EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Early on in the Presidency of Donald Trump, massive moves with massive momentum were being directed toward rolling back the great progress on environmental legislation which President Obama put in place.  These measures (thank goodness) were implemented shortly before President Obama left office.  Shortly after President Trump took office, he sought to defund science research and roll back Obama era environmental regulations.  Fortunately, President Obama was able to set in place rules which can be altered with strict caveats.



An example of legislation which the Trump administration sought to roll back with his nominee of the EPA director Scott Pruitt was the Clean Air Act.  After assuming the directorship of the EPA, Director Scott Pruitt was on a roll to tackle these issues quickly and fiercely.  The only issue was that the EPA found itself caught up in the legal system trying to undue good environmental legislation.  Why?



I will admit, when I first heard about the potential roll-back efforts of the EPA, I was worried to say the least.  That is until, I consulted the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).  The mission of the society is to advance science.  Part of that mission is to inform the public about tax payer research which is published in their weekly premiere Journal of Science.  The other part is to work in Washington D.C. to lobby for greater science consideration in the policy making process.



Early on in the administration, many scientists were worried - not just me.   As a result, AAAS organization started making videos regarding the various advocacy actions which could be taken by the public and scientists who were concerned at the current administrations efforts to block science.  You will remember back in April of this year, a "Science March" was held to convey to President Trump the importance of science in the world around us.  Here is a video of the Director of AAAS Dr. Rush Holt brief motivational speech:

This video can be found on the facebook page for AAAS organization. You might be wondering the following questions right now:



Why am I showing you the video above? 


How does that relate to the EPA directors efforts to roll back the Obama era environmental legislation?



Dr. Rush Holt previously served in Congress after teaching physics (and conducting research) at Princeton University.  I sought out videos with interviews about policy making in Congress to understand the potential threats of nominating inexperienced directors such as Scott Pruitt.  Specifically, I wanted to understand more about the following questions:


1) Was there a possibility of undoing (rolling-back) the progress which President Obama put in place while still in office?


2) If yes, how likely would the possibility be of his success in removing the regulations completely?



Through watching multiple interviews with Dr. Rush Holt, I gathered that the answers to my questions were contained in the following thought:



The only way to 'roll-back' a piece of legislation is to replace the law with a better law!



Awesome.  I was temporarily satisfied with the explanation -- if that explanation was indeed true.  According to an e-mail I received in my 'inbox' two weeks ago from 'Politico Energy' -- the statement above seems to be true regarding rolling-back environmental legislation:

PRUITT'S CARBON TIGHTROPE BALANCING ACT: Leaving the door open to rewrite the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan would help President Donald Trump's administration honor the wishes of power companies looking to avoid years of legal uncertainty but might not satisfy the demands of some conservative activists, Pro's Emily Holden reports. EPA wants to move to collect comments about whether to write a new regulation, and is likely to write a new rule given the agency would be on much shakier legal ground if it simply opted not to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants.

Any replacement rule would be unlikely to take a meaningful bite out of carbon levels and would be based on a much narrower interpretation of EPA's Clean Air Act authority. That may be enough in the interim for some conservatives who would prefer a straight withdrawal of Clean Power Plan but who wouldn't oppose a replacement rule. "Ultimately, the responsibility to fix this mess lies with the Congress, so until they act, the only thing the Administration can do is minimize the damage," said Tom Pyle, a conservative lobbyist with the American Energy Alliance who led Trump's Energy Department transition team. But the details could have political implications for Pruitt, who is widely seen as a potential candidate for the U.S. Senate in his native Oklahoma.

Most utilities assume future regulations or laws will ultimately require them to curb carbon emissions even if the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan goes down and support EPA issuing a replacement rule - albeit a much weaker one. "We think that future regulation of carbon emissions from power production is likely, and could provide additional planning certainty," Tammy Ridout, a spokeswoman with coal-heavy AEP, said. Regardless of the approach Pruitt ultimately selects, environmental groups are sure to vigorously contest his efforts in court.

According to the excerpt above, Director Scott Pruitt is realizing that either Congress needs to act to replace the law or the EPA needs to rewrite the law.  Either way, fortunately, the new version appears to have to satisfy the requirement suggested in earlier months by the Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - Dr. Rush Holt.  Which is that in order to repeal an old or existing piece of legislation, the new piece of legislation should be better or improved.


Therefore, the idea of rolling back legislation which protects the environment seems to be protected by laws in Congress.  Thank goodness.  Also, certain industries are complaining to the Trump Administration (amazingly enough) about the Administration's current efforts in the legal system with legislative reversals.  Companies have instituted (or invested heavily) in renewable energy changes required by the Obama Administration.  Therefore, they are questioning the need of the Trump Administration to spend so much time in court to reverse what already has forward momentum.



In closing, the overall function of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the public from environmental hazards that might contribute to contamination of the environment.