Eastern Railroad Discussion > Coal power plants get a breather...

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the US Environmental Protection Agency's standards on mercury emissions from power plants. Coal operators, power plants and states brought suit, arguing the EPA should have considered the cost of implementing scrubbers, etc when the rules were developed.

The rules were initially proposed in 1990, but litigation held them up until 2012. The EPA won the last round, in federal appeals court.

This is a big deal for West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, etc and for the railroads which serve the areas.

Link to follow

Not to forget...the people who live within the wind patterns from the power plants (the NE portion of the US) and the animals and fish who are affected by the mercury and other hazards materials coming out of those stacks.

And don't for get about all the power that is made in those coal states that goes to power the east coast states!!!

It is a truly amazing thing. When prompted to look at alternatives to burning coal to generate electricity, people somehow manage to find other perfectly good sources of energy that are less harmful to our planet and the people who live here.

JS

yeah..I dont want the power from the dams because they cause damage to salmon, so this year I cranked up the wood stove. Love the smell of wood burning and really cool to see the smokey haze drift around on a frosty morning.

RB

If this was just about mercury pollution, the EPA might win under the Roberts Supreme Court. But since it's also about "carbon emissions" and it's perceived link with the man-made climate change theory, it's possible that SCOTUS will at least slow them down a little.
The electric industry claims the new rules will cost them up to 9.6 billion dollars per year. But the Obama administration counters with annual savings of $90 billion in healthcare costs. I suspect that we're probably being "Grubered" by that figure,though.

The bottom line here is that, at least for the next two years, coal is going to be a severely wounded industry and railroads had best continue to find other revenue streams.

Danny Harmon
Tampa

99% of the time, SCOTUS reaches decisions on cases like this based on what the law says, how similar controversies have been decided in the past, and what Congress intended (to the extent that intent is clear). SCOTUS does not exist to protect the environment or to protect the jobs of miners and railroaders.

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 99% of the time, SCOTUS reaches decisions on cases
> like this based on what the law says, how similar
> controversies have been decided in the past, and
> what Congress intended (to the extent that intent
> is clear). SCOTUS does not exist to protect the
> environment or to protect the jobs of miners and
> railroaders.

Absolutely true.

but Congress often passes sloppy and disjointed laws, so it falls to the regulation writers to translate these laws into specific regs and rules for the industry, etc to follow. regulation writers of one party or the other often write regulations which push the words contained in the actual law passed by Congress.

For example, the clean water act specifically references "navigable waters". The rule writers have decided that congress meant any seasonal trickle that occasionally drains into a body of water on which a toy boat can be sailed or navigated. So is a damp spot a mile from a stream in West Virginia a "navigable water"? Even if it carries some run off in the spring, and is dry the rest of the year.

(That became an issue when the Bush administration proposed rules which could allow owners to blow off the tops of mountains to get at the coal. Opponents argued that the damp spot was a navigable water. And subject to hearings and environmental analysis.)

And remember the all time classic,

"You must pass it to find out what is in it"

The new, polluted Forrest Gump, way of governing. Sometimes the SCOTUS gets it right and sometimes they do bend to pressure be it political or media.

Jay

...The electric industry claims the new rules will cost them up to 9.6 billion dollars per year. But the Obama administration counters with annual savings of $90 billion in healthcare costs. I suspect that we're probably being "Grubered" by that figure,though....

Industry estimates must be right and the politicos estimate false. If the electric industry $9.6 billion estimate corrects the pollution, then the electric industry should make the investment and pass the costs on to the consumers. Society at large should not externalize the electric industry's internal production cost. Apparently the electric industry's current shareholder profits are unfounded, really a public subsidy payment. So electric industry shareholders, step up, stop taking the government subsidy, be responsible and accountable by making the investment in your plant and product.