Supreme Court ruling will force power plants to cut downwind pollution

The U.S. Supreme Court hands the Obama administration an important environmental victory by upholding a rule that requires aging power plants to sharply reduce emissions that contribute to unhealthy air in neighboring states.

The 6-2 ruling breathes new life into the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which requires 28 states to reduce power-plant emissions that hurt air quality in states located downwind.

The regulation could affect ~1,000 power plants in the eastern half of the U.S that may have to adopt new pollution controls or reduce operations.


From other sites
Comments (10)
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4365) | Send Message
    Hopefully this isn't rushed or power prices will rise quickly.
    29 Apr 2014, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (1195) | Send Message
    Anyone know when it goes into effect?
    29 Apr 2014, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Mattster
    , contributor
    Comments (165) | Send Message
    Cue all the anti-environmentalist Obama hater hypocrites who wouldn't live downwind from a polluting power plant themselves.
    29 Apr 2014, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • dacama1
    , contributor
    Comments (221) | Send Message
    I would guess that 70% of the East Coast population lives downwind from a coal power plant. So your comment means what?
    29 Apr 2014, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • labas112
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
    Why would anyone live downwind from a power plant in the first place? Let alone next to railroad tracks, giant power lines, airports, or any other hazard. You know what you are getting yourself into. I never understood this. People buy up these places and then complain about noise, pollution, and whatever else.
    29 Apr 2014, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4365) | Send Message
    Canada has coal power plants I think so technically we all live down wind *snicker*
    29 Apr 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (763) | Send Message
    Because its cheaper.
    29 Apr 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
    Same with the people who live on the coast, near a river or creek, near a known volcano, fault line, tornado alley etc..
    29 Apr 2014, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • jculley
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
    I work in a 50 year old coal fired power plant and when the DEC does air quality checks, the exhaust from our stacks is cleaner than the ambient air around town.
    29 Apr 2014, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
    The key word is "emissions". I live in the shadow of the biggest coal fired plant in the US. The power plant has spent hundreds of millions over the last 10+- years to greatly reduce particulates, heavy metals, and noxious gases. EPA stays on their butt and they are constantly monitored. All is well. The problem arises when CO2 is included in the emissions.
    29 Apr 2014, 02:03 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
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