that would be great, honestly. Sometimes I wonder if the senior people know that their salaries are easily available public knowledge.

There's a decently large HQ building, but I've never seen the CEO's office. I got to use the head of publication's office for a few days once-that was pretty sweet

I didn't say that the EPA's proposal didn't get coverage. Of course it did, it's quite a big deal! The EPA sent out multiple press releases about it. I was saying that the event itself, the live coverage of the announcement, was very out of the way and kept pretty quiet

But my point is that the EPA was going out of their way to keep live coverage of this announcement under the radar

Indianapolis's city limits go a very long way outside of the metro area. There's literally farmland inside city limits. So even though this warehouse was in Indy, it was out in the middle of nowhere. The announcement was not streamed, but I took video. I'm working to get that up and will share it.

I reached out to Michael Abboud, Associate Administrator of the Office of Public Engagement at the EPA before I left to make sure he'd let me in. He seemed surprised to hear from me, and that I was in the Indianapolis area.

I'm guessing there were maybe 30-40 people seated during the announcement, and another 20-30 standing behind? The media was mostly local TV news crews. I believe I was the only national news person there. I found out where the announcement was at 10:30 am and jumped in my car 20 min later.

This was the setup before the speakers got here. The announcement took place in this warehouse-ish section of the Kenworth of Indianapolis semi dealership. It was 92 C outside and the space was only kind of air conditioned. Those are red, white, and blue semis in the background

"... rather than a purely quantitative measure of significance resting on the absolute volume of emissions from a source category." This is buried down in the proposal on page 62.

to sum up: the EPA says that the amount of GHG emissions shouldn't be determined by the number of actual emissions

to quote the proposal, “The EPA now proposes to adopt a statutory interpretation that is centered on the impacts and effects of statutory policy considerations in determining whether a source category’s contribution is significant..."

To quote the story, "The EPA suggests that the definition of a significant emissions should be determined by "the impacts and effects of statutory policy considerations" rather than by a quantitative measure of volume of GHG emissions."

In the proposal for GHG emissions, the EPA is arguing that what power plants put out in the US is not 'significant.' But what the agency is suggesting constitutes 'significant' doesn't rely on a number at all.