Did the Biden-Harris administration play fast and loose with the facts to push their climate agenda? That’s the bombshell question arising from allegations that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) buried critical feedback from the Department of Energy (DOE) on a cornerstone of their power plant regulations. It’s a story that raises serious doubts about whether “following the science” was ever the real plan.
According to Just the News, at the heart of this controversy is the Clean Power Plan 2.0 (CPP2), a Biden-era rule mandating carbon capture technology for coal and natural gas plants, which critics say was built on shaky ground as the EPA allegedly hid dissenting expert opinions from the public record.
Let’s rewind to the Obama years, when the groundwork for aggressive climate rules was laid. Emails from 2009 revealed that the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide emissions—a linchpin for later regulations—was seemingly predetermined before any public announcement. This set a troubling precedent for how science might be shaped to fit policy, not the other way around.
Fast forward to March 2023, when the Biden-Harris EPA sought input from the DOE’s National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) on the soon-to-be-proposed CPP2 rule. The rule, rolled out for public comment in May of that year, requires coal plants to install carbon capture tech by 2039 and new natural gas plants to follow suit by 2032. But here’s the rub: NETL’s feedback, which questioned the technology’s readiness, mysteriously vanished from the official record.
NETL engineers pointed to the Boundary Dam Unit #3 (BD3) project in Canada, which the EPA touted as proof that carbon capture is “adequately demonstrated.” A NETL author noted, “CCUS remains prohibitively expensive even after use of funds or tax credits.” Well, isn’t that an inconvenient truth for a policy banking on affordability?
Further NETL comments revealed BD3 captured only 57% of emissions through 2023, far below the promised 90%, hitting that target for just two months in over eight years. An engineer remarked that such dismal performance “argues strongly for not considering BD3 as a credible basis” for the rule. Turns out, cherry-picking data might not power the grid, but it sure powers a narrative.
The watchdog group Government Oversight and Accountability (GOA) uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request that these critical NETL comments were sanitized before reaching the EPA’s administrative record. GOA stated that the feedback was not included in what made it to the final files. If true, that’s not just a paperwork error—it’s a deliberate sidestep of transparency.
Adding fuel to the fire, a 2024 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis called BD3 an “under-performing failure” despite a billion Canadian dollars invested. Meanwhile, the EPA’s modeling projects no new natural gas or coal plants with carbon capture through 2055, casting further doubt on the rule’s feasibility. It’s almost as if the numbers don’t add up when ideology drives the math.
Legal challenges are piling up, too. In May 2024, two dozen states sued over related EPA rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and later, the Louisiana Public Service Commission joined the fight, alleging the EPA overstated confidence in carbon capture tech. When even internal models contradict public claims, you’ve got to wonder who’s being powered by wishful thinking.
Experts aren’t mincing words about CPP2’s potential fallout. They warn it could hike electricity costs and destabilize the grid by pushing out reliable coal and gas in favor of inconsistent wind and solar. For families already stretched thin, that’s a bitter pill to swallow.
The Clean Air Act demands that EPA standards be achievable at a reasonable cost with proven technology, yet NETL’s buried feedback suggests carbon capture isn’t there yet. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, commenting on a separate Biden-Harris study, said they didn’t like what the study said, so they set out to produce one that fit their goals. Sounds like science took a backseat to an agenda.
Even the Supreme Court has weighed in on EPA overreach before, striking down Obama’s original Clean Power Plan in 2021’s West Virginia v. EPA ruling for lacking clear congressional authority. Though the court upheld the EPA’s right to regulate carbon emissions, the question remains: Does CPP2 cross the line again? History might not be kind to rules built on shaky foundations.
Now, with the Trump administration reviewing CPP2, the rule’s future hangs in the balance. Environment attorney Chris Horner suggested there’s “pretty good reason to conclude” the EPA buried NETL’s comments, calling it a potential “kill shot” for the regulation if challenged. If the record isn’t complete, the rule might not stand a chance.
For everyday Americans, this isn’t just about policy wonkery—it’s about whether the lights stay on at a price they can afford. The Biden-Harris push for climate goals is admirable in intent, but if it means sidelining hard data and risking grid reliability, it’s a gamble many can’t afford to lose. Turns out, actions have consequences, even when wrapped in green intentions.
