https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/28/2318 ... -emissions

The core of the lawsuit is a disagreement about the Clean Air Act, a bedrock environmental law in the US that lays out the EPA’s responsibility to protect the nation’s air quality by regulating pollution. Since 1970, EPA action under the Clean Air Act has led to a significant drop in major pollutants like particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

Democrats have been trying to pass legislation that would push utilities to use more clean energy, but it’s been tied up in a congressional stalemate for months. [...] The court could limit a federal agency’s ability to expand its powers beyond anything explicitly written out in law by Congress.

Considering that the last congressional update on this law is from 1970, and with congress in perpetual deadlock for far longer than the mentioned months, I guess the plaintiffs are seeking to return to 50 year old environmental standards.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1530

According to West Virginia, since standards of performance must be established “for any existing source,” they are case-specific, which makes it hard to interpret the term “best system” without taking a particular source into account. Since outside-the-fenceline measures do not connect to a specific source, West Virginia argues that they are excluded. West Virginia also emphasizes that any standard of performance must apply to the “stationary source,” which is the building itself, rather than to its “owner or operator,” [...]

The North American Coal Corporation (“NACC”), in support of West Virginia, argues that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the case grants the EPA power to restructure all carbon-emitting industries with a huge level of control over economic activity across the country. The NACC goes further, contending that the EPA has been given “carte-blanche” to decide the entire climate change policy of the country.

I'd argue that it should be the EPA's job to regulate environmental protection across the entire country. Pollution doesn't stop at state borders. It also doesn't limit itself to specific industries. There's no point in creating individual rules for each and every powerplant - except perhaps making such regulation too much effort for the EPA's limited manpower.

Clean Air Act, it's in the name. I wonder what children, teens and young adults think of their parents lobbying for coal in 2022 ?

Aesma wrote:

Clean Air Act, it's in the name. I wonder what children, teens and young adults think of their parents lobbying for coal in 2022 ?

Amazing that technology has been used to make all manner of things more environmentally friendly, but coal defies logic.......
the reason why the act may be overturned or severely limited.........
Now that oil prices are rising and prices at the pump are affecting more folks, the push against oil drilling, and increased production has slowed....go figure...

And, fairly unsurprisingly, SCOTUS rejected the current EPA regulations. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... on-agency/

The used justification sounds like a load of bullshit to me, focusing on the semantics of what a "system" is. They even concede that

a cap-and-trade “system” can be used to reduce emissions

but that

does not mean that it is the kind of “system of emission reduction” referred to in Section 111.

Yet, they leave open that the "system" could be something other than the definition they chose for this case, stating that they haven't looked into that.

Basically, they're saying that for this particular case a "system" is something that you can physically attach to a powerplant, even though the original law itself never says so. Therefore it might mean something completely different in future cases.

This also sets precedent for future polluters, as EPA now can't define pollutant limits that the polluting source cannot achieve by means of a "system". They can force the source to become slightly less polluting, but they can't prohibit pollution in general (as the resulting shutdown would place an economic burden on the owner, employees and customers of the polluter, which is beyond EPA's scope in SCOTUS' interpretation of the law).
At least not without congress giving them explicit authorization, which seems hopeless given the political reality.

This Supreme Court is full of suicidal maniacs with no idea of what "it" is . They don't understand the "spirit" of a law. Only BS interpretation of semantics. They might as well be grammar Nazi's.

USCS on a roll - taking America back to the 1960s. Maybe that's what Trump meant by MAGA.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

This ruling revolves around Congress' original intent in defining the standard of Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), to be used by the EPA in regulating pollutant output by power plants. As originally written, the intent was to evaluate an individual plant's achievable pollutant reduction, and that this would adapt and advance as technology moved forward.

As the definition of pollutant has grown to encompass greenhouse gases, so has the definition of BSER grown to encompass alternative means of production, that don't produce those gases. Those could be considered the best means of reduction.

The court has essentially ruled that unless Congress intervenes to expand the definition of BSER, the EPA must abide by the original context, which was modifications to individual plants. The EPA may not expand the definition as an act of administrative policy.

So like the Dobbs decision, we see the court ignore the reality of what is in the best interests of the people, and thus widely supported, in favor of limiting the scope of federal government. Their view is that exercise of administrative powers that are not explicitly granted by legislative or Constitutional provision, are by definition not in the interests of the people. Regardless of what the cost may be.

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

casinterest wrote:

This Supreme Court is full of suicidal maniacs with no idea of what "it" is . They don't understand the "spirit" of a law. Only BS interpretation of semantics. They might as well be grammar Nazi's.

“Semantics”, in other words, the words of the law matter. There’s no “spirit”; there’s was was written in the Act by Congress. When the CAA was passed Congress clearly did not even consider carbon emissions. If you want the EPA to regulate, pass a law that authorizes exactly that.

Avatar2go wrote:

This ruling revolves around Congress' original intent in defining the standard of Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), to be used by the EPA in regulating pollutant output by power plants. As originally written, the intent was to evaluate an individual plant's achievable pollutant reduction, and that this would adapt and advance as technology moved forward.

As the definition of pollutant has grown to encompass greenhouse gases, so has the definition of BSER grown to encompass alternative means of production, that don't produce those gases. Those could be considered the best means of reduction.

The court has essentially ruled that unless Congress intervenes to expand the definition of BSER, the EPA must abide by the original context, which was modifications to individual plants. The EPA may not expand the definition as an act of administrative policy.

So like the Dobbs decision, we see the court ignore the reality of what is in the best interests of the people, and thus widely supported, in favor of limiting the scope of federal government. Their view is that exercise of administrative powers that are not explicitly granted by legislative or Constitutional provision, are by definition not in the interests of the people. Regardless of what the cost may be.

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

As stated, this argument assumes Congress is not dysfunctional and unable to pass legislation, due to partisan divides. But that is the reality we face.

In the meantime, the majority of Americans endorse both alternative energy and abortion, which were reflected in administrative policies, that have been struck down by a conservative court.

In this particular case, it's not a stretch to imagine that EPA policy would need to expand to incorporate newly available means to reduce pollutants. The key difference here is that the new means don't just reduce production, they eliminate it. That is the sticking point, and the objection by the coal industry.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This ruling revolves around Congress' original intent in defining the standard of Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), to be used by the EPA in regulating pollutant output by power plants. As originally written, the intent was to evaluate an individual plant's achievable pollutant reduction, and that this would adapt and advance as technology moved forward.

As the definition of pollutant has grown to encompass greenhouse gases, so has the definition of BSER grown to encompass alternative means of production, that don't produce those gases. Those could be considered the best means of reduction.

The court has essentially ruled that unless Congress intervenes to expand the definition of BSER, the EPA must abide by the original context, which was modifications to individual plants. The EPA may not expand the definition as an act of administrative policy.

So like the Dobbs decision, we see the court ignore the reality of what is in the best interests of the people, and thus widely supported, in favor of limiting the scope of federal government. Their view is that exercise of administrative powers that are not explicitly granted by legislative or Constitutional provision, are by definition not in the interests of the people. Regardless of what the cost may be.

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

Oh FFS, okay let's poll residents of the sunbelt and hard winter cities on whether they want to return to 1960s brown haze or not. Can we dispense with the bull already?

Growing up in a state known as "America's Tailpipe", I can remember many balmy summer days where you would need a good polarizing lens just to take a good picture.

However, that place keeps putting Susan Collins in the Senate, so not much sympathy there.

I think I might start using the term "SCrOTUS" from now on...

Unchecked mission creep, and regulatory expansion has been a thing with government agencies.

Putting a brake on such and leaving it to the intended legislative branch of government to make laws and provide the marching orders for the government organs is a positive step.

The government was not intended to run by slew of executive orders, or agency unfettered unrule making.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This ruling revolves around Congress' original intent in defining the standard of Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), to be used by the EPA in regulating pollutant output by power plants. As originally written, the intent was to evaluate an individual plant's achievable pollutant reduction, and that this would adapt and advance as technology moved forward.

As the definition of pollutant has grown to encompass greenhouse gases, so has the definition of BSER grown to encompass alternative means of production, that don't produce those gases. Those could be considered the best means of reduction.

The court has essentially ruled that unless Congress intervenes to expand the definition of BSER, the EPA must abide by the original context, which was modifications to individual plants. The EPA may not expand the definition as an act of administrative policy.

So like the Dobbs decision, we see the court ignore the reality of what is in the best interests of the people, and thus widely supported, in favor of limiting the scope of federal government. Their view is that exercise of administrative powers that are not explicitly granted by legislative or Constitutional provision, are by definition not in the interests of the people. Regardless of what the cost may be.

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

Oh FFS, okay let's poll residents of the sunbelt and hard winter cities on whether they want to return to 1960s brown haze or not. Can we dispense with the bull already?

We elect representatives and Senators to do something, other than all the rest of noise they do that doesn't actually do nothing for the people who sent them there.

Its up to Congress to actually legislate and pass the laws that the people need. Not un-elected bureaucrats or judges.

This is another common sense ruling, the EPA like many other agencies is overreaching and overstepping their authority granted by congress.

Congress is the one who needs to create policy. I see all the screaming coming from Congress people complaining about this ruling, for crying out loud, its giving all of you the power to implement the policies since you are supposed to be the elected representatives creating it.

Amazing. Glad the Supreme Court is cleaning up. Even if the other ruling on immigration which we may not like, it sticks with the principle that the President whomever it is, can't just make 'law' out of EO's. Even the ones we like.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This ruling revolves around Congress' original intent in defining the standard of Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), to be used by the EPA in regulating pollutant output by power plants. As originally written, the intent was to evaluate an individual plant's achievable pollutant reduction, and that this would adapt and advance as technology moved forward.

As the definition of pollutant has grown to encompass greenhouse gases, so has the definition of BSER grown to encompass alternative means of production, that don't produce those gases. Those could be considered the best means of reduction.

The court has essentially ruled that unless Congress intervenes to expand the definition of BSER, the EPA must abide by the original context, which was modifications to individual plants. The EPA may not expand the definition as an act of administrative policy.

So like the Dobbs decision, we see the court ignore the reality of what is in the best interests of the people, and thus widely supported, in favor of limiting the scope of federal government. Their view is that exercise of administrative powers that are not explicitly granted by legislative or Constitutional provision, are by definition not in the interests of the people. Regardless of what the cost may be.

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

Oh FFS, okay let's poll residents of the sunbelt and hard winter cities on whether they want to return to 1960s brown haze or not. Can we dispense with the bull already?

Straw man, I never suggested that we poll the voters on anything, let alone the CAA. Congress is functioning exactly as the voters who voted in the members wanted it to act. Laws are passed when there is consensus to act in the population by their electoral choices. America is divided on the issue of carbon regulation as shown by the Congress. When the consensus arrives by both parties persuading the voters, we’ll get a law on the subject. That some don’t get want they want, isn’t dysfunction, it’s representative democracy, which apparently isn’t well received.

I’m reminded of the poster here some time ago posting how dangerous carbon was, then refusing to buy an electric mower because it cost too much. Americans poll in favor of carbon controls until told the cost of same.

Graduating from high school, I got my first real job in the water treatment industry, due to the Clean Water Act. We saw our river environment go from warnings about fishing and swimming, to an active recreational industry, in the span of a decade.

Later generations may take that for granted, but hard to over-emphasize the impact of the EPA and those laws on quality of life. You'd have to go to China now to understand. Apart from industries that had to clean up their acts, hard to find anyone who thought negatively of the EPA, or that they overreached.

Also at that time, many industries claimed they wouldn't survive financially under the new regulation. But they all did. Our town built facilities that absorbed the effluents of local industry, as did most towns, so the cost was actually minimal.

What makes this case different is that the effluents can't be economically absorbed or treated, they have to be reduced in volume. Which puts coal at a huge disadvantage relative to other technologies. And is why they want to prohibit those technologies from being comparatively applied by the EPA.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

Oh FFS, okay let's poll residents of the sunbelt and hard winter cities on whether they want to return to 1960s brown haze or not. Can we dispense with the bull already?

We elect representatives and Senators to do something, other than all the rest of noise they do that doesn't actually do nothing for the people who sent them there.

Its up to Congress to actually legislate and pass the laws that the people need. Not un-elected bureaucrats or judges.

This is another common sense ruling, the EPA like many other agencies is overreaching and overstepping their authority granted by congress.

Congress is the one who needs to create policy. I see all the screaming coming from Congress people complaining about this ruling, for crying out loud, its giving all of you the power to implement the policies since you are supposed to be the elected representatives creating it.

Amazing. Glad the Supreme Court is cleaning up. Even if the other ruling on immigration which we may not like, it sticks with the principle that the President whomever it is, can't just make 'law' out of EO's. Even the ones we like.

Interesting, please show me where in the Constitution private companies have the right to poison neighboring communities and the air. This oughta be good.

Need I remind you the Presidential order establishing the EPA was ratified by both houses of Congress?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The court is there to interpret the law, not try to discern anyone’s “best interests”. Congreve thru elected and accountable to the electorate are there to determine the nation’s best interest. I guess the role of elected representatives has just been cast aside as unworkable. RIP Democracy.

Oh FFS, okay let's poll residents of the sunbelt and hard winter cities on whether they want to return to 1960s brown haze or not. Can we dispense with the bull already?

Straw man, I never suggested that we poll the voters on anything, let alone the CAA. Congress is functioning exactly as the voters who voted in the members wanted it to act. Laws are passed when there is consensus to act in the population by their electoral choices. America is divided on the issue of carbon regulation as shown by the Congress. When the consensus arrives by both parties persuading the voters, we’ll get a law on the subject. That some don’t get want they want, isn’t dysfunction, it’s representative democracy, which apparently isn’t well received.

I’m reminded of the poster here some time ago posting how dangerous carbon was, then refusing to buy an electric mower because it cost too much. Americans poll in favor of carbon controls until told the cost of same.

All of that is merely muddying of the waters by BODs/owners looking after themselves and/or too lazy to do the hard work of change. Mitigative technology is here, readily available, and many private entities have already made investments that are reaping cost-savings rewards.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Oh FFS, okay let's poll residents of the sunbelt and hard winter cities on whether they want to return to 1960s brown haze or not. Can we dispense with the bull already?

We elect representatives and Senators to do something, other than all the rest of noise they do that doesn't actually do nothing for the people who sent them there.

Its up to Congress to actually legislate and pass the laws that the people need. Not un-elected bureaucrats or judges.

This is another common sense ruling, the EPA like many other agencies is overreaching and overstepping their authority granted by congress.

Congress is the one who needs to create policy. I see all the screaming coming from Congress people complaining about this ruling, for crying out loud, its giving all of you the power to implement the policies since you are supposed to be the elected representatives creating it.

Amazing. Glad the Supreme Court is cleaning up. Even if the other ruling on immigration which we may not like, it sticks with the principle that the President whomever it is, can't just make 'law' out of EO's. Even the ones we like.

Interesting, please show me where in the Constitution private companies have the right to poison neighboring communities and the air. This oughta be good.

Need I remind you the Presidential order establishing the EPA was ratified by both houses of Congress?

Why with the straw-man, where I have I said such a thing.

I have merely stated its up to congress to legislate the regulations they want the federal agencies to implement. Not the federal agencies discovering some new power they found which was never given by congress.

Establishing an agency doesn't mean the agency has unlimited regulating powers. It needs to be within the law specifically.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

We elect representatives and Senators to do something, other than all the rest of noise they do that doesn't actually do nothing for the people who sent them there.

Its up to Congress to actually legislate and pass the laws that the people need. Not un-elected bureaucrats or judges.

This is another common sense ruling, the EPA like many other agencies is overreaching and overstepping their authority granted by congress.

Congress is the one who needs to create policy. I see all the screaming coming from Congress people complaining about this ruling, for crying out loud, its giving all of you the power to implement the policies since you are supposed to be the elected representatives creating it.

Amazing. Glad the Supreme Court is cleaning up. Even if the other ruling on immigration which we may not like, it sticks with the principle that the President whomever it is, can't just make 'law' out of EO's. Even the ones we like.

Interesting, please show me where in the Constitution private companies have the right to poison neighboring communities and the air. This oughta be good.

Need I remind you the Presidential order establishing the EPA was ratified by both houses of Congress?

Why with the straw-man, where I have I said such a thing.

I have merely stated its up to congress to legislate the regulations they want the federal agencies to implement. Not the federal agencies discovering some new power they found which was never given by congress.

Establishing an agency doesn't mean the agency has unlimited regulating powers. It needs to be within the law specifically.

And I'm merely stating what the EPA was created for - by popular demand and bipartisan review of Congress. Our cities and lands look better and people are healthier because of it. I could care less if it sticks in the craw of a couple fat guys sitting in a board meeting.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Congress is functioning exactly as the voters who voted in the members wanted it to act. Laws are passed when there is consensus to act in the population by their electoral choices. America is divided on the issue of carbon regulation as shown by the Congress. When the consensus arrives by both parties persuading the voters, we’ll get a law on the subject. That some don’t get want they want, isn’t dysfunction, it’s representative democracy, which apparently isn’t well received.

Polls show that the majority of the country is highly dissatisfied with Congress (18% approval), so can only assume you are joking here.

Also in a democracy, the parties don't persuade the voters, the parties carry out the will of the voters. In this case roughly 80% of the voters favor increasing usage of alternative energy. Just as 60% of the voters disapproved of the Dobbs decision.

What we have now, is a minority party obstructing the will of the majority, both in Congress and on the Supreme Court. But the political process will work that out, in time. The younger generation is much more strongly aligned with these issues than the older who are now serving in Congress. So their turn will come.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazing. Glad the Supreme Court is cleaning up.

And it's said Americans don't do irony!

Can't private citizens sue coal power plant companies and the government for their environmental impact ? Doesn't destroying the environment we live in run contrary to the constitution ?

Aesma wrote:

Can't private citizens sue coal power plant companies and the government for their environmental impact ? Doesn't destroying the environment we live in run contrary to the constitution ?

Nah, the environment isn't mentioned and therefore not protected by the constitution.

Avatar2go wrote:

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

Who needs elections and the US Congress when we’ve got Gallup Poll, Ipsos, Pew Research, etc, etc…

It’s like a pseudo privatization of the democratic process. I’m all for privatizing companies, like the USPS, but not democracy itself…

Citizens United already privatized US democracy.

The horror, coal power plants... same type of plants Germany is reactivating https://www.businessinsider.com/germany ... rgy-2022-6

How many German citizens are suing their government?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

This Supreme Court is full of suicidal maniacs with no idea of what "it" is . They don't understand the "spirit" of a law. Only BS interpretation of semantics. They might as well be grammar Nazi's.

“Semantics”, in other words, the words of the law matter. There’s no “spirit”; there’s was was written in the Act by Congress. When the CAA was passed Congress clearly did not even consider carbon emissions. If you want the EPA to regulate, pass a law that authorizes exactly that.

So there it is. MORE REGULATIONS are required per the GOP,

Richard Nixon, a Republican, formed the EPA. Back in the day when pollution was awful and known to be killing children. Now, the only thing that matters is money. People will get cancer (and many other health problems) at higher rates. They will have to pay 100% out of pocket for those. More money for private industry. Which is great for Republicans and the wealthy. Tax free money! What a country! If you wanted free health care, you should have been born rich. Or you can just make more money. Otherwise, you are a freeloader and you need to be quiet. The new "conservative compassion" based on their twisted interpretation of the Bible.

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

Circumventing is your word, most people would not agree with that characterization. Congress wrote those acts, and created the EPA, to be flexible and adjust to future needs. The EPA has adjusted by adapting the BSER standard to include alternative technologies, which has the support of 80% of Americans.

But the Court has now ruled that EPA doesn't have the authority to adjust or expand BSER, without explicit direction from Congress.

If you were to gather together those Congress people that wrote the legislation, I strongly doubt they would object to this expansion, or claim that it wasn't their intent. But today, climate deniers, who like election deniers are themselves in the minority, have the power to both obstruct Congress and that intent.

So is that really democracy, when 80% of Americans support the actions, but they are overturned by the court on behalf of special interests that are by far in the minority? Most people would say no. Who is really doing the circumventing here?

Avatar2go wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Congress is functioning exactly as the voters who voted in the members wanted it to act. Laws are passed when there is consensus to act in the population by their electoral choices. America is divided on the issue of carbon regulation as shown by the Congress. When the consensus arrives by both parties persuading the voters, we’ll get a law on the subject. That some don’t get want they want, isn’t dysfunction, it’s representative democracy, which apparently isn’t well received.

Polls show that the majority of the country is highly dissatisfied with Congress (18% approval), so can only assume you are joking here.

Also in a democracy, the parties don't persuade the voters, the parties carry out the will of the voters. In this case roughly 80% of the voters favor increasing usage of alternative energy. Just as 60% of the voters disapproved of the Dobbs decision.

What we have now, is a minority party obstructing the will of the majority, both in Congress and on the Supreme Court. But the political process will work that out, in time. The younger generation is much more strongly aligned with these issues than the older who are now serving in Congress. So their turn will come.

The only poll that matters is the election. The electorate voted the present Congress and it reflects America which, in details, is nothing like 80% in favor of anything. Ask voters how much they’ll pay for alternative energy, it dies at about $100/month or less.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/p ... le-energy/

Aesma wrote:

Clean Air Act, it's in the name. I wonder what children, teens and young adults think of their parents lobbying for coal in 2022 ?

It's not necessarily about lobbying for coal as it is lobbying for a reliable grid.

Many power companies are looking to exit coal in the 2030-2035 time range. That's great and all but the truth is - there's been nothing of scale announced by these same companies for replacement
generation. Wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to all the demands now and anticipated for the future. There's talk of small modular nuclear reactors here and there but there's nothing even on the table of scale for building or developing new nuclear energy stations which needs to really start happening now in order to be online by say by 2035-2040.

In truth, coal remains a reliable backbone for the current grid. Many plants are firing up additional units to help companies meet demand and avoid outages and they can be pretty much up and running and at speed for the turbines in the generators within 20-25 minutes. Had coal not come through and saved the day, many folks, particularly those dependant upon MISO, when have been up a creek without a paddle.

If you want to exit coal, that's fine - but where's the replacement generation?

There isn't any.

stlgph wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Clean Air Act, it's in the name. I wonder what children, teens and young adults think of their parents lobbying for coal in 2022 ?

It's not necessarily about lobbying for coal as it is lobbying for a reliable grid.

Many power companies are looking to exit coal in the 2030-2035 time range. That's great and all but the truth is - there's been nothing of scale announced by these same companies for replacement
generation. Wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to all the demands now and anticipated for the future. There's talk of small modular nuclear reactors here and there but there's nothing even on the table of scale for building or developing new nuclear energy stations which needs to really start happening now in order to be online by say by 2035-2040.

In truth, coal remains a reliable backbone for the current grid. Many plants are firing up additional units to help companies meet demand and avoid outages and they can be pretty much up and running and at speed for the turbines in the generators within 20-25 minutes. Had coal not come through and saved the day, many folks, particularly those dependant upon MISO, when have been up a creek without a paddle.

If you want to exit coal, that's fine - but where's the replacement generation?

There isn't any.

Natural gas has traditionally been used for peaking plants, and there is a strong supply. Those plants are relatively simple and can be built quickly.

Agreed that there is not a clear choice of replacement for baseline power on the horizon. But the goal here was to establish a cap & trade program, where utilities could make investments to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining existing baseline sources.

The dispute here is whether the EPA can advocate for emission reduction by considering all alternatives, or whether emission reduction must be confined to existing plants and technologies. One includes competition of all technologies, the other mandates maintaining the status quo.

It's easy to see why the coal industry doesn't want that competition, or to be evaluated for emissions on a comparitive basis. That is what's actually driving this whole thing. It's a short-term view rather than long-term.

Chief Justice Roberts alluded to this in his opinion, that the goal was laudable but he disagrees with the means of EPA expansion, without Congressional authority.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The only poll that matters is the election. The electorate voted the present Congress and it reflects America which, in details, is nothing like 80% in favor of anything. Ask voters how much they’ll pay for alternative energy, it dies at about $100/month or less.

Polls show that the majority of Republicans are in favor of alternative energy, there is no other way to get to 80% majority. The problem is that this majority is not being represented by Republicans in Congress, who are beholden to special interests that have denied climate change.

It's fairly easy to see that when you consider how many of them have also supported the election fraud claims. Neither position has a factual basis, but those representatives see no need to follow the facts. It's not in their best interests to do so.

Avatar2go wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Clean Air Act, it's in the name. I wonder what children, teens and young adults think of their parents lobbying for coal in 2022 ?

It's not necessarily about lobbying for coal as it is lobbying for a reliable grid.

Many power companies are looking to exit coal in the 2030-2035 time range. That's great and all but the truth is - there's been nothing of scale announced by these same companies for replacement
generation. Wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to all the demands now and anticipated for the future. There's talk of small modular nuclear reactors here and there but there's nothing even on the table of scale for building or developing new nuclear energy stations which needs to really start happening now in order to be online by say by 2035-2040.

In truth, coal remains a reliable backbone for the current grid. Many plants are firing up additional units to help companies meet demand and avoid outages and they can be pretty much up and running and at speed for the turbines in the generators within 20-25 minutes. Had coal not come through and saved the day, many folks, particularly those dependant upon MISO, when have been up a creek without a paddle.

If you want to exit coal, that's fine - but where's the replacement generation?

There isn't any.

Natural gas has traditionally been used for peaking plants, and there is a strong supply. Those plants are relatively simple and can be built quickly.

Agreed that there is not a clear choice of replacement for baseline power on the horizon. But the goal here was to establish a cap & trade program, where utilities could make investments to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining existing baseline sources.

The dispute here is whether the EPA can advocate for emission reduction by considering all alternatives, or whether emission reduction must be confined to existing plants and technologies. One includes competition of all technologies, the other mandates maintaining the status quo.

It's easy to see why the coal industry doesn't want that competition, or to be evaluated for emissions on a comparitive basis. That is what's actually driving this whole thing. It's a short-term view rather than long-term.

Chief Justice Roberts alluded to this in his opinion, that the goal was laudable but he disagrees with the means of EPA expansion, without Congressional authority.

Yes, natural gas plants are generally the first to go online first to help generation to the grid. The problem is the use of the word "traditionally."
A warmer than normal April and this recent wave in June would have seen major, major problems had it not been for the additional generation coming from coal plants. Miso's network would have been absolutely screwed.

Natural gas/combined cycle stations are *liked* by the power companies for their ability to come online quickly - but as of now - they still require a fossil component to get up and running, so these stations aren't carbon free.

To say their operation is pretty straight forward but to say they are simple and be built quickly is not correct. It would take a good 5-10 years to get one up and running and a good $2 billion cost or so. A single generator will hit the high 600 to the high 700MW of generation, which is about 3/4th of a coal plant output. An advantage in the favor is that for every 3 watts of energy produced, 2 make it to the grid, as compared to nuclear and coal which is 1 watt out of 3.

The preference is to build additional generation on existing coal stations, i.e. the to-be-retired coal plants, but how long (in years) can you be without the generation support for the grid before additional CC units are able to come online?

Again, the "argument" here isn't about there's nothing wrong with coal, the foundation here is the lack of reliable generation infrastructure actually being moved forward to replace stations in 8 years.

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

This might be more understandable in the context of a Congress that could agree on a path forward. But when that agreement is not possible or likely, it tosses the issue into an unresolvable quagmire.

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

Circumventing is your word, most people would not agree with that characterization. Congress wrote those acts, and created the EPA, to be flexible and adjust to future needs. The EPA has adjusted by adapting the BSER standard to include alternative technologies, which has the support of 80% of Americans.

But the Court has now ruled that EPA doesn't have the authority to adjust or expand BSER, without explicit direction from Congress.

If you were to gather together those Congress people that wrote the legislation, I strongly doubt they would object to this expansion, or claim that it wasn't their intent. But today, climate deniers, who like election deniers are themselves in the minority, have the power to both obstruct Congress and that intent.

So is that really democracy, when 80% of Americans support the actions, but they are overturned by the court on behalf of special interests that are by far in the minority? Most people would say no. Who is really doing the circumventing here?

Where is the vote that shows such high support for whatever actions you claim are popular? Where is the democracy?

stlgph wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Clean Air Act, it's in the name. I wonder what children, teens and young adults think of their parents lobbying for coal in 2022 ?

It's not necessarily about lobbying for coal as it is lobbying for a reliable grid.

Many power companies are looking to exit coal in the 2030-2035 time range. That's great and all but the truth is - there's been nothing of scale announced by these same companies for replacement
generation. Wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to all the demands now and anticipated for the future. There's talk of small modular nuclear reactors here and there but there's nothing even on the table of scale for building or developing new nuclear energy stations which needs to really start happening now in order to be online by say by 2035-2040.

In truth, coal remains a reliable backbone for the current grid. Many plants are firing up additional units to help companies meet demand and avoid outages and they can be pretty much up and running and at speed for the turbines in the generators within 20-25 minutes. Had coal not come through and saved the day, many folks, particularly those dependant upon MISO, when have been up a creek without a paddle.

If you want to exit coal, that's fine - but where's the replacement generation?

There isn't any.

Do you think authorities, whatever they are, flip flopping on rules, helps companies make billion dollar investment decisions ?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The only poll that matters is the election. The electorate voted the present Congress and it reflects America which, in details, is nothing like 80% in favor of anything. Ask voters how much they’ll pay for alternative energy, it dies at about $100/month or less.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/p ... le-energy/

The makeup of Congress does not even come close to reflecting the makeup of the electorate. Democrat Senators collectively win about 55-60% of the popular vote nationally, but can only muster a tie because of the flawed institution that is the Senate. Democrat Senators represent 42 million more people people than Republican Senators. I don't want to hear any nonsense about how the current partisan breakdown of Congress is in any way representative of the population at large.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... vote-trump

Senators, as opposed to Representatives, represent states, pretty clearly written. The House is equally divided, by the way, and represent the population.

It’s designed to require government build consensus, not steamroller a one-sided fix. Politics should persuade, not dominate, inform voters as to the future, get their approval.

stlgph wrote:

Wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to all the demands now and anticipated for the future.

Wind and solar can absolutely provide enough power if combined with a good grid (and grid management) and new energy storage. Wind alone has a potential 10x greater than the current electricity consumption (40 vs. 4 trillion kWh per year) thanks to much more efficient modern wind turbines. The cost of onshore wind power has dropped to approx. 3.5 ct/kWh, quite competitive with coal.

Gas turbines - including old coal burners converted to natural gas - can compensate for demand peaks until the storage and grid are at the required level. 50% renewable is trival, 80% is easy and 100% is possible in the longer term. You just need to provide the right regulatory environment. The idea that renewables are too expensive or unreliable either comes from fear-mongering by the coal industry, or is based on 10-20 year old outdated assumptions.

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

So under your own admission, the EPA was circumventing democracy. And you’re ok with that?

Circumventing is your word, most people would not agree with that characterization. Congress wrote those acts, and created the EPA, to be flexible and adjust to future needs. The EPA has adjusted by adapting the BSER standard to include alternative technologies, which has the support of 80% of Americans.

But the Court has now ruled that EPA doesn't have the authority to adjust or expand BSER, without explicit direction from Congress.

If you were to gather together those Congress people that wrote the legislation, I strongly doubt they would object to this expansion, or claim that it wasn't their intent. But today, climate deniers, who like election deniers are themselves in the minority, have the power to both obstruct Congress and that intent.

So is that really democracy, when 80% of Americans support the actions, but they are overturned by the court on behalf of special interests that are by far in the minority? Most people would say no. Who is really doing the circumventing here?

Where is the vote that shows such high support for whatever actions you claim are popular? Where is the democracy?

As stated above, even the majority of Republicans voters support increasing the use of alternative energy. But that's not represented by Republican Congress critters, who are supporting the special interests that irrationally deny climate change.

I guess it depends on how you define democracy. I define it as government carrying out the will of the people. You and a few others here define it as the government carrying out the will of the parties. Those are not the same thing.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Senators, as opposed to Representatives, represent states, pretty clearly written. The House is equally divided, by the way, and represent the population.

It’s designed to require government build consensus, not steamroller a one-sided fix. Politics should persuade, not dominate, inform voters as to the future, get their approval.

The problem is that people in certain states support things their Senators are opposed to. Likewise, in the House, many Representatives oppose what We The People want.

As far as your second line, one side needs to adopt this as their platform. The side who just decided to destroy the environment and decided women's futures.

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Circumventing is your word, most people would not agree with that characterization. Congress wrote those acts, and created the EPA, to be flexible and adjust to future needs. The EPA has adjusted by adapting the BSER standard to include alternative technologies, which has the support of 80% of Americans.

But the Court has now ruled that EPA doesn't have the authority to adjust or expand BSER, without explicit direction from Congress.

If you were to gather together those Congress people that wrote the legislation, I strongly doubt they would object to this expansion, or claim that it wasn't their intent. But today, climate deniers, who like election deniers are themselves in the minority, have the power to both obstruct Congress and that intent.

So is that really democracy, when 80% of Americans support the actions, but they are overturned by the court on behalf of special interests that are by far in the minority? Most people would say no. Who is really doing the circumventing here?

Where is the vote that shows such high support for whatever actions you claim are popular? Where is the democracy?

As stated above, even the majority of Republicans voters support increasing the use of alternative energy. But that's not represented by Republican Congress critters, who are supporting the special interests that irrationally deny climate change.

I guess it depends on how you define democracy. I define it as government carrying out the will of the people. You and a few others here define it as the government carrying out the will of the parties. Those are not the same thing.

I support alternative energies. I don’t support beating up the traditional and reliable sources of energy that are still so essential for us. Support for alternative sources does not automatically translate into support for a cap and trade scheme.

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Where is the vote that shows such high support for whatever actions you claim are popular? Where is the democracy?

As stated above, even the majority of Republicans voters support increasing the use of alternative energy. But that's not represented by Republican Congress critters, who are supporting the special interests that irrationally deny climate change.

I guess it depends on how you define democracy. I define it as government carrying out the will of the people. You and a few others here define it as the government carrying out the will of the parties. Those are not the same thing.

I support alternative energies. I don’t support beating up the traditional and reliable sources of energy that are still so essential for us. Support for alternative sources does not automatically translate into support for a cap and trade scheme.

We need to beat up on them. They are causing much of the current drought and climate crisis that are occurring.. Also as seen this year. They don't scale well on their own and need backup from alternative sources.

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Where is the vote that shows such high support for whatever actions you claim are popular? Where is the democracy?

As stated above, even the majority of Republicans voters support increasing the use of alternative energy. But that's not represented by Republican Congress critters, who are supporting the special interests that irrationally deny climate change.

I guess it depends on how you define democracy. I define it as government carrying out the will of the people. You and a few others here define it as the government carrying out the will of the parties. Those are not the same thing.

I support alternative energies. I don’t support beating up the traditional and reliable sources of energy that are still so essential for us. Support for alternative sources does not automatically translate into support for a cap and trade scheme.

The proposed EPA definition of BSER does not "beat up on them". You're accepting and repeating the lines the special interests are feeding you.

The purpose of the new BSER, is to allow utilities to reduce their carbon footprint through the means of their choosing. They could adopt more alternative sources to offset their fossil sources, or they could alter the balance of their fossil sources, or they could invest in carbon removal technologies, or they could purchase credits from other utilities that have reduced their own footprints. And if they reduce enough of their own footprint, they could sell those same credits to other utilities, as a source of income.

The only thing they cannot do under that definition, is to do nothing and ignore their footprint. And that is exactly what they want to do, claiming that it can't be economically reduced, or that it will starve consumers of power. But nothing about the definition says they have to reduce power output, or shut down their existing plants.

For those of us that remember the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, these exact same claims were made. But in fact it was possible to comply, without economic hardship. Automakers invested in technology and research that vastly improved not only emissions, but efficiency as well.

Eventually leaded gas was limited to the markets where it was essential. The same thing will likely happen to coal, in time. Resistance to that shift, is what drives these objections.

Avatar2go wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

As stated above, even the majority of Republicans voters support increasing the use of alternative energy. But that's not represented by Republican Congress critters, who are supporting the special interests that irrationally deny climate change.

I guess it depends on how you define democracy. I define it as government carrying out the will of the people. You and a few others here define it as the government carrying out the will of the parties. Those are not the same thing.

I support alternative energies. I don’t support beating up the traditional and reliable sources of energy that are still so essential for us. Support for alternative sources does not automatically translate into support for a cap and trade scheme.

The proposed EPA definition of BSER does not "beat up on them". You're accepting and repeating the lines the special interests are feeding you.

The purpose of the new BSER, is to allow utilities to reduce their carbon footprint through the means of their choosing. They could adopt more alternative sources to offset their fossil sources, or they could alter the balance of their fossil sources, or they could invest in carbon removal technologies, or they could purchase credits from other utilities that have reduced their own footprints. And if they reduce enough of their own footprint, they could sell those same credits to other utilities, as a source of income.

The only thing they cannot do under that definition, is to do nothing and ignore their footprint. And that is exactly what they want to do, claiming that it can't be economically reduced, or that it will starve consumers of power. But nothing about the definition says they have to reduce power output, or shut down their existing plants.

For those of us that remember the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, these exact same claims were made. But in fact it was possible to comply, without economic hardship. Automakers invested in technology and research that vastly improved not only emissions, but efficiency as well.

Eventually leaded gas was limited to the markets where it was essential. The same thing will likely happen to coal, in time. Resistance to that shift, is what drives these objections.

Driving up the price of fossil fuel energy is a stated goal that has been repeated endlessly for years. The goal is to artificially make it less competitive than alternatives, even though it obviously does not make the alternatives more accessible.

“But nothing about the definition says they have to reduce power output, or shut down their existing plants.”

This is disingenuous. It’s gonna make them lose their competitiveness against other sources, thus it will reduce their incentive to maintain production. You cannot claim they don’t have to produce less just because it costs more when that is exactly how the system works.

bennett123 wrote:

So if the cheapest solutions produce large environmental damage do you still use this 'cheapest' solution?.

Affordable energy is essential for everything from surviving winter to global food security. It is especially important for the middle class and poor.

Don’t like it? We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. It’s wrong and unsustainable to prioritize one need over another. A sustainable solution to this problem wont come from merely tilting the playing field.