On June 5, President Trump's director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that he would try to postpone a methane rule that was to be implemented from the Obama-era. The response from the scientific community and environmental groups was that of outrage, and eventually, there would be a lawsuit filed by a group of environmental organizations against the EPA. Their lawsuit argued that Scott Pruitt did not follow the procedures that were already established in the Clean Air Act of 1970 before he froze the rule.

Detailing the methane rule

The methane rule requires that Oil And Gas companies fix methane leaks in their equipment, required in drillers and transporters that operate in wells. The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed that Pruitt did not have the authority to freeze the rule. Needless to say, Pruitt's EPA remained defiant saying that the were reviewing the court's opinion and their options.

In April, Scott Pruitt said in a letter that the agency under his direction was considering making it easier for Fossil Fuel companies to operate which fits with his belief that EPA regulations stifled job growth. His view is that those companies should operate as they wish and his historic rollback of regulations only confirms his view that they should not be regulated.

This was soon after the Trump administration signed an executive order that gave Pruitt the power to get rid of those regulations.

Congress makes it harder for Pruitt agenda

It's been reported that since Scott Pruitt was made EPA director, he has already moved to roll back 30 environmental rules which is said to be the largest in scope than any other in a short time over the EPA's 47-year history.

Pruitt was put before a congressional hearing recently where they discussed his budget proposal. Other members of Trump's cabinet have had similar hearings and in many of them -- such as with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Rick Perry of the Department of Energy -- cabinet members have been slammed for trying to cripple those agencies with at least 30 percent budget cuts.

Pruitt's budget proposal hearing was no exception. It was even suggested that he was trying to make the EPA dysfunctional. It's also been noted that when Pruitt was faced with the realities of delaying the methane rule, that he acknowledged the dangers posed to children but felt that it was more important to not harm the oil and gas industry, saying that the rule would come at a significant cost to them. It's already being suggested that Pruitt might not be able to do the damage he wants to the industry with opposition coming at him from all sides. Even many in rural areas who likely voted for Donald Trump had complained to lawmakers about freezing the methane rule and were able to get three Republican senators to kill Scott Pruitt's efforts in the Senate.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED