SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge to One of EPA’s Most Stringent Proposed Climate Regs

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation


The Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear challenges against one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) key regulatory proposals.

The EPA introduced its “good neighbor plan” in March, with the policy designed to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, especially from manufacturing facilities and power plants; if finalized in its current form, the policy would impose tighter standards on 23 “upwind” states whose emissions are thought to cause air pollution in “downwind” states. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for four emergency challenges against the regulation in February 2024, according to the Supreme Court’s website.

The rule could cost American firms up to $910 million each year in compliance costs, and it would have particularly acute effects on industrial companies in the Midwest, according to the EPA. The agency estimates that the finalized rule would prevent about 1,300 premature deaths and avert 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits in 2026 alone, as well as provide billions of dollars’ worth of economic benefits. (RELATED: Biden EPA’s Air Quality Rule Proposal Would Crush American Industry And Jobs, Executives Warn)

BLACKMON: “The authority sought by the EPA in that regulation was so expansive that critics argued it would give the agency the ability to regulate every drainage ditch and even swimming pools in the country.”

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 28, 2023

The EPA cites the Clean Air Act as the enabling statute for the “good neighbor plan” and maintains that the policy is legal as written. However, Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who is leading one of the challenges against the rule, wrote in court papers that the EPA “ignored obvious problems with its attempt to twist the Clean Air Act into a system of top-down regulation instead of the system of cooperative federalism that Congress intended.”

Other states involved in a challenge against the EPA’s regulation assert in court documents that it would jeopardize power grid reliability and impose excessive, unreasonable costs. The rule was designed with an eye toward emissions sources such as natural gas pipelines, iron and steel mills, cement manufacturing, paper manufacturing, according to the EPA.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case, its decision could ultimately end up being the second major ruling pertaining to the extent of EPA’s authority in the last several years. In June 2022, the nation’s highest court dealt a blow to the agency in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court reined in the EPA’s ability to limit emissions of existing power plants.

The EPA declined to comment, citing the pending nature of the litigation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

5 19 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 22, 2023 6:09 am

The EPA’s defense is they were just following orders. Biden et al are at fault.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 22, 2023 6:42 am

They say they want to “Save Lives (1300) and prevent (2600) Hospital Emergency Visits”
But what is the point of saving lives if you destroy livelihoods in the process?
Certainly making manufacturing of such necessities as NATURAL GAS, STEEL, CONCRETE and even PAPER far more costly to the tune of an additional $910M annually will drive up costs to the extent that either jobs and livelihoods of some are lost to driving those industries off soil and to other, less stringent nations affecting the livelihoods of everyone involved.
“Good Neighbor” won’t eliminate the emissions it seeks to, it will only outsource them and the earnings and jobs provided to foreign countries

Tom Halla
Reply to  Bryan A
December 22, 2023 6:53 am

And the EPAs “lives saved” number is based on PM2.5 studies, which are the Secret Science that is untestable, and therefore little better than a POOMA.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 22, 2023 9:35 am

the Secret Science that is untestable

From my readings, many studies have been done using air quality monitoring data and health and death data. These found no difference in disease or death rates between areas with widely varying PM2.5 measurements. Nothing that could be ascribed to or attributed to differences in these tiny particles. Its is rather like the fact that naturally occurring ionizing radiation differences in different areas, which are sometimes quite large, do not show up in any disease or death statistics.

Tom Halla
Reply to  AndyHce
December 22, 2023 10:16 am

IIRC, there is one study, the “Five Cities” study, that did show a significant effect. But the underlying raw data is purportedly confidential, so determining whether the effect is real is impossible.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 22, 2023 1:02 pm

So many data sets hidden. I hope the subject study was not publically funded.

Tom Halla
Reply to  KevinM
December 22, 2023 1:06 pm

There was an effort under Trump to stop EPA and others from using studies that did not make their raw data available. The apparatchiks and NGOs cried bloody murder.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 22, 2023 6:35 pm

The claim has been made, perhaps in an essay here at WUWT, that a reasonable reading of the original law requires public transparency but not necessarily of the “raw” data. As is often done in published medical studies, the data can be “scrubbed” of personal information that would allow individual’s identity to be recognized, e.g. name, address, government assigned numbers such as SS and Medicare, etc. However all the data details important to understanding the medical or other scientific claims are supposed to be made available.

Then, as part of the law, there is some function, council, agency, whatever it is called, that is supposed to review the study “independently” of the EPA bureaucrats, to pass or not pass on the EPA conclusions, before presenting the conclusions/demands for regulation status. EPA also frequently denies these people access to the data, even though they are in fact a hand picked part of EPA. Under Trump this group was to be composed of true outside scientists, appointed independently of the EPA.

Then, there have been three executive orders, starting with the Carter administration, requiring the EPA to obey the law and twice Congress has passed additional legislation requiring the EPA to obey, but the EPA always has strong DC support that sees EPA “civil servants” have immunity from the law.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  AndyHce
December 23, 2023 1:18 am

They conveniently forget that it was Carter who established a section of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. What section? The part that’s an arctic desert where nothing lives except for some lichen, moss, some small insects, and probably some bacteria. What’s not there are caribou, reindeer, or other large animals.

There’s no trees, bushes etc. Nothing that can’t live with six months of darkness each year.

But the media and other people against drilling for oil in the Arctic part of ANWR only show pictures and video of sub-Arctic ANWR where there are plants and animals – where Carter did not establish a section for drilling for oil.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  AndyHce
December 23, 2023 1:11 am

Remember that mountain town in (IIRC) Colorado the EPA insisted was horribly contaminated with lead from the abandoned silver mine up on the mountain, yet nobody in the town had elevated levels of lead and nobody suffered from any of the problems caused by lead poisoning. But the EPA insisted the place was worthy of being a Superfund cleanup site and everyone would just have to leave while the government razed it then hauled away the “contaminated” topsoil.

Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
December 23, 2023 6:22 pm

I remember that, actually not that long ago … maybe 9 or 10 years, EPA actually botched the “cleanup”, caused a blow low out, and severely polluted the creek for several miles downstream with highly toxic tailings.

Reply to  Streetcred
December 24, 2023 12:11 pm

Yup. The Animas River. The EPA never admitted wrongdoing, if I remember correctly.

Reply to  Streetcred
December 23, 2023 6:18 pm

Milloy also had an excellent video or picture of PM2.5 live HUMAN experiments at one of the “Universities” showing diesel fumes being pumped into the air intakes for the breathing apparatus.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Bryan A
December 22, 2023 8:27 am

It’s 1300 “premature deaths”. That works out to 1300 people dying one day earlier than they might have.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
December 22, 2023 1:02 pm

One picosecond?

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Bryan A
December 22, 2023 12:48 pm

Indeed – this “saving lives” (via supposedly cleaner air) is like the trolley thought experiment gone mad. The greens will happily throw the switch that will wreck the train carrying hundreds of passengers just to avoid hitting a single person on the tracks….

Every time I see or hear someone saying how many lives will be saved and how much better people’s health will be without fossil fuels I cringe. What good is pristine air when you are starving, freezing, and suffering from previously preventable/curable diseases?

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Lee Riffee
December 23, 2023 1:21 am

Anti-oil? Then you’re also anti-aspirin. Its chemical synthesis begins with benzene which is a component of crude oil. An anti-oil person will also have to give up wintergreen mint flavoring because it’s also made from oil.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 22, 2023 8:42 am

The president of Harvard University says, “copy that.”

Reply to  Scissor
December 22, 2023 1:41 pm

According to several Harvard faculty, firing the president of Harvard would be a significant blow against their efforts to be minority friendly. The fact that she is incompetent is less important than the fact that she is a black woman.

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2023 6:39 pm

Perhaps you have that backwards. The fact that she is incompetent is a bonus for social justice. Math and facts and logical thought are racist.

Steve Case
December 22, 2023 6:30 am

“The EPA introduced its “good neighbor plan” in March, with the policy designed to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions …”


Nitrogen dioxide (NO2); Nitrous Oxide (N2O); Nitrogen Oxide (???)

Apparently the Daily Caller’s science editor is lacking in basic knowledge in chemistry.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
December 22, 2023 6:43 am


Reply to  Steve Case
December 22, 2023 7:10 am

“…reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides…” would have been correct linguistically and technically. Proofreaders are no longer driven to achieve.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 22, 2023 8:55 am

‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’ or as sounded as ‘a’ as in neighbor and weigh.

Signed: Weird Keith the Financier.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 22, 2023 9:34 am

We wuz Kangs.

Lee Riffee
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 22, 2023 12:50 pm

Sadly it seems all bets are off these days with single people being referred to as “they”….IMO that’s nails on a black board in a grammatical sense!

Reply to  Steve Case
December 22, 2023 6:58 pm

“Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control Regulations”

George Daddis
December 22, 2023 6:30 am

“..PREVENT about 1,300 premature deaths and avert 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits in 2026 alone….” so where are the bodies?!? They must be dying today if we are going to “prevent” them in the future.

Would it not be more effective to challenge the use of the Linear No Lower Threshold rule of thumb which clearly was used to generate these mortality rates.

This was a rational “better safe then sorry” rule at the start of atom bomb testing but has no real scientific basis today – what natural condition operates “linearly”?

This technique is used by advocacy groups to justify unrealistic regulation, or to beg for donations (American Heart Association).

Steve Case
Reply to  George Daddis
December 22, 2023 6:34 am

Where are the bodies? Same place as all those people
who died from second hand smoke.

Reply to  Steve Case
December 22, 2023 6:44 am

My brother was a lifelong non-smoker who died too early of lung cancer. He had, however, lived his whole life* with heavy smokers. No one else in my family has had even a hint of cancer.

You may believe death from second-hand smoking doesn’t exist, but my experience suggests it does.

*Our parents were heavy smokers, so I also lived with smokers until my mid-teens. My brother was mentally handicapped, so he lived with them much longer than me.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Redge
December 22, 2023 6:57 am

I have a nephew who developed asthma, thanks to his father smoking 3 packs/day until his massive heart attack at 45. But raising the issue of tobacco- when discussing power plants and other industries- isn’t relevant. Certainly there needs to be some limitations on air pollution- but it must be reasonable.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 22, 2023 7:20 am

Yes, I agree.

It wasn’t me who raised the issue of tobacco, I was just responding to the previous comment.

Reply to  Redge
December 22, 2023 1:25 pm

yes. The smoking and cancer- over a long exposure- is an extremely high correlation. Much higher than a lot of other harms tossed around
Since oxides of nitrogen are present at high levels in cigarette smoke too , I dont know the same harmful levels come from ‘down wind’ of power plants 100s kms away

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 23, 2023 1:26 am

Some people don’t know reasonable. Some years ago there was a proposal to measure dioxins in the Columbia River in parts per *quadrillion*. My thought on that was “So this person wants to somehow make one of the largest rivers in the world pure enough to kill everything in it?”. Nevermind that forest fires generate massive amounts of dioxins, turpenes, and various other fun chemical compounds, then rain hoses lots of that into the Pacific Northwest watershed, most of which eventually drains into the Columbia River.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Redge
December 22, 2023 7:49 am

I am sorry to bring this up, but how many people lived with smokers and developed no lung ailments? We don’t know because it is easy to point to anecdotes of your variety and difficult to impossible otherwise, but a “fair test” which is fast becoming an endangered species, would have to consider both. You have to have a control.

Saying that, I’d hate to have lived full-time with smokers…

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
December 22, 2023 1:10 pm

Agreed. So many people “don’t get” design of experiment best practices. In addition, almost no data for anything interesting before the late 20th century.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Redge
December 22, 2023 8:31 am

And you have proof that the lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke? Nobody else in your family, even the smokers, didn’t get lung cancer based on what you said. People with mental handicaps are more likely to have physical issues also, so you may want to rethink your position.

Reply to  Redge
December 22, 2023 8:45 am

There are many people who die from lung cancer who were never exposed to cigarette smoke. You really need to study up on statistics.

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2023 10:06 am

And, my brother in law smoked heavily for 50 years. He died of a type of lung cancer that is not related to smoking.

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2023 11:59 am

So what is your point Mark. Are yo saying smoking does not increase your risk of getting lung cancer?

Reply to  Simon
December 22, 2023 1:44 pm

And once again Simon demonstrates that reading comprehension is one of the many things that he simply doesn’t get.

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2023 3:15 pm

Sp what did you mean when you said
There are many people who die from lung cancer who were never exposed to cigarette smoke. “
Of course there are people who never smoke who get lung cancer. So come on….What was your point?

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2023 8:27 pm

“Run away” Mark. Seriously, is there a moral bone in your body?

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2023 6:56 am

Or a truthful one in yours.

Reply to  Simon
December 23, 2023 9:16 am

“Run away” Simon? Coming from you?

Reply to  Tony_G
December 23, 2023 2:41 pm

I’m happy to back up what I say. Much easier when you start from an honest statement… which is why Mark disappears like this when he is caught making stuff up.

Reply to  Simon
December 24, 2023 10:46 am

I’m happy to back up what I say.

Then you should be able to tell me where the “it’s ok if you return them” clause is with regard to classified documents, and what job Biden had from 2017-2021 that required that he have them in his garage. You never did answer those questions last time I asked.

Reply to  Tony_G
December 24, 2023 1:26 pm

You never did answer those questions last time I asked.”
Because it is a silly question. Biden was VP who would have literally had access to squillions of docs, many of which he would have taken home to work on. He and many other VP’s would have done this. Trump on the other hand was asked to return them when it was determined by the archives that he sensitive material. So hat did he do? He hid some and them lied saying all was returned. Huge difference.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
December 22, 2023 6:46 am


Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
December 22, 2023 6:48 am

Where have all the bodies gone
Long time passing
Where have all the bodies gone
Long time ago
Where have all the bodies gone
Gone to Graveyards everyone
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

December 22, 2023 6:37 am

Just wondering: under the twisted logic enabled by the EPA’s “good neighbor plan”, will some states have the ability to prevent other states from building unsightly wind turbine farms and solar power farms (either solar thermal of solar PV) within sight of their borders?

You know . . . you must be a good neighbor and not spoil my view of nature for the sake of “green, renewable energy”?

Or how about, no more clear cutting of mountain forests in your state when it spoils the view of those mountains from my state?

Law of unintended consequences?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  ToldYouSo
December 22, 2023 6:58 am

everybody is a NIMBY- and they have a right to be one

Reply to  ToldYouSo
December 22, 2023 9:06 am

What about wind turbines killing birds and bats that fly in from another state?

Richard Page
Reply to  Independent
December 22, 2023 9:06 pm

OMG – wind turbines are killing immigrants now? Oh noes.

December 22, 2023 6:38 am

Salute! and Merry Christmas!

I thot we went thru this with the “acid rain” stuff years ago. You know, burning “dirty” coal produced sulfur and nitrogen compounds and states that use a lotta coal to produce electricity suffered from “acid rain”.

In case you wonder, the ridiculous price for diesel last few years compared to 15 or 20 years ago has to do with “low sulfur” and “extra low sulfur” fuel. As most of the bad combustion gases were produced at power plants the EPA recognized a few exceptions at the service station pump and seems “off road’ use like tractors for raising food crops could use higher sulfur content. Seems they put a dye into the fuel so the “clean air police” could easily check the diesel in your Mecedes to ensure you were legal.

My understanding is almost all diesel for “on road” use is now ultra low sulfur, and vehicles after turn of century were forced to build engines that could use the newer blends. ,

Gums sends…

Reply to  Gums
December 22, 2023 7:18 am

Fuel taxes are a cash cow for governments. Carbon taxes on fuel are the latest scam for governments to increase revenues, and spin up the dollar whirlwind. They even claim “revenue neutral” programs which means they spend everything they collect…. no different than normal tax….

Bob B.
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 22, 2023 10:17 am

The problem is that they spend a whole lot more than they collect on all taxes.

Reply to  Bob B.
December 22, 2023 1:16 pm

Plus plus. Its hard to minimize spending when the money “isn’t mine”. Taxes from anybody are for paying interest only now.

Reply to  Gums
December 22, 2023 6:18 pm

In the US, the difference for road diesel and offroad diesel is the offroad (and diesel for the reefer unit on refrigerated trailers) is not charged the road taxes. That is why it has a colorant added, so if you cheat, the gubmint can catch you.

Sort of like how EVs are not charged road taxes in the US. The fed government is allowing them to avoid paying their fair share for road maintenance and construction. Now if they were used to plow fields, than that would be different.

Kevin Kilty
December 22, 2023 7:42 am

impose tighter standards on 23 “upwind” red states whose emissions are thought to cause air pollution in “downwind” blue states. “

Peta of Newark
December 22, 2023 8:14 am

This ‘good neighbour’ bit is garbage…
1/ Designed to set one group of people against another.
It is a supremely dysfunctional thing for anyone to do, let alone a government.
Are they really wanting to start a civil war?

2/ Under the prevailing climate condition nowadays any sort of pollution coming out of any chimney is never going to go very far, let alone into the next state.
The high pressure cyclonic systems that now prevail for 8, 9 and 10 months mean that any airborne ‘stuff’ will be forced down to ground level by the falling/descending air within those systems.
Because SOx and most NOx are extremely water soluble they will be soaked up by plants, tree and farmland crops after travelling (next to) zero distance.
The non-water soluble N₂O is a flammable and reactive gas and will work to strip low-level Ozone out of the air.
This being Ozone (created as all Ozone is by UV from El Sol) will be at elevated levels inside/under the high-pressure clear-sky weather systems so this N₂O will be welcome. Have they factored in the effects of Ozone on people’s health and that of plants/crops?
They ought to as Ozone is massively damaging stuff.

3/ Nitrogen and sulphur are extremely valuable plant nutrients and farmers spend large sums of money buying them – after they have been manufactured and refined and transported using the dreaded fossil fuels.
If free stuff is no longer falling out of the sky, farmers will have to spend ever more to replace the free airborne stuff, effectively buying/creating ever more ’emissions’ in the process
Is that factored into these calculations

4/ The NOx & SOx that does not land in farmer’s fields will be absorbed by wild/native and perennial plants, causing them to massively increase their capture of CO₂ and so reducing atmospheric levels, thus reducing the need for other more expensive methods of capture.
Is that factored into their calculations.

5/ The CO₂ captured by wild and perennial plants will also effectively capture vast amounts of water within the landscape, causing a cooling effect.
Has that been factored in, especially when compared the costs of ‘other global cooling methods

6/ …you get the idea <feel free to add any more you may think of>

December 22, 2023 8:50 am

The EPA declined to comment, citing the pending nature of the litigation.

What pending “litigation”? The EPA operates only under existing law. If they think they are doing that, they should comment on all services they intend to provide as a matter of transparency.

December 22, 2023 9:26 am

Without pursuing a law degree, what is the difference between
“The Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear challenges against”
“If the Supreme Court takes up the case”

Richard Page
Reply to  AndyHce
December 22, 2023 9:11 pm

I think that they’ll decide whether any of the challenges have merit before looking at the case to see if the challenges will overturn the regulations. As far as I’m aware a judicial review can be a complicated process with several steps.

December 22, 2023 9:32 am

NOTE: More babies die every day in abortions than the number of lives that outrageous claim says it would save ANNUALLY.

Curious George
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
December 22, 2023 10:53 am

Link, please.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Curious George
December 22, 2023 11:00 am

“In 2021, 625,978 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas “

December 22, 2023 10:52 am

Maybe this is off-topic, but it is something that has confounded me for some time. LWIR leaving the Earth’s surface potentially “interacts” with greenhouse gases. What do we mean by “interacts”? Greenhouse gases are just gas molecules with 3 or more atoms. This allows for LWIR to trigger vibration modes of greenhouse gases. This means that the energy in LWIR transforms into kinetic energy. Energy is a conserved quantity. What happens next? Vibrating molecules collide with other gas molecules and transfer/pass on (what ever you want to call it) the kinetic energy. LWIR is not a conserved quantity, yet people act like a greenhouse gas that interacts with LWIR passes on the LWIR by remitting it. The question I have is what amount of the LWIR that interacts with greenhouse gases gets passed on in the atmosphere through kinetic energy exchange versus “back” radiation. Isn’t it the case that almost all of the energy in LWIR gets transformed into kinetic energy when it interacts with a greenhouse gas? Lots of people act like LWIR is a conserved quantity. This is not my understanding of the physics.

Reply to  Nelson
December 22, 2023 1:49 pm

The answer to that question depends on the air density.
In the lower atmosphere, the average time between collisions is so short that pretty close to 100% of the molecules give up their energy via collisions before they have a chance to re-radiate.

As the air density decreases, the average time between collisions go up, and as a result more molecules have a change to lose that energy via re-radiation.

As you get close to the top of the atmosphere, CO2 can actually help the atmosphere radiate heat away, as molecules that gain energy via collisions have a higher chance of radiating that energy away, rather than transfer it via collisions.

December 22, 2023 12:56 pm

The agency estimates that the finalized rule would prevent about 1,300 premature deaths and avert 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits in 2026 alone,

The number of handwaving arguments and conventions one must accept to judge 2300 deaths among a diverse population of millions is absurd. Also, hw much thought was put into the definition of “premature”? I see an underlying presumption that duration equals quality.

Reply to  KevinM
December 22, 2023 2:06 pm

2021 US death rate was 3.464 million.
2021 ER visits were around 150 million

You can do the math…

Reply to  KevinM
December 22, 2023 6:34 pm

This is typical democrat doublespeak.

Remember when Obama and his crew said the jobs bill would create or SAVE x jobs. The or save part had never been tried before, it was always a number of NEW jobs created in the past. How do you count the saved jobs. You can’t. The scamming never ends.

Richard Page
Reply to  Drake
December 23, 2023 12:22 am

Governments have always used ‘creative accounting’ methods for their figures, not much new there I’m afraid.

Reply to  Richard Page
December 24, 2023 3:34 pm

So go ahead and show where the “and saved” was ever used by a POLITICIAN, not “the government” for a jobs bill.

Obama was a bright politician, knowing he could pull this type of crap with no pushback from the MSM.

Early in his first term he said he directed all his departments heads to save some really small amount of their budgets. Not only did he get away with the amount being a pittance, the MSM never asked him about it again.

December 22, 2023 2:28 pm

The EPA folks dream up these inane regulations, but they have no idea about the cost and how much that cost hurts our standard of living, and our competitive position in the world.
We already have annual trade deficits of more than one $trillion per year, on top of a $2 trillion federal deficit in 2023

Everything is to be sacrificed on the black-hole altar of global warming

Those costs and consequences are just afterthoughts that enter their minds after millions of people are complaining.

Here is an example.

People are finally catching on to the tremendous capital and operating cost of battery systems.
Go to the Tesla Megapack website which gives prices/kWh delivered as AC.
All those prices are over $450/kWh, add to that the other costs for a complete turnkey system, and you are at $575/kWh, 2023 pricing.

Bloomberg, Lazard, etc., still use these rediculous numbers of $100/kWh.
Where in hell do they get those numbers?

This articles explains all in detail



Example of Turnkey Cost of Large-Scale, Megapack Battery System, 2023 pricing
The system consists of 50 Megapack 2, rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, 4-h energy delivery
Power = 50 Megapacks x 0.979 MW x 0.926, Tesla design factor = 45.3 MW
Energy = 50 Megapacks x 3.916 MWh x 0.929, Tesla design factor = 181.9 MWh
Estimate of supply by Tesla, $90 million, or $495/kWh. See URL
Estimate of supply by Others, $14.5 million, or $80/kWh
All-in, turnkey cost about $575/kWh; 2023 pricing
comment image?itok=lxTa2SlF
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.462 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.738 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.462 + 6.738) = $183 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and losses at 19%
Battery output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh delivered to HV grid
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 183.8 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 91.9c/kWh
At 10% usage, publicized cost, 91.9 c/kWh
At 40% usage, publicized cost, 23.0 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 3) system losses from HV grid to HV grid, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect the battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE 1: The 40% usage is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% usage, i.e., not charging above 80% and not discharging below 20%.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded be owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
NOTE 2: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.
NOTE 3: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates.

NOTE 4: If a 24-h system is desired, each parallel train would have 10 units x 4 h/unit x 0.6, Tesla limit = 24 hours
Ten, 4-h Megapacks, in series, would be required!!

Above example would have 50 x 6 = 300 Megapacks.
Tesla design factors would apply. See article

NOTE 5: World cobalt production was 142,000 and 170,000 metric ton, in 2020 and 2021, respectively, of which the Democratic Republic of the Congo was 120,000 metric ton in 2021

December 22, 2023 5:28 pm

Simple. Tell the downwind states they will have to build their own refineries, plants and factories rather than depending on products made in the upwind states.

Gregg Eshelman
December 23, 2023 1:07 am

So the EPA wants to limit emissions of existing power plants, but when Bush Jr. proposed allowing existing power plants to upgrade their emissions controls as much as *practical*, the EPA dug in their heels and insisted it had to be either left as built or updated to 100% meet current regulations.

Nevrmind that in many cases “updating” an old power plant to meet current emissions regulations would entail razing it to the ground and building a new one, which would face all kinds of costly hurdles such as protests and lawsuits, along with ever changing EPA rules and regs – before they’d even get the permits to start building.

December 23, 2023 7:43 am

I know that I have said this before but the illusion of scientific studies is just a smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the Left. That agenda is the full collapse of the West and the formation of the New World Order. Thus debating the validity of these studies is a total waste of time since their function is to justify the overthrow of Democracy and not to help people make an informed decision. If you manage to prove that one study is faulty another paid study will just pop up like wack-a-mole. It is more fruitful to try to try to change the political system and to try to boycott the institutions that are purposely trying to deconstruct the West.

December 23, 2023 11:34 am

So, the EPA is concerned about 3,600 people out of a population of about 339,996,563 people or about 0.001 % of the population. Really? This is cost effective?

Reply to  1966goathead
December 24, 2023 3:35 pm

If it saves ONE CHILD la la la la liberals!!

Verified by MonsterInsights