U.S. appeals court upholds hazardous air pollution rule


The D.C. Court of Appeals upholds EPA regulations requiring power plants to limit emissions hazardous air pollutants, siding with the EPA's determination that its regulations were appropriate and necessary.

The 2-1 court majority rejects arguments the agency should have considered the costs of its regulations before moving forward, while the dissenting judge warns the costs of the EPA regulations would amount to more than $9B/year.

Related tickers: KOL, BTU, WLT, CNX, ACI, ANR, JRCC, YZC, PCXCQ, ARLP, NRP, PVR, PVA, OXF, CLD, WLB

From other sites
Comments (35)
  • nemonemo
    , contributor
    Comments (337) | Send Message
     
    All hail lord Obama.
    15 Apr 2014, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Holthusen
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Robert Redford is making sure Obama is rewarded for all his anti carbon based fuel edicts and dictatorial demands!
    16 Apr 2014, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • coal miner2
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Just what we all needed!!!
    15 Apr 2014, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • rusus
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    waste of money, Obama's EPA will always be an obstacle to USA energy independence
    15 Apr 2014, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Willow Street Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (2251) | Send Message
     
    Yes, its better to get cancer from pollution but be energy independent. Simplistic American right/left thinking.
    15 Apr 2014, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    what non-domestic energy source is going to replace coal or natural gas power plants?
    15 Apr 2014, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • Willow Street Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (2251) | Send Message
     
    It will have to be figured out. Would you rather die sooner due to pollution?
    15 Apr 2014, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    That wasn't directed to you, it was to the original post. I'm very supportive of this (read my comment below). My point was that this ruling does nothing to "prevent" energy independence.
    15 Apr 2014, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    "what non-domestic energy source is going to replace coal or natural gas power plants?"

     

    It won't be through wind or solar generation equipment purchased from China, but Obama will try to bankrupt us in the attempt anyway.
    15 Apr 2014, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    Adding scrubbers to the exhausts of power plants is not going to all of the sudden make wind/solar any more financially viable/scalable. This isn't some backdoor scheme to get rid of coal/nat gas. This about not putting things into the air that kill you. How is that a bad thing?
    15 Apr 2014, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (2708) | Send Message
     
    @choiminshik,

     

    "Yes, its better to get cancer from pollution but be energy independent. Simplistic American right/left thinking."

     

    As apposed to getting cancer from over-eating, smoking, doing drugs, sitting around and doing nothing, getting high on sugar, fat,...

     

    Pollution kills how many people in the USA per year? I have no idea. http://huff.to/1jJ7LUt. But more people die from wood stoves than other forms of pollution.

     

    Or do you believe this article? http://wapo.st/1jJ7LUv. Pollution must be getting worse or statics are questionable.

     

    http://bit.ly/1jJ7LUw MIT says 200,000 from pollution in the USA. Believe it? Why/why not?

     

    How many die of being over weight? http://nbcnews.to/1jJ7NeZ Believe it? Why/why not?

     

    Smoking? http://1.usa.gov/1jJ7LUy Your friendly CDC. Believe it? Why/why not?

     

    And you want to make it more expensive to live here in the USA? Why?

     

    You think burning coal will kill us? Wood will....
    15 Apr 2014, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    Cliff,

     

    List of fallacies: http://bit.ly/1io5CxZ
    16 Apr 2014, 01:23 AM Reply Like
  • not so dumb blond
    , contributor
    Comments (250) | Send Message
     
    Being over weight and/or smoking are both a lot more threatening to your health than coal. I have worked in health care for over 30 years and see this every day.
    16 Apr 2014, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    I'll refer you to the list of fallacies as well.
    16 Apr 2014, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    The fact that smoking kills more people, or volcanic eruptions are harmful, etc. has nothing to do with this. This also has nothing to do with energy independence. This simply limits the amount of harmful pollutants (not CO2). It is not a difficult fix. It will add some costs, but it in no way put coal powerplants out of business. Cheap nat gas is doing that.

     

    The extreme (and illogical) arguments from the right are just as bad as those from the left. Just like saying building a pipeline is bad for the environment, when it fact it is the safest and least expensive ($ and energy wise) way to move the product that will be moved.

     

    Stop listening to the lobbyists for just one second. Both sides.
    16 Apr 2014, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • Holthusen
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    They are planning to harness all the Hot Air spewing from environmental Hit Squads! They are now targeting Dominion's Cove Point LNG upgrade, despite current approval.)
    16 Apr 2014, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Holthusen
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus, perhaps we can use hard earned Tax Payer $$$$ and give a Company like Solyndra a large grant to help develop Solar Power?
    16 Apr 2014, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Willow Street Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (2251) | Send Message
     
    Time for you to watch Fox News.
    16 Apr 2014, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • MKMCompany2010
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Yes and its that kind of thinking choiminshik that is the biggest obstacle to common sense solutions. I don't know but ????? Really the thing you and the rest of the tree smoochers have to realize is that this is what we have today. 21st century technology is already being deployed to address old technologies for cleaner burning power sources.
    17 Apr 2014, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • Willow Street Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (2251) | Send Message
     
    I have no party affiliation anymore, but when I hear people spouting that which is fed them by the media I call it as I see it. I trust no politician and I barely trust the officers of any corporation of a stock I own.
    17 Apr 2014, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Holthusen
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Time for you to come up with a realistic solution to global pollution and energy shortage instead of silly insults.
    16 May 2014, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (1104) | Send Message
     
    Good ruling. It will create 10x as many good paying jobs in the pollution control industry.
    15 Apr 2014, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    How can people complain about this? Take off your anti-Obama and left vs right hats for just one second. This is not about CO2. This is about scrubbing things like mercury and arsenic, real bad things, from the emissions. Who in their right mind would not want that? It is honestly insane to be against that.

     

    The previous commenters are spot one. Enough with the pollution vs energy independence rants. There is no reason why we can't do both. And that is certainly economic development. Companies have to make these things. They have to pay people to do it. Yes the situation is complex. But there are 1000000 solutions other than dumping really bad stuff into the air when we have the ability to very easily prevent that.

     

    Let's work together on the hard problems and stop being so distracted with these overly simplified us vs them arguments.
    15 Apr 2014, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    I'll point out that I don't feel the same about CO2 emissions. That is a much more complex situation. But mecury? arsenic? Are you kidding? It's inexcusable that we would still dump that stuff into the air when there is no need to.
    15 Apr 2014, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Jack Wildcat
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    JRS03n. You are badly informed about what coal plants put in the air. Please stop spreading BS unless you are an expert on the subject. Clearly, you are not. I don't know where you get your information and I don't care but your just wrong.
    15 Apr 2014, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    I never said anything about what coal plants put in the air. I said what this law does. If coal plants don't put out mercury or arsenic, great. Than we are all happy.
    15 Apr 2014, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    BUT with that said, coal (and nat gas) plants absolutely do put things into the air that would be better for everyone if they weren't there. I'm not anti-coal. But I think if we have the ability to minimize the pollution from it we should. Companies won't do it on their own bc it goes against the bottom line. I get that. But that also means I support laws like this that will force the companies to do so. If some of that costs falls on me. So be it.
    15 Apr 2014, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (2708) | Send Message
     
    @jrs03n

     

    I think we should work on stopping all the volcano eruption instead! They seem to be the biggest problem. http://on.doi.gov/1m6kR1z
    15 Apr 2014, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • jrs03n
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    I don't see your point. Yes volcanos can release some nasty stuff. And if their lava flows over a house it will incinerate it. Does that mean we should allow companies to incinerate houses?

     

    Just bc nature does something that means we can do it too, even if we know its bad for us? Please explain any logic or reasoning in that?

     

    Just to be clear, so you are against this law? You think companies should not be limited in how much mercury or arsenic they put into the air?
    16 Apr 2014, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • rocknrollstew
    , contributor
    Comments (118) | Send Message
     
    coal will be sold overseas!!!!!!!!!!!!! the usa can deal with their rolling blackouts that will come from piggy backing off the nat gas plants and straining them to the hilt...we were very close to one in the midwest this past winter...we have morons in dc. long live - btu aci anr !!!!
    15 Apr 2014, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • Catsrevenge
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    Everyone will just pay their fair share.No skin off of PVA,running mean and green, and headed for the top!
    16 Apr 2014, 01:50 AM Reply Like
  • pytiz
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    When are these boys going to get a break? I like the sector at these prices, but with the US producers its a complete unknown
    16 Apr 2014, 03:28 AM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    About another 1000 days.
    16 Apr 2014, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • Falconflight
    , contributor
    Comments (168) | Send Message
     
    Another example how the US Judiciary no longer represents the People and is nothing but the legal hammer of a fascist state.
    1 May 2014, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • jobehro
    , contributor
    Comments (755) | Send Message
     
    Cliff Hilton, many of us have wood stoves and are still kicking, why do u claim otherwise? Wood stoves are life extensions especially when one loses electricity. Most owners understand the correct operation to eliminate carbon pollution, it's just that the politics of some use the issue to propagandize the point.
    Good read: THE LITTLE ICE AGE by Brian Fagen.
    15 May 2014, 09:17 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs