legal discretion. For example, Section 3.6 General powers include:

An LNG plant obviously – via climate change – “affects its water resources”.

These impacts are “reasonably implied” by the best available science and the Commission’s mandate to manage water resources.

Furthermore, effectively as a legal matter, DRBC’s jurisdiction, authority, responsibilities, and obligations are broader under the Compact than under the limited specific DRBC management policies, standards, and project review regulations and protocols.

What this means in practice is that just because there is no specific DRBC water quality standard, regulation, or permit review protocol that explicitly identifies “regulated activity” (i.e. LNG) and mandates consideration of climate impacts does not mean that the Commission can not do so if the best available science demonstrates that activity would adversely effect the water resource management objectives delegated to the Commission under the Compact.

But instead of assuming the Commission’s responsibility under the Compact, the Commission tries to evade it with BS like this: (NJ Spotlight)

“The Commission does not exercise jurisdiction over the surface transport of cargo to regional port facilities; nor does it review or approve the cargo that moves through our region’s ports,” the DRBC said in a statement on Thursday. “We have no comment on matters outside of DRBC’s authority and jurisdiction.”

What irresponsible bullshit – this is not about shipping or cargo, it’s about major fossil infrastructure and climate impacts to protected DRBC resources (and I could even make a case that DRBC does in fact have jurisdiction to review cargo shipping under the recreational powers of the Compact).

This is no esoteric or theoretic debate. The failure by DRBC to consider climate impacts include consideration of climate change impacts on:

•  water quantity (i.e. changes in precipitation that effect river flows, flooding, and drought); climate change
• impacts on water demand (i.e. higher domestic, industrial, and agricultural water use due to increased temperatures); 
• climate change impacts on hydrology and water availability (e.g. additional evapo-transpiration, changes in river flow conditions as there is more rain and less snow, reduced and accelerated snowmelt, loss of forest cover alters runoff dynamics, etc), and
• climate impacts on water quality.

Instead of the falsely claimed “comprehensive scientific and technical analysis“, the DRBC considered climate impacts on just 3 features: migration of the salt line; impacts on T&E species, and impacts on certain fisheries like sturgeon. DRBC did not even conduct these narrow reviews, they delegated them to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

These are not just hypothetical or theoretical omissions in the DRBC review of the climate impacts of a major fossil infrastructure project.

DRBC’s own scientist have analyzed climate impacts on the Delaware River and watershed, see:

• Analyzing Climate Change Impacts to Water Resources in the Delaware River Basin – Big Picture Risks (DRBC – 11/1/18 powerpoint presentation)

Here are DRBC’s scientific findings on climate change impacts on water resources regulated by DRBC under the Compact:

Climate Change Impacts in the Delaware River Basin

Climate change has the potential to impact water availability, water quality, and the ability to meet water management goals in the Delaware River Basin. […]

DRBC science also notes, in more detail:

Sea levels are rising. Since the early 1900s, sea level has risen at an average rate of about 2.93 mm/year, which equates to 0.96 ft/100 years. A change in sea level affects the overall volume of water in the Delaware Estuary and Bay, which can affect the movement of the salt front, increasing salinity in the upper portion of the estuary….

Local climate change impacts for the Delaware River Basin include increased temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea level rise, all of which affect water supply and water quality.

• Increased temperatures will affect evapotranspiration rates; more evaporation means less water available for streamflow. Increased temperatures will also affect stream water quality; turbidity levels will likely increase, and dissolved oxygen levels decrease.
• Precipitation is predicted to occur in the form of fewer, more intense storms occurring in the winter months. This means a potential increase in flood events coupled with extended drought cycles.
• The seasonality of flows may also change, for example, less snowpack in the winter may cause lower flows in the spring.
• Sea level rise may require increased releases from storage to augment river flows to repel salinity and/or costly modifications by water suppliers to treat increases in dissolved solids.
• Climate change could also affect instream flow and temperature conditions for aquatic biota.

In December 2019, DRBC formed the Advisory Committee on Climate Change (ACCC) to provide the Commission and the basin community with scientifically based information for identifying and prioritizing these threats to the basin’s water resources, as well as recommendations for mitigation, adaptation and improved resiliency. Its inaugural meeting was held on August 4, 2020. Please visit the above link for committee information.

The effects of climate change are being considered as DRBC plans for future water supply availability and whether new drought or flow management programs are needed in the basin. Modeling and other analyses are already underway to further define the range of risks due to climate change as well as evaluate future water demands for different purposes. Once this work has been completed, different approaches and mitigation measures will be needed to develop robust plans and resources to address the risks posed by climate change

But don’t let the recent December 2019, DRBC formed Advisory Committee on Climate Change fool you.

DRBC’s consideration of climate science is longstanding. Over a decade ago, way back in 2010, DRBC scientists were involved in this study:

• Climate Change And The Delaware Estuary

We wrote in detail about that study – which predicted the devastating impacts of Superstorm Sandy – in a July 2012 post:

• For NJ American Water, DEP, BPU, and Sustainable Jersey – Man Made, Foreseen, Preventable

But over a year before the recent DRBC approval, the Murphy DEP quietly issued permit approvals – the Gov. has not even tried to explain how this happened. These DEP permits call into question not only the Gov.’s veracity, but the competence of his DEP Commissioner.

Expectations Of Biden’s Use Of Executive Power Are Running Way Ahead of Reality

Regulatory Policy Is The Cornerstone of Response To The Climate Emergency

Will Biden Restore “The Administrative State”?

[Updates below]

The Beltway economic research outfit Resources For the Future, whose mission is “to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement” has assembled a panel of experts who will discuss

• Looking Ahead: Benefit-Cost Analysis for Environmental Regulation

The Trump administration introduced several changes to the conduct and use of benefit-cost analysis for environmental regulation, some of which are likely to be revisited by the Biden administration. What is the future of this important policy analysis tool, and why does it matter?

This is a very important discussion, if only because aggressive use of federal regulatory power is at the center of any possibility of responding to the climate emergency and “cost-benefit analysis” (CBA) – like risk assessment – has served as a brake on the exercise of regulatory power.

Those CBA brakes are applied primarily through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) review of federal agency’s regulatory proposals, before they are made public. OMB is the back door for corporate and industry lobbyists to kill or scale back regulatory initiatives and they often use CBA as their weapon.

Conventional political wisdom right now is that the Biden administration will be forced to rely on Executive power due to a likely continuation of a Republican veto in Mitch McConnell’s Senate.

But even if the Democrats win both upcoming special election Georgia Senate seats, it is highly unlikely that Democratic Senators from fossil producing states like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, will support aggressive climate legislation.

So, Biden will be forced to use Executive power, primarily regulatory power, to implement his climate, environmental, energy, and environmental justice agendas.

Frankly, I don’t see that happening, for a number of reasons, i.e.: politics; policy; personnel; institutions; and law.

Biden is a corporate Neoliberal, who relies heavily on pro-corporate market based policies. He has been hostile to regulation. His transition teams were corporate and Neoliberal dominated, with few (if any) real progressive voices.

Biden’s OMB nominee, Neera Tanden  – infamous for her support that the US “Bomb Libya and Take its Oil” – is a fellow corporate Neoliberal Democrat and she lacks the requisite intellectual firepower of a Cass Sunstein to make things happen. She has harshly criticized the Green new Deal.

Biden’s likely EPA head is also a moderate and a champion of market approach and alternatives to regulation like cap and trade.

Biden’s likely energy department head presided over the Obama administration’s “all of the above” energy policy, which produced record US oil and gas production as well as installed miles of fossil pipeline infrastructure. Obama openly bragged about this.

Biden’s “climate envoy”, while he believes in climate change and is being praised by some moderate environmental groups, has characterized the climate emergency chiefly as a “national security” issue (and he led Obama in gutting Climate Accords, as voluntary individual national non-binding targets instead of collective enforceable mandates). I see Kerry being used by Biden as an attack dog on China and Russia (and a cover for restoration of corporate trade policies like TPP) more than a climate activist. I agree with Wenonah Hauter:

Kerry has been an apologist for fracking and a promoter of false climate solutions like market-based carbon-trading schemes. …

the Obama administration — with Kerry at the helm of the State Department — viewed exporting fracked gas from the United States as a powerful foreign policy tool that would undercut adversaries, strikingly similar to Trump’s “freedom gas” campaign a few years later.

Jeff ST. Clair captures it perfectly:

Joe Biden’s cabinet is shaping up to be the most diverse group of ideological clones ever assembled.

On top of all that, there are structural impediments and barriers being erected by the right wing federal courts, including the 6-3 conservative pro-corporate anti-regulatory Supreme Court. 

So, I think the expectations for a Biden onslaught of Executive power and regulations far exceed the reality and there will be lots of disappointed climate activists in places like The Sunrise Movement (who foolishly got co-opted and joined the Biden-Sanders deal).

I assume that the RFF panel will discuss all this is some detail.

The RFF panel announcement solicited questions from the public, so I submitted the following questions for the panel, which were favorably received:

Hi – I have 3 broad questions:

1) How do the experts see the Biden OMB (Neera Tanden) differing from the Obama OMB under Cass Sunstein? Does Ms. Tanden have adequate knowledge and experience?

2) How will the current focus on environmental justice effect Cost-Benefit Analysis methodology and policy with respect to integration in agency decisions? I’m particularly focused on EPA and tensions with disproportionate & disparate impact analyses and the balances between justice, health and economics that are implicit in CBA.

3) Do experts see any problems on the horizon with a 6-3 conservative US Supreme Court that seems to be rethinking the Chevron doctrine (judicial deference), non-delegation doctrine, and overall executive power?

My sense is that the court will heighten scrutiny and thereby raise technical and policy expectations for CBA, rule making and “the administrative state”.

We’ll listen in on the panel’s discussion and keep you posted.

I urge any other fellow regulatory wonks out there to sign up and ask questions too!

[End Note: We must note the role of Jersey Girl Heather Zichal. We’ve written about Ms. Zichal, a former NJ Sierra Club volunteer who also worked for Green New Deal sandbagger NJ Congressman Frank Pallone, John Kerry (as well as the Obama White House), see:

• Jersey Girl Goes All In For Biden – Exposes Corporate Power And Revolving Door

We were pleased to see Wenonah Hauter say this about Zichal::

After advising on John Kerry’s presidential campaign, Heather Zichal served the Obama administration in a role one publication calledthe “chief ambassador to oil and gas companies.” Zichal left public service and went to work for the industry, joining the board of Cheniere Energy, a company heavily invested in the fracked gas exports business. Zichal has long preached a “middle ground” approach to climate policy; indeed, in 2019, she drew the ire of climate activists for suggesting Biden had to adopt a middle ground plan that, instead of moving away from fossil fuels, would embrace natural gas, nuclear energy and technology to reduce carbon emissions. ~~~ end]

[Update #3: 12/24/20 – another we told you so: (WaPo) (emphasis mine)

Biden also said that, as a president who wants to avoid inflaming a closely divided Congress, he plans to tread lightly when it comes to using his executive power — a declaration that no doubt will cause some heartburn on the left, where such caution is considered naive.

[Update #2: 12/11/20 – We told you so! Biden says progressive Executive power “way beyond the bounds” (The Intercept reported:

So there’s some things that I’m going to be able to do by executive order. I’m not going to hesitate to do it, but what I’m not going to do is I’m not going to do what used to — Vanita [Gupta], you probably used to get angry with me during the debates, when you’d have some of the people you were supporting saying, ‘On Day 1, I’m gonna have an executive order to do this!’ Not within the constitutional authority. I am not going to violate the Constitution. Executive authority that my progressive friends talk about is way beyond the bounds. And as one of you said, maybe it was you, Reverend Al [Sharpton], whether it’s far left or far right, there is a Constitution. It’s our only hope. Our only hope and the way to deal with it is, where I have executive authority, I will use it to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority, but I’m not going to exercise executive authority where it’s a question, where I can come along and say, ‘I can do away with assault weapons.’ There’s no executive authority to do away that. And no one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me, me, but you can’t do it by executive order. We do that, next guy comes along and says, Well, guess what? By executive order, I guess everybody can have machine guns again. So we gotta be careful.  ~~~ end update]

Update #1: 12/7/20 – The NY Times runs a story today that illustrates exactly the wildly inflated expectations I am referring to:

Already, president-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is planning to move forward quickly in his first months in office to reinstate and strengthen many of the environmental rules rolled back by Mr. Trump.

This NYT claim is made without any factual support and – if you read the NYT story closely – a few paragraphs later the Biden Transition team explicitly contradicts the claim (by refusing to make exactly a commitment to “reinstate and strengthen” environmental rules rolled back by Trump:

“Given the deadly nature of this pollutant, my advice to the new administration would be to very quickly embark on the process to make the standard more stringent,” said Richard Revesz, an expert on environmental law at New York University.

A spokesman for the Biden transition team declined to say whether the Biden administration would do that, but he noted that when the Harvard study came out in April, Mr. Biden wrote on Twitter, “We’re starting to see evidence that long-term exposure to air pollution — which disproportionately affects communities of color & low-income communities — is linked to COVID-19 death rates.”

But not only did Biden transition fail to make a commitment to strengthen the PM2.5 standards. Obviously, the NYT reporter knows the difference between a vague and non-committal Biden campaign statement and a specific commitment on a specific regulatory standard, after the election and during the transition period.

And it was no accident that West Virginia officials were involved in the Trump EPA press event – obviously that’s a shot across the bow to Biden, who knows that Senator Joe Manchin will not support any stronger Biden EPA rules.

I call bullshit on this kind of misleading reporting.  At best it is wishful thinking and it gives Biden and his incoming EPA Administrator nominee a huge pass. ~~~ end update]