Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia vs. EPA is another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards. While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.
This SCOTUS decision has strong similarities to the Roe V Wade decision. It is not a ruling whether the action is good or bad, it is simply a ruling on whether some portion of the government has the authority to take an action or if it can only be done by Congress. In the Roe V Wade overturn, the Supreme Court ruled that the Supreme Court of 50 years made a decision which should justly be only made by congress. In the W Virginia ruling, SCOTUS ruled that EPA was overstepping it's authority and making decisions that can only be made by congress.
From the outset of his presidency, FDR had known that four of the justices—Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland and Willis Van Devanter—would vote to invalidate almost all of the New Deal. They were referred to in the press as “the Four Horsemen,” after the allegorical figures of the Apocalypse associated with death and destruction. In the spring of 1935, a fifth justice, Hoover-appointee Owen Roberts—at 60 the youngest man on the Supreme Court—began casting his swing vote with them to create a conservative majority.
When FDR began his second term on Mar 4, 1937 these were the ages of the Justices none of whom he had appointed. He felt that the Supreme Court judges had ruled against a significant portion of his proposals to get us out of the depression. His plan to pack the court was if a judge was over age 70 and chose not to retire within a specified term, he could appoint another justice (up to a maximum of 15).
80.3 Brandeis
77.9 Van Devanter - 4H
75.1 McReynolds - 4H
74.9 Sutherland - 4H
74.9 Hughes
71.0 Butler - 4H
66.8 Cardozo
64.4 Stone
61.8 O. Roberts - often joined the 4H
71.9 average age
FDR received widespread backlash against his plan to "pack the court" even from stalwart members of his own party. It was perceived as a naked power grab. As 3 justices retired and 2 died during his second term, he got his chance to remake SCOTUS.
When President Joseph Biden began his first term on January 20, 2021, these were the ages of the justices.
82.4 Stephen Breyer (retirement date set)
72.6 Clarence Thomas
70.8 Samuel Alito
66.6 Sonia Sotomayor
66.0 John Roberts
60.7 Elena Kagan
55.9 Brett Kavanaugh
53.4 Neil Gorsuch
49.0 Amy Coney Barrett
64.2 average age
In addition to be 7.7 years younger on average, people live much longer in 2022 than they did in 1937, and often choose to work longer. It is widely believed the Stephen Breyer's seat will be the only one replaced this term and probably the next term as well. As Breyer was appointed by President Clinton, his retirement will not change the balance of the court to become more liberal.
This is actually a good decision for the state of WV. Coal is a vital part of our nation's energy mix and provides energy security, amongst many other things. Regs on coal mining and coal-fired plants are so strict these days. Coal mining provides good paying jobs to good families. The heydays will never return but our country still needs coal. Yes, I wish we had 100% clean air, water, land, etc., etc. but that's a bit unrealistic.
This is actually a good decision for the state of WV. Coal is a vital part of our nation's energy mix and provides energy security, amongst many other things. Regs on coal mining and coal-fired plants are so strict these days. Coal mining provides good paying jobs to good families. The heydays will never return but our country still needs coal. Yes, I wish we had 100% clean air, water, land, etc., etc. but that's a bit unrealistic.
Most coal plants that are still operating are very obsolete and cost far more to run than just about any other energy source. The median operating age of existing coal plants is around 45 years, and most would need massive amounts of upgrades and updates within the next 10 years. Since it makes no economic sense to keeping running them, most have retirement dates before 2030- with other sources replacing them.
Since it makes no economic sense to keeping running them, most have retirement dates before 2030- with other sources replacing them.
Your argument will fall on deaf ears in certain states Percent electricity generated in-state by coal
91.0% West Virginia
83.9% Wyoming
72.0% Kentucky
70.7% Missouri
64.5% Utah
61.1% North Dakota
59.1% Indiana
54.7% Nebraska
50.7% Montana
Kentucky and Missouri are close enough to the windy prarie states that they me be able to convert to wind generated electricity.
These are the 17 states that voted Republican in the 2020 election by the largest margins. Those 9 majority coal states are among them.
69.94% 1 Wyoming
68.62% 2 West Virginia
65.37% 3 Oklahoma
65.11% 4 North Dakota
63.84% 5 Idaho
62.40% 6 Arkansa
62.09% 7 Kentucky
62.03% 8 Alab.
61.77% 9 S.D.
60.66% 10 Tenn.
58.46% 11 Louisiana
58.22% 12 Nebraska
58.13% 13 Utah
57.60% 14 Miss.
57.02% 15 Indiana
56.92% 16 Montana
56.80% 17 Missouri
West Virginia and Wyoming are sitting on a supply of coal that won't run out for centuries.
Oklahoma is one of the most loyal Republican states in the nation, but it's politics haven't prevented it from developing a huge wind generated electric generation capability. So possibly there is some hope for the future of politicized energy policy.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 07-05-2022 at 08:48 PM..
It is my understanding that Congress passed laws creating the EPA and charged them with promulgating rules, which are reviewed by Congressional oversight committees. Lawyers have told me that is why the rules have the force of law. That's why this ruling doesn't make sense to me.
Nothing will make West Virginia's coal industry come back. Market forces have energy producers buying other fuels. The cost of coal versus other energy sources is the reason. BTU to BTU cost comparisons show natural gas is much cheaper than coal, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Coal fired power plants will not be built, not because of any politics or environmental concerns, but because of cost.
To use coal to generate steam, you need land to store coal, barge or rail car unloading facilities, conveyors to move coal inside, crushers and pulverizers, blowers, and electrostatic precipitators to remove the dust from the boiler exhaust, and a way to dispose of the ash.
To use natural gas, you need a pipe.
Coal will still be mined for metallurgical use. You need coal to make steel. However, that will not make the coal companies thrive again.
It is my understanding that Congress passed laws creating the EPA and charged them with promulgating rules, which are reviewed by Congressional oversight committees. Lawyers have told me that is why the rules have the force of law. That's why this ruling doesn't make sense to me.
The Supreme Court held that Congress must provide clear direction to the EPA—rather than a broad delegation of power—in order for the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
West Virginia held the position that Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
Only 8% of Americans live in the 9 states where coal fired plants generate more than 50% of the electric power, but those 9 states are an important part of the 25 states carried by the Republican party in the 2020 election. Energy policy is a big issue to these states.
There is a fairly strong correlation between the average pounds per MWh carbon dioxide produced by in-state electricity generation and percent who voted Republican in the 2020 election.
There are exceptions, of course.
HI, CO, NM produce a lot of carbon dioxide, but vote Democratic.
Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho vote Republican, but don't produce a lot of carbon dioxide.
Theoretically this shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it in fact is much of the time. Idaho has a lot of hydroelectric power, while many of the low carbon dioxide Republican states have a lot of nuclear generators.
2,054.0 WY 69.94%
1,929.9 WV 68.62%
1,767.7 KY 62.09%
1,623.6 IN 57.02%
1,590.6 UT 58.13%
1,586.8 MO 56.80%
1,550.5 HI 34.27%--------
1,436.4 ND 65.11%
1,322.7 CO 41.90%--------
1,319.4 NM 43.50%--------
1,255.5 NE 58.22%
1,253.3 MT 56.92%
1,235.4 OH 53.27%
1,225.4 WI 48.82%
1,121.4 AR 62.40%
1,006.8 MI 47.84%
969.7 AK 52.83%
909.5 TX 52.06%
887.2 KS 56.21%
884.2 U.S. 46.86%
876.2 GA 49.24%
874.8 MN 45.28%
873.7 FL 51.22%
869.2 AZ 49.06%
855.5 IA 53.09%
851.4 RI 38.61%
835.2 MS 57.60%
823.6 LA 58.46%
796.6 DC 5.40%
781.9 AL 62.03%--------
775.0 NC 49.93%
773.1 MA 32.14%
754.9 PA 48.84%
737.5 NV 47.67%
734.6 MD 32.15%
732.0 OK 65.37%--------
721.0 IL 40.55%
710.0 DE 39.77%
700.3 TN 60.66%--------
633.2 VA 44.00%
543.1 NJ 41.40%
535.1 SC 55.11%
489.1 SD 61.77%--------
474.4 CT 39.19%
396.6 OR 40.37%
385.6 CA 34.32%
376.7 NY 37.75%
297.2 WA 38.77%
251.1 NH 45.36%
210.8 ID 63.84%--------
205.2 ME 44.02%
40.9 VT 30.67%
I think it is important to remember the amounts of metallurgical coal that is mined in West Virginia. There will always be a market for that, due to the steady demand of steel. It will never be at the levels it once was, but it is still a valuable mineral to our overall national interest to be mined. Completely shutting down the coal mine industry would put us at the same level of reliance that the Europeans have to the Russians for their energy needs.
I'm all for going nuclear, natural gas, and solar where appropriate. However, someone still has to go and dig that black gold out of the ground for the sake of making steel.
Completely shutting down the coal mine industry would put us at the same level of reliance that the Europeans have to the Russians for their energy needs.
In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Electrical energy generated from coal in 2020 is back to the levels of 1972. Natural Gas emits about half the carbon dioxide as coal, but the energy generated by natural gas is 430% of the level of 1972. So if we replace all the coal and nuclear with natural gas (and a small percentage with renewables) you wonder how much better off we will be.
Any time you are overly reliant on one primary source you are vulnerable to a disruption in that source. That is a basic law of economics.
Electrical generation in upstate New York is the cleanest in the country with about half the carbon emissions of #2, California. Upstate NY has minimal modern renewables (a little wind, but almost no solar). But upstate New York has nuclear power and Niagara Falls.
I think it is important to remember the amounts of metallurgical coal that is mined in West Virginia. There will always be a market for that, due to the steady demand of steel. It will never be at the levels it once was, but it is still a valuable mineral to our overall national interest to be mined. Completely shutting down the coal mine industry would put us at the same level of reliance that the Europeans have to the Russians for their energy needs.
As much as anything, cheap natural gas has been killing coal more than who is sitting in White House. We'll need to use coal for steel making, but even there, efforts are being made to find cleaner, greener routes. But the Europeans were definitely naive to rely on a country that is relatively hostile to the West for their energy needs. The coal industry isn't coming back no matter what a certain party may tell WV folks on the campaign trail. But until we have alternate options available, we'll be using coal and gas for a long time. As a retired scientist type, I'm hopeful for fusion power, but that will be at least 2 or 3 decades before many (or any) commercial plants are running.
I think someone should leave politics out of this discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
