Supreme Court Says Clean Air Trumps State's Rights in Upholding EPA Rule

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
News link here

In a victory for environmentalists and the Obama administration, the Supreme Court today ruled to uphold the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule set by Obama’s EPA in 2011. The rule requires 28 states to reduce power plant emissions that can negatively affect the air quality in neighboring states. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in the case. The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of the rule with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagen, Roberts and Kennedy joining Ginsburg in supporting the EPA mandate. Justices Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority, arguing that the court’s decision ”feeds the uncontrolled growth of the administrative state at the expense of government by the people.” Read the rest on the site...

I'm sure the power companies are thanking Obama for allowing them cover to shut down their old, inefficient coal fired plants. All the while passing on the costs to ratepayer customers with ironclad justification to state regulators backed up by the full force of the EPA and SCOTUS. As a dividend investor who owns some utility company shares, I appreciate the Obama admin doing me a solid and de-risking my income stream.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
LOL We in the tiny towns had much that same saying about Chattanooga in the sixties and seventies. "They don't trust air they can't see."

Chattanooga was big enough to have a smog problem back then? Or were there other influences like industry or geography?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
I'm sure the power companies are thanking Obama for allowing them cover to shut down their old, inefficient coal fired plants. All the while passing on the costs to ratepayer customers with ironclad justification to state regulators backed up by the full force of the EPA and SCOTUS. As a dividend investor who owns some utility company shares, I appreciate the Obama admin doing me a solid and de-risking my income stream.

Please. Industry income stream never was at risk, power being a necessity of modern life & all. Current rates are obviously not prohibitive, given the enormous waste of the stuff.

What's the % of US generating capacity to be shut down, anyway? I'd imagine that the reason they need to be shut down is because it's not economically feasible to upgrade them, anyway. Some are quite old- One N Carolina plant dates from 1941, for example-

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...plants-to-shut-down-from-EPA-regulations.html

Hopefully we'll create a smooth transition to better plants, with good paying Union construction work & component manufacturing being part of the deal.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81
Chattanooga was big enough to have a smog problem back then? Or were there other influences like industry or geography?

Probably industry and maybe geography. When I was forced to live in Alabama, they were fond of having their paper-mills all right next to their capitol city.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Probably industry and maybe geography. When I was forced to live in Alabama, they were fond of having their paper-mills all right next to their capitol city.

Thanks. That's an area of the US I've never had the chance to visit and I don't know much about the area.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Pollution is a private property rights issue. You wouldn't let neighbor habitually dump his garbage in your yard, would you?
 

xgsound

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2002
1,374
8
81
Least we are crystal clear on who to blame if there are blackouts. Congress / Bush gave Obama / EPA full authority on this matter.

I see you have a lot of opposition here. I think there will be major blackouts if and when this EPA stuff is fully enacted.

I think their real goal is to reduce the world population to 5 Million hunter gatherers.

Jim
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
yea the good ole days of rivers on fire are no more. DAMN YOU EPA!!
lol Won't someone please think of the poor fishes who are so cold without their protective layer of fire?

Chattanooga was big enough to have a smog problem back then? Or were there other influences like industry or geography?
Yep, and both. Chattanooga had a lot of heavy industry, mostly foundries and coal furnaces, with little in the way of modern (for the day) pollution control. Railroads were also quite busy shipping out coal and passing through, and we're at the confluence of Interstates 24 (Nashville) and 75 (Knoxville) leading to Atlanta. Chattanooga was and remains a major communications hub for both Interstate and rail traffic. And we're situated with mountains on one side and a ridge (we call it a mountain, but it's a ridge) on the other, so smog tends to stay in the area and also down low due to temperature inversions. In fact, in 1969 the Department of Health, Education and Welfare declared Chattanooga the nation's most polluted city.

http://apcb.org/index.php/about-us/history

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare named Chattanooga the most polluted city in the nation. Chattanooga had a heavy industrial base, and in 1969, unregulated emissions from industries, railroads, and coal furnaces caused high concentrations of particulate matter. Chattanooga's topography compounded the problem by causing temperature inversions (during which cold air flows over the mountains into the valley and is trapped--with the pollution--by a layer of warm air).

These factors, along with deteriorating scenic views and rising national claims of pollution-related sickness, prompted the citizens, government, and industrial leaders in Chattanooga and Hamilton County to take drastic measures. They proposed air pollution control regulations. These measures had been debated for years, but suddenly became a priority.

The coal mines were shut down, the furnaces closed, the factories were first upgraded and then gradually closed or moved to China, the railroads declined and went to cleaner locomotives. But it was not until 1987 that Chattanooga air quality met federal standards. Then in 1997 the standards were lowered and we once again did not meet them, so many separate measures were instituted including mandatory emissions testing (which is a serious burden on the poor, but then, so is asthma) in order to regain compliance. We've been out of compliance since 2005 on particulate, but what this article does not mention is that this is as much a factor of the mountains and woodlands/meadows producing pollen as man-made pollution. And of course in 2008 the Feds reduced the levels once again and we've been out of compliance ever since. With our flora and topology, staying in particulate compliance year round is very, very difficult. They don't call them the Smoky Mountains for nothing, and even the Smoky Mountain National Park sometimes falls above allowable federal particulate levels.

Before we were the Scenic City, we were the "I think maybe I can see it now that we're within a couple blocks" City. We also had some very, very polluted creeks (coal tar mostly but some major PCBs as well) as well as having an old federal TNT plant which over half a decade manufactured many different explosives which was one of the nation's worst contaminated sites. In some places, several feet of soil was removed and carried away in rail cars to be incinerated. We also had several years of near-nightly late night trips of heavy lift helicopter troops - my house was directly in their flight path. Nothing like being awakened in the middle of the night by a million candlepower light and the sound of a half dozen heavy lift choppers passing over your house at near treetop level, vibrating things off shelves.

Today the old TNT reservation is a thriving industrial park including Volkswagen's manufacturing plant and most of the sedimentary pollution has been dredged up and removed. But the process took years of hard, expensive work.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,176
55,734
136
One particularly funny part about this decision is that Scalia misquoted his own opinion from a previous case and got his own ruling precisely backwards. Not only was his dissent here hyperbolic and a bit crazed, it was simply factually wrong.