DC Court CANCELS 3 pre-approved LNG Projects... are Pennsylvania Voters Listening???

[Melensdad]

These projects, all previously approved, were cancelled by the liberal D.C. courts, because of something called "Environmental Justice", if I understand it correctly??? We have a lot of states that rely on producing clean burning fossil fuels. Pennsylvania seems to be a flash point for this type of concern. One has to whether if a liberal court would overruled by a liberal administration . . . but tens of thousands of jobs may be at risk.

D.C. Court Cancels Three Approved LNG Projects Over "Environmental Justice" | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

D.C. Court Cancels Three Approved LNG Projects Over "Environmental Justice"​

Authored by Mike Shedlock via mishtalk.com,​

​

Kamala can hide behind her newfound support (lie) for fracking as long as she has “environment justice” and the courts on her side.​

​

​

​

DC Court Vacates LNG Approval​

​

Please note DC Court Vacates LNG Approval at Port of Brownsville​

​

The D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday ruled against approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related pipeline projects at the Port of Brownsville, effectively canceling prior approval of three such projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.​

The Sierra Club, in announcing the ruling, said this is the first time a court has vacated FERC approval of an LNG terminal. FERC approved Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline “despite widespread concerns for the harm the projects would cause to the surrounding communities and the climate.”​

A lawsuit was filed against FERC by the Sierra Club, the city of Port Isabel, Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, a Floreville-based nonprofit organization, claiming that FERC failed to “adequately consider the environmental justice impacts and greenhouse gas emissions of the three projects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Natural Gas Act.“​

The D.C. court upheld the petitioners’ arguments, vacating FERC’s approvals, meaning the agency now has to reconsider the impacts of the three projects. This will require a new draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and public comment period before FERC decides whether to issue new project permits.​

The court’s ruling follows two other rulings in July that “call into question the adequacy of FERC reviews,” according to the Sierra Club, which noted that last week the D.C. Circuit Court ruled FERC had failed to consider greenhouse gas emissions as well as market need for expansion of Real Energy Access, a Williams company pipeline project in the Northeast.​

Also last month, the same court ruled that FERC failed to adequately assess Commonwealth LNG’s air pollution impacts and greenhouse gas emissions, the Sierra Club said, adding that “it is unacceptable for FERC to conduct insufficient environmental justice analysis and to decline to make determinations on the significance of climate-warming emissions.”​

Natural Gas Act of 1938​

​

The Natural Gas Act was written in 1938.​

​

It was focused on regulating the rates charged by interstate natural gas transmission companies. In the years prior to the passage of the Act, concern arose about the monopolistic tendencies of the transmission companies and the fact that they were charging higher than competitive prices. The passage of the Act gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) control over the regulation of interstate natural gas sales. Later on, the FPC was dissolved and became the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to a different act. FERC continues to regulate the natural gas industry to this day.​

National Environmental Policy Act​

​

The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970.​

​

Since its passage, NEPA has been applied to any major project, whether on a federal, state, or local level, that involves federal funding, work performed by the federal government, or permits issued by a federal agency. Court decisions have expanded the requirement for NEPA-related environmental studies to include actions where permits issued by a federal agency are required regardless of whether federal funds are spent to implement the action, to include actions that are entirely funded and managed by private-sector entities where a federal permit is required. This legal interpretation is based on the rationale that obtaining a permit from a federal agency requires one or more federal employees (or contractors in some instances) to process and approve a permit application, inherently resulting in federal funds being expended to support the proposed action, even if no federal funds are directly allocated to finance the particular action.​

Environmental Justice?!​

​

The courts have further expanded the act beyond all recognition to include environmental justice.​

​

Now, on three approved projects, with construction underway, in the name of “environmental justice”, the three projects “will require a new draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and public comment period before FERC decides whether to issue new project permits.”​

​

Wikipedia notes the average time for a review is 4.5 years!​

​

I strongly suggest the affected parties challenge this all the way to the Supreme Court. Hopefully the Supreme Court will put a permanent end to this regulatory madness.​

​

Pennsylvania Are You Paying Attention?​

​

Pennsylvania is the second largest natural gas exporter in the US, second only to Texas.​

​

This explains Kamala Harris’ reversal on fracking. Anyone paying attention knows she is a liar.​

​

Fact Checking Harris ​

​

The BBC does a bit of Fact-Checking Kamala Harris’s First Campaign Interview​

​

What is Harris’s position on fracking?​

CLAIM: In Thursday’s interview, Ms Harris said she would not ban fracking and maintained that she has “not changed that position”.​

VERDICT: This needs context and could be misleading as Ms Harris has changed her public position on fracking. In 2019, she said she was “in favour of banning fracking.”​

The following year, in the 2020 vice presidential debate when she was on the Biden ticket, Ms Harris said “Joe Biden will not end fracking” and: “I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking.”​

During the CNN interview on Thursday she was pressed on her 2019 statement, and Ms Harris responded: “I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As vice-president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.”​

Has child poverty fallen by over 50%?​

CLAIM: “When we do what we did in the first year of being in office to extend the child tax credit, so that we cut child poverty in America by over 50%.”​

VERDICT: This is somewhat of an exaggeration and needs context. Child poverty rates did fall, but not by “over 50%” and they rose again the year after, so the impact was only temporary.​

In Creampuff Interview, CNN Spoon Feeds Harris the Answers to its Questions​

​

On August 29, I noted In Creampuff Interview, CNN Spoon Feeds Harris the Answers to its Questions​

​

“How should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made?” Bash asked Harris. “Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you were running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you’re saying now is going to be your policy moving forward?”​

Nothing like giving the person interviewed the answer right in the question you ask in case they cannot figure out what to say.​

​

“My values have not changed,” replied Harris, pretending to be pro- and anti-fracking simultaneously.​