> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.readtangle.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # The EPA’s power plant deregulation. - URL: https://www.readtangle.com/epa-power-plant-deregulation/ - Published: 2026-09-17T15:52:46.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-17T15:52:46.000Z - Description: Plus, it’s Constitution Day. - Author: Ari Weitzman - Tags: EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, environment, Climate Change, Global Warming, Endangerment finding, Lee Zeldin, Air pollution, Environmental Deregulation, Power Plants, This day in history, The road not taken., Constitution, Coal, Power plant, Power grid, Clean energy This is **Managing Editor Ari Weitzman**, congratulating you on making it to Thursday, which means you’re basically at the weekend. Basically. Before you start unwinding, though, we’ve got a complicated story of our own to unwind today: the EPA’s removal of the **greenhouse gas emissions regulations** for gas and coal power plants. I’m reaching all the way back to my college days to start telling this story. We’ll also reach back to 1787 to recognize the anniversary of **the signing of the Constitution** and end with a feel-good story about **a charitable New Yorker**. It’s a **13-minute read**. Isaac Saul, Will Kaback, Audrey Moorehead, Carina Pacheco, Russell Nystrom, Isaac Wood, and Bailey Saul edited or contributed to today’s newsletter. ### “Am I the idiot?” For this week’s *Suspension of the Rules*, Kmele defends his position on AI deregulation as Ari channels some reader criticisms to him. Then, Isaac asks, “Am I the idiot?” over one of his recent takes and reacts to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s recent return to the Senate, before Kmele gives a touching tribute to the passing of a literary giant. Check it out here: The latest episode of Suspension of the Rules ### Quick hits. 1. The Federal Open Market Committee voted unanimously to raise the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate by 0.25% to 3.75%–4.00%, the first rate increase since 2023\. ([The increase](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/fed-raises-rates-defying-trump-rcna598148?ref=readtangle.com)) 2. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced the House will enter its legislative recess one day early, sending lawmakers home until after the midterm elections. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) accused Republican leadership of taking the move to avoid a vote on his resolution to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. ([The decision](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/09/16/house-recess-johnson-massie-impeachment-hegseth-epstein/252123ea-b215-11f1-92c2-5c918f4a6127%5Fstory.html?ref=readtangle.com)) 3. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen invited Canada to join the bloc as its first “associate member.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed interest in the proposal, while U.S. President Donald Trump called it “laughable.” ([The invite](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/17/carney-canada-eu-associate-member.html?ref=readtangle.com)) 4. Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed to have shot down a Saudi Arabian fighter jet as they continue to launch attacks against the kingdom and seize territory in the region. ([The latest](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/yemens-houthi-rebels-claim-shooting-down-saudi-f-15-jet-fighter-237ecc7d?ref=readtangle.com)) 5. OpenAI disclosed six new incidents involving its artificial intelligence models deemed “unexpected or concerning,” including instances where the systems accessed the internet without permission and attempted to hide information. ([The incidents](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/16/technology/openai-model-safety-guardrails.html?ref=readtangle.com)) Today****’**s Partner ****You’re Probably Still Paying for These** Being frugal isn’t about skipping your morning coffee or pretending you don’t want the guac. It’s about knowing when you’re paying for something you really don’t have to. There are things you have to spend money on. And then there are the things we’ve all somehow accepted as monthly expenses — even though we may be paying way too much (or shouldn’t be paying for them at all). Our partner found [six expenses frugal people don’t pay for](https://partners.thepennyhoarder.com/frugal-people-sdyn/?aff%5Fid=409&utm%5Fsource=tangle&aff%5Fsub3=frugal-people). They have figured out how to avoid, reduce, or replace them. Some are obvious. At least one will probably make you check your bank statement. [See all 6 → ](https://partners.thepennyhoarder.com/frugal-people-sdyn/?aff%5Fid=409&utm%5Fsource=tangle&aff%5Fsub3=frugal-people) ### Today’s topic. Changes in carbon emissions regulations. On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [announced](https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-repeal-2024-power-plant-regulations-delivering-300-billion-savings?ref=readtangle.com) the repeal of Biden-era emissions regulations for power plants and proposed rolling back all remaining greenhouse gas standards for the power sector. The agency said the move will create an estimated $310 billion in savings and lower energy prices for consumers. On Thursday, environmental advocates sued the EPA for this week’s power plant deregulatory actions. **Back up:** In 2024, the Biden administration’s EPA [enacted](https://apnews.com/article/power-plants-coal-natural-gas-biden-epa-5c96ca146e7f70b47806beb4bc3713e6?ref=readtangle.com) rules requiring all newly built gas-powered power plants and existing coal-fired power plants slated to remain operational past 2039 to capture or cut 90% of their smokestack emissions by 2032\. At the time, it projected that the regulations would prevent 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047\. Before repealing the rule, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin [rescinded](https://www.readtangle.com/epa-removes-endangerment-finding/) the “endangerment finding” in February, removing the agency’s scientific and legal justification for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Zeldin’s Monday announcement [included](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/epa-to-roll-back-power-plant-emission-rules-c9fa36a2?ref=readtangle.com) two deregulatory provisions. The first, which has already been finalized, reverses the Biden-era regulations. The second, which still requires approval, would rescind greenhouse gas emissions requirements for all power plants and prevent future administrations from implementing similar regulations. The EPA justified the rollback based on “the best reading of the Clean Air Act,” saying the law did not give it the authority to regulate power plant emissions based on climate change concerns. In a [petition](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/environmentalists-sue-over-epa-power-plant-pollution-rule-repeal-23?ref=readtangle.com) for review filed on Thursday, health and environmental advocacy organizations asked the D.C. appellate court to review the EPA’s action. Environmentalists [criticized](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/13/climate/epa-power-plant-climate-rules.html?ref=readtangle.com) the deregulation, saying the effects of unregulated coal and natural gas would be dangerous to public health and the environment. “\[The repeal is\] going to mean more pollution, more extreme weather, higher electricity bills because we’re going to continue to rely on fossil fuels,” Patrick Drupp, the climate policy director at the Sierra Club, [said](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/epa-repeals-limits-emissions-power-plants-rcna597741?ref=readtangle.com#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThis%20is%20full,coal%20and%20gas.%E2%80%9D), calling the motivation for the move “full-throated climate denial.” Zeldin said that the Obama and Biden administrations had waged a “war on coal” and that the deregulation would lower electricity prices. “At EPA, we follow a very simple principle. If Congress didn’t authorize it, EPA shouldn’t be doing it,” he said. Additionally, energy industry groups [said](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/epa-repeals-limits-emissions-power-plants-rcna597741?ref=readtangle.com#:~:text=%E2%80%9COverturning%20these%20examples,in%20a%20statement.) the repeal will improve the reliability of the U.S. electric grid and meet increasing electricity demand. Today, we’ll share views from the right and left on the EPA’s changes. Then, Managing Editor Ari Weitzman gives his take. | What the right is saying. The right mostly supports the rollback, arguing it will support U.S. energy production.Some say the EPA is pushing back on questionable claims about climate change.Others suggest more regulation doesn’t mean a cleaner environment. | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | **In The Daily Caller, Mitch Rolling and Sarah Montalbano wrote** [**“the EPA finally catches up with America’s electricity needs.”** ](https://dailycaller.com/2026/09/15/opinion-epa-repeals-biden-admin-carbon-emission-rule-coal-gas-mitch-rolling-sarah-montalbano/?ref=readtangle.com) “The Biden Administration’s rule, finalized in 2024, would have forced coal and new natural gas plants to install costly and commercially unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology to capture 90% of their emissions or shut down by 2039,” Rolling and Montalbano said. “Faced with complying in only six years, almost all coal plants would shutter rather than incur such high costs. Remaining coal plants and new natural gas plants would be saddled with new costs.” “Rescinding the rule is an ambitious first step, and the right one. The administration should now correct the underlying flaws in how these rules are written that allowed the EPA to severely underestimate compliance costs. Regulators count as benefits the avoided cost of carbon but neglect to account for the real human and economic costs of blackouts,” Rolling and Montalbano wrote. “Half the country is facing a high risk of rolling blackouts by 2030, as demand climbs and dispatchable plants retire. The federal government’s decision-making should reflect the costs of its choices.” **In Blaze Media, Zach Laidlaw said the repeal counters** [**“climate hysteria over carbon emissions.”**](https://www.theblaze.com/news/epa-carbon-emissions-repeal?ref=readtangle.com) “The Clean Air Act has been around since the 1970s. The original version specifically targeted vehicle emissions, namely carbon monoxide, which is harmful to humans in concentrated quantities… However, in recent decades, the bill morphed to cover a broader range of ‘pollutants,’” Laidlaw wrote. “One of the more egregious restrictions came directly from the Biden administration, which used the Inflation Reduction Act to attack fossil fuels because of the carbon dioxide emitted during the burning process.” “That is all about to change. On Monday, the EPA officially removed some of the power-plant carbon emissions restrictions,” Laidlaw said. “Energy companies no longer have to abide by costly climate edicts of past administrations. American citizens save money on taxes. Finally, the people gain much-needed relief from climate change hysteria.” **In The Dispatch, Philip Rossetti explored** [**“why sweeping regulations won’t end air pollution.”**](https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-energy/air-pollution-regulations-environment-emissions/?ref=readtangle.com) “For as long as air pollution has been debated, we have been inundated with imagery of smokestacks billowing soot into the atmosphere. This persistent framing gives the impression that little has changed in our efforts to fight air pollution, but the truth is that today’s issues are much different than those of decades past,” Rossetti wrote. “For the six primary, or ‘criteria,’ air pollutants — carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone — emissions have fallen by 79% since 1970.” “There is an ever-shifting economically optimal level of air pollution abatement, and it’s not always clear whether more regulation offers benefits that outweigh the cost. The complexities of regulatory benefit accounting make for poor policy discourse, though, and the EPA tends to prefer simpler methods to weigh regulatory costs and benefits,” Rossetti said. “Regulators like to assume simple cost-efficient frameworks as regulated markets shift, even if those assumptions are unrealistic. While it’s understandable that the EPA would prefer simpler cost-benefit methodology, the effect is that regulators can lean on secondary effects to justify extraordinarily burdensome regulation.” | What the left is saying. The left opposes the repeal, saying it lacks a sound justification. Some argue the move benefits power plant owners and harms the public. Others criticize lawmakers for ignoring the rising costs of climate change. | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | **In The Guardian, Oliver Milman and Sara Sneath said the EPA’s rationale for the repeal is** [**“far from convincing.”**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/16/trump-epa-pollution-rollback?ref=readtangle.com) “In allowing US power plants to emit any amount of planet-heating pollution they wish to, the Trump administration made two striking claims — that this will cut Americans’ electricity bills and that the pollution itself doesn’t really matter anyway. Both claims struggle to stand up to even basic scrutiny,” Milman and Sneath wrote. “The EPA’s own analysis, published with the new rule, outlines a very different picture. Retail electricity prices will actually be 0.7% higher in 2030, rather than lower, as a result of the administration’s rule change, it shows. Power prices won’t drop until the mid 2030s and beyond. “The cost of running coal-fired power plants — the dirtiest of fossil fuels, which has been propped up by taxpayer funding and emergency non-closure orders by the administration — will continue to escalate, the analysis finds, with coal delivered for power set to be 27.3% more expensive than otherwise by 2045,” Milman and Sneath said. “The US power sector will be a significant factor in how much more dangerously hot it will get. American coal and gas plants would, if they were a country, be the fifth largest emitter in the world. The Trump administration’s scrapping of pollution limits will unleash far more pollution — an extra 406 million metric tons by 2035.” **In MS NOW, Steve Benen wrote about the** [**“costs to the public”**](https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/climate-pollution-trump-epa-coal-power-plants-carbon-emissions-greenhouse-gases?ref=readtangle.com) **of the EPA’s change.** “Throughout Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s presidencies, the Democratic administrations took steps to address the climate crisis by imposing pollution limits on, among other things, coal-fired power plants. Donald Trump’s administration continues to take dramatic steps in the opposite direction,” Benen said. “As The Associated Press noted, the \[EPA’s\] move, according to Trump’s EPA, would ‘remove more than $300 billion in costs for the industry.’ While it’s true that removing the environmental safeguards would represent a financial windfall for the companies that own these power plants, critics pointed to the far greater costs to the public.” “\[The New York Times noted that\] ‘the agency repealed the scientific determination that gave it the legal authority to create climate regulations in the first place.’ Recent history suggests these new developments will spark federal litigation, which might very well lead to yet another fight at the U.S. Supreme Court,” Benen wrote. “Environmental advocates have expressed concern that the dispute could open the door to the high court’s conservative majority prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases altogether.” **In The Hill, William S. Becker argued** [**“the world can’t afford to ignore climate change much longer.”**](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/6085381-voters-want-climate-action/?ref=readtangle.com) “Our government could do something about climate change, but it refuses. In fact, most elected leaders and political candidates don’t even talk about it,” Becker said. “As the fossil-fuel industry increasingly allied itself with Republicans to block climate action over the decades, Democrats became the party more willing to address it. But now, even many Democrats have gone quiet. As the November midterms approach, think tanks and consultants are advising them to avoid the topic \[of\] global warming because ‘it is not a priority for voters.’” “This is the irony of climate hushing: Consultants advise candidates to talk about affordability instead of climate change, when climate change is increasingly an affordability issue. It reduces property values, damages public health, raises taxes, increases the federal deficit, and more,” Becker wrote. “Through 11 presidents and 31 Congresses over the last 60 years, our national government has failed to act in a manner commensurate with the scale and duration of the crisis. | My take. Ari Weitzman Managing Editor ![Ari Weitzman](https://storage.ghost.io/c/4a/93/4a939b47-6a19-4b38-a13c-89d5a0f0d6dd/content/images/2025/05/Ari.jpg) | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Environmental policy is complicated, and emissions regulations are no different. The underlying fight in this case is about whether to extend the life of coal plants or accelerate their demise. I think legal challenges to this repeal will eventually succeed. | | **Reminder:** This is where we share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, leave a comment or reply to this email. | During the summer before my junior year of college, I volunteered with a nonprofit to help organize people to publicly testify against a rule change President George W. Bush’s EPA was considering. I was one of a cohort of 11 undergraduates enrolled in the University of Chicago’s brand-new “environmental studies” major, and the volunteer internship was my chance to put my education into practice, learn a bit more about policy, and get some school credit while I did. At the time, the EPA was considering changing its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), a regulation enacted under the [Clean Air Act](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853?ref=readtangle.com) that sets limits for gases that 1) are emitted from diverse sources and 2) endanger public health or welfare. It defines six airborne pollutants under these criteria: sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and fine particulate matter (like soot or industrial dust). These are the pollutants that usually come to mind when you think of poor air quality, chemicals and compounds that can be dangerous to breathe at very low concentrations. My group was helping gather and prepare members of the public to testify against the EPA’s proposed change to its standard for ozone — a gas that is very helpful in the stratosphere, where it protects us from ultraviolet rays, but is classified as a pollutant in the troposphere, where it can burn our lungs and airways. The EPA’s existing safety standard for ozone was 0.08 parts per million (ppm). Ahead of its 2008 regulatory review, researchers at the EPA had determined a safe concentration for ozone was 0.06 parts per million (ppm), or at least no higher than 0.07\. The EPA, however, determined that their NAAQS standard for ozone would be 0.075 — stricter than the existing standard, but more lenient than the latest recommendations of its experts. I learned an important lesson from my time preparing testimony before the EPA: Environmental policy is never straightforward. The people who testified were informed and earnest — they had chronic emphysema or children with asthma, and poor air quality would endanger their health. They took the time to prepare, and they put some moving testimony in front of the review board. Then after the session ended, my manager from the nonprofit pulled me into a surprisingly congenial discussion with a person at the EPA, where I discovered that the Chicago city government had already lobbied the EPA for this more lenient standard. There was no way the metropolitan region could meet the 0.07 threshold, and if it was classified as “nonattainment,” then the city’s federal funds for transportation projects — including public transit — would be impacted. The upshot was that the stricter standard would make public transit harder to fund, meaning more people traveling by car, meaning worse air quality for the metropolitan area. It turned out that the best thing for Chicago’s air quality was actually for the EPA to impose a *looser* standard — the exact opposite of the thing I organized citizens to lobby for! In 2008, I was an idealist who didn’t realize he’d been cast for a role in a play. Now, in 2026, I have the immense privilege of sitting in the audience and penning a review. The Trump administration is entering the stage first, giving a haughty monologue emphasizing that the EPA doesn’t classify CO2 as a pollutant and thus the endangerment finding is nonsense — little more than an artifact of climate change hysteria. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated,” Zeldin [said](https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/president-trump-and-administrator-zeldin-deliver-single-largest-deregulatory-action-us?ref=readtangle.com) in February. “The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning common sense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans, and advancing the American Dream.” Let’s talk about the letter of the law. The Clean Air Act defines a pollutant as an airborne particle or chemical that “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Yes, the law says nothing about greenhouse gases specifically, and those gases (and their role in climate change) are not part of the EPA’s NAAQS restrictions. So in a way, Zeldin is right. In another, much more immediate way, Zeldin is wrong. According to [*Massachusetts v. EPA*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/497/?ref=readtangle.com)(2007), greenhouse gases (GHGs) *do* fit the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutants. That means the opinion of the Supreme Court is that the “letter of the law” here explicitly allows the EPA to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act — thus the agency’s 2009 endangerment finding was born. You may also remember that Zeldin has already rescinded the endangerment finding. He also repealed the EPA’s tailpipe emission standards and off-cycle credits for vehicles. As [I said of that decision](https://www.readtangle.com/epa-removes-endangerment-finding/), the likely effects would be the opposite of what you’d expect: Removing the standards probably won’t impact vehicle emissions, removing the credits will probably require vehicles to be *more* efficient, and the deregulation would probably *cost* the auto industry. If Act I’s vehicle emissions story is a farce, Act II’s power plant deregulation is much more of a drama. In 2024, the EPA under President Biden required long-term coal plants and new gas plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions by 2032\. They’d do this through carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), which captures CO2 at the smokestack before the gas can enter the atmosphere and allows them to sell it as a byproduct (usually to [gas drillers](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-12/59345-carbon-capture-storage.pdf?ref=readtangle.com), ironically). The Biden administration believed existing CCS technology is mature enough to enact these requirements. The Trump administration does not. Plainly, as someone convinced that GHG emissions are causing climate change and who despises coal plants, I think the Trump administration is right — the CCS technology in operation today [often breaks](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030142152100416X?ref=readtangle.com) and is [prohibitively expensive](https://oilchange.org/blogs/carbon-capture-has-a-50-year-record-of-failure-why-are-governments-throwing-billions-of-dollars-at-it/?ref=readtangle.com). Roughly 80% of large American CCS projects have failed due to technical issues, cost overruns, or poor financial returns. When these systems are working, they consume about 15–25% of the energy output at these plants, eating into their margins and making them economically infeasible to operate. Of course, that’s the whole ball game here: Democrats, with a large environmentalist constituency, want to close coal plants down. Republicans, with a large constituency of stakeholders in coal, want to keep them open. Either way, over time, coal will lose. 99% of existing coal plants are [more expensive to operate](https://energyinnovation.org/report/the-coal-cost-crossover-3-0/?ref=readtangle.com) than new wind or solar plants would be, coal is unhealthy both to those who [live near plants](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10952927/?ref=readtangle.com) and to those [who mine it](https://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/mtr101/health-impacts/?ref=readtangle.com), and coal power is responsible for an [ever-decreasing share](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43675&ref=readtangle.com) of our national energy output. We’re long past the fight over investing in coal; today’s battle is over whether to hasten the industry’s demise or keep it on life support longer. That brings us to the final act: Can the EPA even do this? On one hand, of course it can. The EPA’s whole purview is to decide how to enact existing laws. On the other hand, it must follow those laws. Zeldin’s attempt to remove these emissions standards for vehicles is already [being challenged](https://www.catf.us/2026/02/us-epa-sued-over-illegal-repeal-climate-protections/?ref=readtangle.com) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As of just this morning, a challenge to the rescission attempt for power plants [was brought](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/environmentalists-sue-over-epa-power-plant-pollution-rule-repeal-23?ref=readtangle.com) to that same court. And I think it’s likely to succeed. Remember: The Supreme Court already ruled almost 20 years ago that the EPA must regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. And with [“*Chevron* deference”](https://www.readtangle.com/scotus-overturns-chevron/) repealed, any challenge that makes its way to the Supreme Court will be one that cedes less to agency deference and more to court precedent. It’s hard to see this new deregulation surviving. As with coal itself, the overriding question is how long we have to wait before the curtain falls. **Take the survey:** What do you think of the EPA’s latest deregulatory move? [Let us know](https://interrobang.vercel.app/survey/0cafcdae-95f5-49d0-853e-68054e0c7ff6?ref=readtangle.com). *Disagree? That*’*s okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we*’*ll consider publishing your feedback.* ### This day in history. ![Signing of the United States Constitution | Howard Chandler Christy, 1940](https://storage.ghost.io/c/4a/93/4a939b47-6a19-4b38-a13c-89d5a0f0d6dd/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-7e6bb364-3111-48b0-a920-0dc3c3b3a73a.png) Signing of the United States Constitution | Howard Chandler Christy, 1940 On September 17, 1787, 39 delegates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed the Constitution of the United States. During and after the American Revolution, the United States [was governed](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/convention-and-ratification?ref=readtangle.com) under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles gave little power to the central government, instead leaving most power in the hands of the states. But funding and sovereignty problems with the Articles of Confederation soon became apparent. Confederation-printed money was nearly worthless, states didn’t pay sufficient taxes, and debt interest only grew because the central government couldn’t enforce tax provisions. Meanwhile, the government couldn’t muster responses to military threats and couldn’t pay soldiers. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, delegates from the states considered two main plans for replacing the Articles: the Virginia Plan (which favored more populous states) and the New Jersey Plan (favoring smaller states). As the convention went on, the delegates considered and approved compromises that would help balance the concerns of larger and smaller states, forming the basis for the modern-day Senate and House of Representatives. Another such compromise was the now-infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, which allowed slave states to count three-fifths of their slaves for popular representation purposes. Slowly but surely, the delegates came to an agreement on a new document: the Constitution. On September 17, 39 delegates signed the document, sending it to the states for ratification. Following the ratification process in the state legislatures, on March 4, 1789, the Constitution became the official law of the land. ### The road not taken. As the week went on, the number of potential main-story topics grew. The second half of this week brought Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) return to the Senate, congressional hearings for FBI Director Kash Patel and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, measles-related deaths in Pennsylvania, the Kennedy Center closure vote, and the Air Force secretary announcing the U.S. has weapons in space. As we often say in this section, all were compelling options and may warrant full coverage next week. However, the Supreme Court’s order blocking President Trump’s mail-in ballot executive action from taking effect was a more significant, timely story. Meanwhile, today’s edition on the EPA emissions rollback offered the chance to wade into a policy debate on regulatory action that we wanted to tackle while it was still fresh. Today****’**s Partner ****6 Things Frugal People Never Spend Money On** Being frugal isn’t about skipping your morning coffee. It’s knowing when you’re paying for something you don’t have to. Our partner found [six expenses savvy people avoid](https://partners.thepennyhoarder.com/frugal-people-sdyn/?aff%5Fid=409&utm%5Fsource=tangle&aff%5Fsub3=frugal-people), reduce, or rethink altogether. You might already know a few — but at least one could surprise you and save you money. [See all 6 → ](https://partners.thepennyhoarder.com/frugal-people-sdyn/?aff%5Fid=409&utm%5Fsource=tangle&aff%5Fsub3=frugal-people) ### The extras. - **One year ago today** we covered [the debate over banning phones in schools](https://www.readtangle.com/should-we-ban-phones-in-schools/). - **The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter** was our [new YouTube video about food safety in the U.S.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI2fLNbak-k&ref=readtangle.com) - **Nothing to do with politics:** Krillion, [a game that tests your obscure knowledge of common categories](https://krillion.io/?ref=readtangle.com). - **Our last survey:** 2,587 readers responded to our survey on the Supreme Court’s mail-in ballot order, with 90% saying they support the legal rationale and practical outcome. “I am glad the court followed the law and upheld the Constitution this time,” one respondent said. “I wish they would have ruled on the merits, not the timing,” said another. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/4a/93/4a939b47-6a19-4b38-a13c-89d5a0f0d6dd/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-d59e9907-ccda-4be6-b368-cc82719a47d1.png) ### Have a nice day. When Scott Evans saw CBS News New York’s report on Nina Chambers and her three children, who lost their home in a fire in June, he was moved to action. Evans reached out to the reporter who covered the story, and she connected him with Chambers; he gave her $3,000 to feed her children and get them supplies for the upcoming school year. Chambers and her children had been living in a hotel and scraping by to make ends meet, but with help from Evans’s gift, she has been able to secure a new apartment while earning a degree in human services. Evans, who Chambers called “an angel,” said he was glad to be able to support a family in need. “This was something, one of the things that I could do something about,” he said. [CBS New York has the story](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bronx-mother-displaced-fire-good-samaritan/?ref=readtangle.com).