Western Railroad Discussion > US Appeals court upholds EPA coal regs

The DC Circuit (a federal appeals court that addresses matters involving regulatory matters, disputes among agencies, etc) has upheld the EPA's plans to regulate mercury emissions from coal and oil fired electricity generating and other plants. In question was whether the EPA had this power under current law. The impact will be felt by an estimated 600 affected plants.

The issue directly involves First Energy and Peabody Coal, acting on behalf of similarly affected energy producers and miners. The effect is expected to be heaviest on Appalachian and some southern Illinois and Indiana mines. Railroads transporting this coal to US burn sites will also be affected.

The ruling wasn't unexpected, although the judges divided in their decision. The rules were originally established in 1990, during the Bush 41 administration, and have been changed since.

>The regulations, among several major air-pollution rules rolled out by the Obama administration in the past few years, have been a factor behind utility-company decisions to retire coal-fired units. Cheap supplies of cleaner-burning natural gas and stagnant electricity demand are other factors.

Since November 2013, companies have announced plans to close nearly two dozen units at nine coal-fired power plants producing a total of 5.4 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, according to the Energy Information Administration. Between 2012 and 2020, EIA projects that the capacity to produce a total of 60 gigawatts will be retired due to stricter emissions rules and other factors, with 90% of these retirements coming by 2016. U.S. utilities have more than 1,000 gigawatts in capacity. <<

Subscription site, but should be available via google

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303887804579503600891325942?mod=Politics_and_Policy_newsreel_3

Wait until the east coast has a major heat wave and goes dark.

Personally, I wouldn't expect any appeals court in DC to get the time of day right, let alone something as important as this. Once again, our lives are getting turned upside down by federal bureaucratic agencies that are not accountable to ANYONE.

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I wouldn't expect any appeals court in
> DC to get the time of day right, let alone
> something as important as this. Once again, our
> lives are getting turned upside down by federal
> bureaucratic agencies that are not accountable to
> ANYONE.


The independent judiciary is a constitutionally defined.

I'm not upset with the mercury ruling - after all that element is toxic and does accumulate higher up in the food chain, especially fish.

I'm more worried about the new scourge of the planet - that terrible pollutant called carbon dioxide! Yeah, the one we exhale and the one that plants use to make oxygen. CO2 sequestration is exponentially more expensive to accomplish than mercury removal and is more of a long term threat to the use of coal for power than eliminating the heavy metals. And since it is more expensive, guess who is going to pay for it?

Natural gas is the bridge fuel for now but even burning that releases CO2. Wind and solar are touted as the wave of the future, but both have huge visual footprints on the land surface and have recently been recognized as fatal for large numbers of avian wildlife - killed by the blades or fried by the solar collector panels.

Coal for years has been both the most available and cheapest for producing energy. Getting rid of it (and its transportation by the railroads) will do nothing to help our economy as consumers will end up paying more for less reliable sources of energy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/14 07:51 by Cumbresfan.

<Wait until the east coast has a major heat wave and goes dark.>

The problem on the East Coast, especially in New England is not so much old coal plants closing, but (un-economical) oil fired boilers closing. Yes energy will be very tight here in New England this summer but mercury emissions are not the primary cause.
Dick Eisfeller
Greenland, NH

aehouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Personally, I wouldn't expect any appeals court
> in
> > DC to get the time of day right, let alone
> > something as important as this. Once again,
> our
> > lives are getting turned upside down by federal
> > bureaucratic agencies that are not accountable
> to
> > ANYONE.
>
>
> The independent judiciary is a constitutionally
> defined.

The DC appeals court and the 9th circuit court in California are the two courts that are least friendly to business and most accommodating to arguments put forth by environmentalists and liberals.

The 9th Circuit is a running punchline among serious legal thinkers because so many of their rulings are tossed by the Supreme Court, some by large or unanimous decisions. In reponse to the next post after my first one, when I was speaking about agencies that are not accountable to anyone, I was talikng about the EPA, not the judiciary. The judiciary is and should be constitutionally protected, even when they are as flawed as the 9th Circuit. The EPA should NOT have the constitutional authority to do whatever the heck it pleases.

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 9th Circuit is a running punchline among
> serious legal thinkers because so many of their
> rulings are tossed by the Supreme Court, some by
> large or unanimous decisions. In reponse to the
> next post after my first one, when I was speaking
> about agencies that are not accountable to anyone,
> I was talikng about the EPA, not the judiciary.
> The judiciary is and should be constitutionally
> protected, even when they are as flawed as the 9th
> Circuit. The EPA should NOT have the
> constitutional authority to do whatever the heck
> it pleases.

It doesn't It establishes rules implementing Federal Laws. If Congress doesn't approve of the rules or they are challenged in court, the rules can be overturned or set aside. The EPA is certainly accountable to Congress and the courts, as is every other executive agency charged with implementing Federal laws.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rules were
> originally established in 1990, during the Bush 41
> administration, and have been changed since.


"have been changed since" = extreme understatement

aehouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The 9th Circuit is a running punchline among
> > serious legal thinkers because so many of their
> > rulings are tossed by the Supreme Court, some
> by
> > large or unanimous decisions. In reponse to
> the
> > next post after my first one, when I was
> speaking
> > about agencies that are not accountable to
> anyone,
> > I was talikng about the EPA, not the judiciary.
> > The judiciary is and should be constitutionally
> > protected, even when they are as flawed as the
> 9th
> > Circuit. The EPA should NOT have the
> > constitutional authority to do whatever the
> heck
> > it pleases.
>
> It doesn't It establishes rules implementing
> Federal Laws. If Congress doesn't approve of the
> rules or they are challenged in court, the rules
> can be overturned or set aside. The EPA is
> certainly accountable to Congress and the courts,
> as is every other executive agency charged with
> implementing Federal laws.


Not if Congress doesn't have a veto-proof majority when there is a president hostile to the issue. Nice obtuseness.

The problem is, the agency, in this case, the EPA gets to frame the argument in a way that disagreeing with their predetermined course of action often becomes politically impossible. It's much like the State Department. People ASSUME that the President runs the State Department and that it follows his wishes and directives to the letter. In truth, other than a handful of Presidential appointees at the top, the Sate Department is run by career bureaucrats who's number one mission in life above all else is to protect and expand the bureaucracy, and will undercut anyone, President or not, that threatens it in any way. Republican presidents have long suffered internal sabotage from the State Department, but even Jimmy Carter got so furious over policy leaks and other breeches of authority that he threatened to fire EVERYONE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/14 08:39 by junctiontower.

From a railroad perspective, coal is a declining but still important and profitable cargo.

As we saw last year with the Big Sandy dispute, even people in coal country will back away from paying what's necessary to keep coal plants and nearby coal mines in play. (American Electric Power threatened to shut down an older Kentucky plant burning local coal. The politicians went berserk, but the local rate payers refused to pay the surcharge necessary to retrofit the plant.

It's nice to stand for a principle like burning more coal, but paying a thousand dollars more each year? No way...)

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not upset with the mercury ruling - after all
> that element is toxic and does accumulate higher
> up in the food chain, especially fish.
>
> I'm more worried about the new scourge of the
> planet - that terrible pollutant called carbon
> dioxide! Yeah, the one we exhale and the one that
> plants use to make oxygen. CO2 sequestration is
> exponentially more expensive to accomplish than
> mercury removal and is more of a long term threat
> to the use of coal for power than eliminating the
> heavy metals. And since it is more expensive,
> guess who is going to pay for it?


CO2 in levels now generated have begun to exceed the ability of carbon sinks to absorb the gas. Oceans have been the major recipient of the gas and it has begun to create excessive acidity, thus causing havoc among reefs and the fish stocks they support, among other problems. The notion that CO2 is good because plants use is an over simplistic (and misleading) belief that is a foundation of climate change skeptics. The earth is a life-support-system made up of eco-systems that depend upon a fine balance between the compounds and gasses that comprise our air, soil, and water. The introduction of co2 at substantially increased levels over the past 150 years is quite unprecedented in recorded history.
As for the price? It is not a zero sum game. A mix of nuclear and renewables will ultimately bring lower costs to consumers. Besides, Like the mechanic says, "I can change your oil now, or I can change your engine later". Continue using coal and face the real costs, or move to replace it.
>
> Natural gas is the bridge fuel for now but even
> burning that releases CO2. Wind and solar are
> touted as the wave of the future, but both have
> huge visual footprints on the land surface and
> have recently been recognized as fatal for large
> numbers of avian wildlife - killed by the blades
> or fried by the solar collector panels.

The avian issue is serious. I agree. But then, so are the temperature changes that will have (and are having) a far more serious affect on wildlife. Despite skeptics, the earth temperature is rising, and more importantly, the ocean temps are rising as well, presenting a more serious issue. Again, plenty of peer reviewed data to support this if skeptics are willing to look.
>
> Coal for years has been both the most available
> and cheapest for producing energy. Getting rid of
> it (and its transportation by the railroads) will
> do nothing to help our economy as consumers will
> end up paying more for less reliable sources of
> energy.

Coal is only more reliable because it has been in use for many years. Renewables are relative newcomers to the energy mix. Our continued reliance of a commodity that emits toxic chemicals and is the major contributor to increased co2 levels is not only foolish, but doesn't take into account the true cost of this commodity when the environmental and health issues are added. No one expects fossil fuels to vanish anytime soon, but a renewal energy program on the scale of a Manhattan Project could bring us much closer to significant reduction in the use of these heritage fuels and their associated hidden costs. An economy based on renewable energy is more sustainable, and will ultimately be far more competitive. Nuclear power is a proven source, and it could replace coal in it's entirety within the next few decades without much additional research or change.

Well, saw that this conversation (which was very interesting) only had a "private reply" option? Very important to the future not only of the Nation, but of the RR industry. But do not worry about the Appellate Courts. This will only ensure that this will be bounced to the Supreme Court--and we can rest assured that the Appellate Court Decision on this will be STRUCK DOWN.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/14 12:37 by Red.