DOE evidence buried in Biden EPA’s climate policy overreach – NaturalNews.com

• Biden’s EPA omitted key DOE critiques of carbon capture technology, undermining its own Clean Power Plan 2.0 regulations.
• Missing comments revealed CCUS as prohibitively expensive and technically flawed, casting doubt on CPP2’s feasibility.
• DOE’s National Energy Technology Lab identified the $1B Boundary Dam Project as an 8-year failure, capturing only 57% of CO2.
• Courts and states argue the rule violates legal safeguards for affordable energy, citing EPA’s own modeling predicting minimal CCUS adoption.
• Legal experts say the agency’s hidden flaws could invalidate the rule, mirroring the 2021 Supreme Court’s rejection of the original Clean Power Plan.

In a revelation further fueling controversy over environmental policy, newly disclosed records indicate the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed critical feedback from the Department of Energy (DOE) that contradicted core assumptions of its far-reaching Clean Power Plan 2020 (CPP2). This rule, which mandates nearly all coal- and gas-fired power plants install unproven and costly carbon capture technology (CCUS) or face closure, now faces scrutiny after the EPA omitted DOE’s warnings that the technology is flawed and uneconomical. The findings, unearthed by congressional investigations and watchdog groups, threaten the plan’s legal foundations at a time when the Trump administration has vowed to replace it with policies prioritizing reliable, affordable energy.

A history of EPA overreach

The controversy reignites long-standing debates over federal agencies overstepping statutory bounds to advance climate agendas. During the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, the Supreme Court halted its execution in West Virginia v. EPA, ruling the agency lacked authority to force a nationwide shift from coal to renewables. The Biden administration’s CPP2, however, purported to sidestep that precedent by mandating carbon capture rather than fuel switching. Yet parallels emerge: internal memos show both Obama and Biden officials have informally shaped data to justify policies. For instance, Energy Secretary Chris Wright admitted in 2023 that the Biden team buried a DOE liquefied natural gas (LNG) study that undermined its climate goals, later commissioning a replacement study.

Similarly, emails from the Obama-era EPA prove its infamous 2009 “endangerment finding” — deeming CO? a pollutant — was decided before peer review, a gambit critics argue set a precedent for politicizing science. These practices now haunt the CPP2, as the agency failed to include DOE’s technical objections in its planning record.

The CPP2 controversy

At issue is the EPA’s claim that CCUS has been “adequately demonstrated” under the Clean Air Act, a legal threshold requiring proof that new power plant technology is cost-effective and functional. But in March 2023, the EPA solicited input from DOE’s National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) on its draft rule — and then excluded their negative assessments.

NETL engineers, for example, cited the $1 billion Canadian Boundary Dam Unit 3 (BD3) project as a cautionary tale. The plant was supposed to capture 90% of CO? emissions but averaged only 57% over eight years, hitting that target for just two months in eight years. “Misconstruing BD3’s failures as validation is irresponsible,” reads one suppressed comment. The EPA, however, leaned on BD3 as its flagship success story, while omitting data showing its technical and financial shortcomings.

Adding to the suspicion is the removal of hydrogen as an emissions reduction option in the final rule — a move critics tie to its proven unfeasibility — as opposed to carbon capture, which remains in the rule despite internal DOE warnings. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chair of the House Oversight Committee, called the resulting regulations “driven by ideology, not engineering.”

Critical flaws in carbon capture claims

The CPP2’s requirements — 90% CO? capture from all coal plants by 2039, and mandates for new gas plants beginning in 2032 — face existential challenges beyond technical feasibility. DOE engineers labeled CCUS “prohibitively expensive” even with Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, estimating costs exceeding utility margins. Their comments, excluded from the EPA’s record, highlight how the agency ignored its own Integrated Planning Model, which projects zero CCUS adoption in new gas plants by 2055 and only one gigawatt of surviving coal capacity with the technology.

Legal expert Chris Horner argues this omission could cripple the rule. “The EPA’s 2021 replacement for the Clean Power Plan was struck down because it exceeded statutory authority. Here, the problem is worse: The agency actively hid evidence showing their foundation is legally indefensible,” he says. The D.C. Circuit Court is currently reviewing CPP2 challenges after 24 states sued, with Louisiana’s Public Service Commission recently arguing the EPA’s own models debunk its claims.

A path to repeal?

With the Trump administration’s EPA now reconsidering CPP2 under new leadership — Administrator Lee Zeldin called it an “overreach” that harms reliability — the suppressed comments may offer a “kill shot.” Horner explains: “If courts find the record was knowingly falsified, the rule could collapse immediately. The EPA doesn’t need to argue CCUS is unproven — their own actions prove it.”

The agency’s prior reversal illustrates the stakes. The 2015 Clean Power Plan’s fuel-shifting mandate was invalidated because it lacked direct congressional authorization; CPP2’s narrower focus on CCUS was intended to bypass that flaw. But if flawed and concealed data undermine its tech basis, the Supreme Court precedent could still apply. The EPA, however, insists it will “cleanse the record” during its review — a process likely accelerated by mounting legal and political pressure.

Beyond ideology, back to science

As debates over energy policy intensify, the EPA’s mishandling of technical critiques underscores a broader dilemma: Can federal agencies balance environmental goals with legal precision and economic reality? For millions reliant on coal- and gas-fired power, the CPP2’s shaky foundation represents more than regulatory overreach — it’s a threat to grid stability and wallet-security. The missing DOE warnings may yet offer redemption, pushing regulators toward a future where data, not dogma, shores up the nation’s lights — and its liberties.

Sources for this article include:

WattsUpWithThat.com

JustTheNews.com

EPA.gov