YoHo1975 I realize it's sort of off topic, but if I recall correctly, those 6 power plants in WV are very old and the owner has had years to upgrade them. That owner's competitors chose to upgrade their plants and now they aren't closing. The owner of these plants instead chose to spend their money on lawyers fighting it. So I really couldn't care less about those plants closing. Yes, I would think preemption could come into play. Which is why I think the entire idea is interesting even if it doesn't work out.
I realize it's sort of off topic, but if I recall correctly, those 6 power plants in WV are very old and the owner has had years to upgrade them. That owner's competitors chose to upgrade their plants and now they aren't closing. The owner of these plants instead chose to spend their money on lawyers fighting it. So I really couldn't care less about those plants closing.
Yes, I would think preemption could come into play. Which is why I think the entire idea is interesting even if it doesn't work out.
The American capitalist and tax system works on write downs and write offs, depreciation, etc. So instead of investing in new or modernizing to new, the investor drains the piece dry and abandons ship crying to the government for bailouts and the public for pity from his gold yacht somewhere far away. The steel industry followed this route: instead of putting profits into modernization as they went along it waited until the Japanese could deliver next door to any US steel mill cheaper than the mill could flip it over the property fence. So the industry damped its fires and cried foul wanting the US to "do something" about foreign steel. Investors took their risk and made money. As soon as they didn't protect their risk, it was the population and the government of the US at fault and was asked to cover and insure private enterprise capital risk! So much for a capitalistic, private enterprise society. Coal is different in product but not in upgrading, modernizing, and ensuring safety of its facilities. In otherwords, in American everybody wants to have it their way, all the way, all the time.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I'm kinda proud of the fact that one of the very first enviromental laws with real teeth was the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act 394 of 1937, Public Law 1987, as amended (now codified in Title 35 - Environmental of Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated, at Sec. 691.1 et seq.), which was enacted largely as a result of the effects of outrages such as clear-cutting mountains, coal mine waste pollution, etc. See generally: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/cslawuc.htm
For the 'private rights of action' provision, see especially Section 601. subsections (c), (e), (f), and (g), at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/cslawuc.htm#Sec601
It's stronger than the fedeal Clean Water Law, IMHO. Ironically, as I recall one of the first defendants was the Pennsylvania RR . . .
- Paul North.
Very true henry. I wonder where people think the clean water and air and endangered species acts and EPA came from? Out of the head of some crackpot environmentalist or bureaucrat to hear some folks. In fact they were part of a long and continually evolving history of bipartisan legislation and executive orders to provide regulation to protect/improve the environment dating from 1946.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I guess the most straight forward way of putting it is "if everybody does nothing, nothing happens." I our neighborhood there was a run down property that was not just an eyesore but also a safety hazard in that animals invaded the place and debris scattered the property. Complaints to code enforcement and others fell on deaf ears until four or five of us complained at once at more than one level. Now it is being cleaned up and fixed up. As long as we were silent or singley every once in a while saying something, nothing was done...but enforce, as a group, louder and more often, we got things done. I can point to the fracking frackus all around us. One well, one road, one problem, nothing changes. But many wells contaminating many water supplies and many roads destroyed and all of a sudden things begin to happen. Thus, lawsuits are the loud and often conglamoration of problems and concepts that happen to get things done. So if everybody gets together with the vow of doing something about something, something might happen. If nobody said anything about pollution, nothing would happen that would improve the environment or preserve life qualities...sometimes like this you have to yell loud, often, and enforce, to get a small answer or any answer at all. It's the American way. In effect we ask the courts to interpret, apply, modify or make laws because there is noplace to turn to get the results that are warrented.
Doh ! I should have thought of this before: A more than creditable defense by the RR's is that of "pre-emption". We all know that the U.S. EPA has promulgated numerous regulations regarding "Tier 0" ==> "Tier 4" diesel engines and sequentially reducing the allowable emissions as they go along, etc., for both locomotive and truck diesel engines.
This is in addition to my previous recollection that the Clean Air Act expressly exempted "mobile sources" (my term) = locomotives. That has now obviously changed - the "Tiers" above demonstrate that.
All of that legal process and investment is for naught if these plaintiffs could merely waltz in now at this late date and overturn all of that. For economic reasons, that can't be allowed to happen. For legal reasons, it won't - the EPA's regs have "occupied the field" to the exclusion of all others, and so entirely preclude any other scheme or requirements, whether statutory or common law (this proposed suit).
This isn't a legal forum, but i'd welcome concurring and dissenting opinions on that thought.
Separately, I think it would be a good idea if all of these "citizen's suits" as they are known (most environmental statutes expressly permit and encourage them, allowing citizens/ their lawyers to act as "private attorney generals"*) were required to include a 'good-faith' statement of the estimated costs adn benefits of the compliance that is being sought, and the basis for those estimates. At least then the plaintiffs would be required to recognize and state the magnitude of what they're proposing, which might serve as a 'check' on their excesses - and also more sensationalism as the media pick up on how much money could be required, and how little benefit might result, compared to other measures and uses to which the money could be put (schools, anyone ?).
*"Been there, done that, got the settlement" a few times, both as a municipal solicitor and as counsel for private plaintiffs for ground and water pollution, most notably against the Penna. Turnpike Commission about 10 years ago for road salt and fuels from its now-closed Hickory Run Service Plaza in Carbon Co., PA. The "advance notice/ demand" letter can really have a galvanizing effect once it reaches the right person in the corporate counsel's office, too - it was amazing how fast the lawyer from California for Nestle called me when I sent that letter for an air pollution violation !
RR brake shoes do leave a trail. Look at pictures of Pennsy's horseshoe curve. The ballast on the up hill tracks was white from the traction sand and the down hill track ballast was black from brake shoe dust.
I would think that 1.8 people per million would be more likely than 1.8 people per thousand as far as heavy metals in particulates from idling diesel locomotives. Diesels tend to produce the most particulates when heavily loaded as opposed to idling. An "idling" coal fired steam locomotive wold be a different mater (or even an oil fired steamer).
I would expect far larger source of heavy metal particulates to be from brake shoes on cars, trucks and trains. Every time someone steps on a brake, a little bit of the brake shoe (or pad) is worn off as well as the corresponding metal surface (brake disk, brake drum or RR wheel). Adding up the hundreds of millions of brake applications per day in southern California, this strikes me as a more serious problem than exhaust from idling diesel locomotives.
- Erik
Rather than assume 1.8 people in totality, it might be that number per "X thousand" people, as that is how those stats are usually expressed. Perhaps it is a typo or a problem with the stat as written.
Lessee, 4 billion dollars to help 1.8 people???? As I wrote in an earlier posting on this thread, if reducing pollution is the goal, thee are far better ways of spending the money.
The 1.8 people sounds about right, with clean diesel fuel, I don't see how you would get much in the way of particulates containing significant amounts of heavy metals. Ships burning poorly refined bunker C would be a different matter.
One other reason that the RR's didn't electrify was the costs of paying property tax on the electrification hardware. At the Prop 13 tax rate of 1%, the RR's in southern California would be spending another 40 million dollars per year.
Paul-thanks for the links to the particulars of the potential lawsuit. I note on page 3 of the letter to the railroads that CARB estimates that 1.8 Californians will be affected by the alleged pollutants. This may be a typo error but I am wondering what .8 of a person looks like.
Good questions, which prompted me to dig a little more. Here's what I found - unfortunately, none of the details you are understandably seeking.
Here's the lengthy link to the AP Article from back on Page 1 of this thread:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCbK7oMF67z4dECNP4pVKujAYVFg?docId=a4b47c3c2592496baf3ad5d2179e9a05
First: Technically, it's not a lawsuit - yet. All that's been done so far is to send the required 90-day advance notice/ 'demand' letter before filing the suit - in theory, to give the putative defendants that amount of time to investigate and "clean up their act". There's been no court filing that I could find - and actually, any such filing would be premature and subject to dismissal until those 90 days have run. Here's a link to that letter (9 pages, approx. 329 KB in size): http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_11062101a.pdf
Note that while the letter is long on the alleged pollutants, it's short on the extent of the electrification, etc.
Other links to the NRDC's press release on this: http://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110621.asp
And a staffer's blog post (note the comments below it): http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dpettit/communities_to_california_rail.html
Note: I'm merely providing links, not endorsing or approving any of this !
Does anybody have any links to more detailed information on this California lawsuit? I can'f find much on it. As someone (Paul North, I think) mentioned, curtailing locomotive idling does not seem like a big burden since it is a warm climate and freeze-up is not an issue. I would have thought that the railroads would have already eliminated idling if the sites are particularly prone to smog and poor air quality. They have new systems these days that are designed to eliminate idling.
The electrification would be a big burden depending on the extent. I would like to know what that extent it. The lawsuit wants electification in urban areas. What urban areas? Are we talking about all California urban areas?
Surely there must be more details on this issue. I would like to get an idea of the cost for complying with the terms of this lawsuit. Are we talking ten-million dollars or more like a half-billion dollars? If we are talking about electifying all the urban areas of California, I could see the price tag being 20-billion dollars or more.
First off, Europe and other countries went electric in the early to mid 20th Century and (almost) never wandered away from it; coal was in shorter supply and fuel oils cost more than here, too. So, yeah, they went electric and stayed that way. They also have different engineering standards than we do; we have a heavier loading gauge.
As for us being broke and being green costing trillions....that's just a knee jerk reaction to political BS. And "tree huggers and lib'rals" do often offer solutions at best, demand more thought at worst. Progress never comes cheap on one hand but often the alternative is costlier. Would you rather be living diseased and incapable of enjoying yourself or would you rather be able to breathe the air, drink the water, and be able to live a healthful life? And how about your childeren and grand children? Blowing on one's thumb till one turns blue may be a dramatic presentation of one's political views, standing firm without compromise or thought as it is, but that doesn't solve problems, just obstructs the ability to deal with the problems. Those are the one's who do not come forth with solutions but merely say they don't want to do it.
Firelock76 Henry6: I don't think it's a question of folks on this site being anti-progress or anti-improvement. All of us railfans want to see the RR's prosper, and we all know we can't live in the 19th or 20th centuries anymore. The problem is the people who want to drag us back to the 18th century and who don't think of the consequences of same.
Henry6: I don't think it's a question of folks on this site being anti-progress or anti-improvement. All of us railfans want to see the RR's prosper, and we all know we can't live in the 19th or 20th centuries anymore. The problem is the people who want to drag us back to the 18th century and who don't think of the consequences of same.
Who wants to do that? You are the ones stuck in the middle of the 20th century, while environmentalists/Greens want to plan for the future in the 21st. Try looking at what "old Europe" is doing in the "18th century" if you want to see progress and modernity. By contrast most of our limited "passenger system" looks like something from the 1950's and our power grid resembles that of the 3rd world before they started modernization. And I think you'll find the Greens over there are a major political party that is not radical but pushing for responsible modernization.
Lets see here Henry the USA is BROKE can not afford to keep up its Infrstructure now and you want to Spend TRILLIONS of dollars it does not have to REPLACE every piece of Infrastructure it has now. Second the amount of Coal Gas and OIL that they have found that we can recover here in the USA alone would last us for well over 2-300 YEARS Plus your Forgetting Biofuels. Lastly Canada alone has enough Tar Sands to provide our oil needs for the next 400 Years. Fuel is not the Problem.
How do other nations afford to Electrify their Mains it was Simple one Goverment OWNED them 2 Crushing tax rates on everything overthere When the Fuel tax is 3 bucks a gallon and most of it goes to support the HSR infastructure the Goverment Owns. See the ROW is owned by the Goverment but the Trains are Private that way they can claim oh they do make a Profit. Value Added Taxes on Everything over there of between 15-20% to pay for Healthcare that you'll wait months to see a Specialist or get needed Surgerys but that is what People want here because everyone has it over there. I have a close friend overseas he lives in Germany drives a Goods truck for a Large company Works for BMW so you would think would be a happy guy Hates it with a passion. Why he figured out after his Miles and hours worked that over here he would have made 26 grand MORE in the USA as an OTR driver just in Tax Savings Alone. He paid out 26 Grand more in Income and other taxes on his salary than a normal person here in the States. He netted last year after eveything 39 K so he is not sitting high on the hog over there.
I wonder how it is that almost every other industrialized nation in the world seems to be able to afford electrification? The answer is not simply "the government does it" because it still must be paid for. And the citizens of those nations seem to have a high standard of living. In the case of Germany, their economy is functioning much better than ours.
Most of us try to maintain a reasonable level of civil discourse, even when it is a contentious topic. But not edbenton. Whatever the topic, he has to share his thoughts with a level of vulgarity that would get the rest of us banned. Disagreement is one thing; crude epithets another. "Always at war...?" Perhaps it's time to tone down the anger.
Henry6: I don't think it's a question of folks on this site being anti-progress or anti-improvement. All of us railfans want to see the RR's prosper, and we all know we can't live in the 19th or 20th centuries anymore. The problem is the people who want to drag us back to the 18th century and who don't think of the consequences of same. For example, can you imagine the pollution problem if the 90 million automobiles in this country were 90 million horses? Supposedly a horse generates 30 to 40 pounds of "poop" a day. Do the math. Yikes! Look, as a student of history I like the 18th century, especially the time of the Revolution. But I know I can't live there. I can go to Colonial Williamsburg and visit anytime I like and visit, but I can't stay.
The problem I and a lot of other people have with the environmentalists is they're very good at saying "no-no-no" but not so good at offering any viable solutions. Like any movement I'm sure they have their realistic types and the lunatic fringe who can't agree amongst themselves. Me, I consider myself a conservationist in the classic Teddy Roosevelt mode. We have resources in this country, it makes no sense not to use them, BUT that doesn't mean you should WASTE them. Waste is stupid. As I've said, the radical enviro's want their perfect world, they want it now, they're not interested in compromise, and they don't care who gets hurt who loses jobs, or who gets inconvienced. THEY know best. The rest of us are just backward boobs to them. No different from any other radicals of any stripe.
We are all breathing easier today thanks to Enviormentalisticwacko's! Als we are drinking cleaner water, and are less diseased and sick, too. Plus a new industry, the Green industry, has sprouted with new technologies and products and new jobs and future...that is what is part of progress.
As for reasons electric wires didn't become univeral...the Great Depression has been mentioned for depriving corporations of investment money. And while the diesel locomotive has been mentioned it has been mentioned in the context similar to an automobile, as a fuel driven locomotive. But it was also considered by many, and marketed by some, as an electric locomotive independent of the wire. You got all the pluses of electric tracton with the versitility of a steam locomotive because you didn't have to string a wire over every inch of track be it mainline, branchline, or yard! And with the abundence and cheapness of diesel fuel, why bother electrifying. Tractive effort and horsepower were available with each new diesel, so the future of the power was endless and inexpensive. Also, coal as a home heating fuel, was on the decline as fuel oil flowed into the mainstream, so the need for the extra power electric lomotives offered to haul the black diamonds out of the hills was not seen as needed anymore. It was a combination of progress and progressive detours which all worked fine up to the limits of the technology, the limits of environmental impacts, and the availablity (cost) of fuel.
Again I say we've got to stop thinking and acting on 19th and 20th Century technologies, philosophies, and the status quo and deal with now and the future.
Being FROM West Virginia it is sad to see the power plants closing. The coal industry is about the only paying industry in the state and shutting down the power plants only will add to the unemployment there. WV is a beautiful state and we enjoy vacationing there every couple of years. I realize there is the remaining parts of the steel industry in the northern panhandle (where I was raised) and an extensive chemical industry around Charleston.
But at What FING point do the Envirowackos on the Extreme on the Enviromental movement realize that they need to Bend some also. In WV 6 Coal fired Power plants are Shutting down to be able to meet Expected EPA Regulations. That is over 600 Megawatts of Power removed from the Powergrid Because Someone in Washington becasue they did not get their Baby Cap and Trade gave the EPA the POWER TO REGULATE CO2 a gas we all Breathe. So what do we do replace Coal with what They are not letting anything build or come on line uless it it is so called Green and the Green crap is less than reliable.
The Pennsy's plan wa to electrify into Pittsburgh. Great idea but the depression came and put everything on hold. It was never completed because of the lingering effects of the depression and WWII. We had electrified lines in Washington state but they are gone now. Why is it not being done today? Answer cost. The cost for the catanary, transformers, substations, etc equals the cost of laying the steel rails. I know this as I was on the board of DART in Dallas during the big build out (which is still under way), Then there is the cost of the locomotives. To switch to electrical operation it would be very expensive and I doubt if the railroads could swallow such a big project without outside investment (think government). True electric operations is more fuel effective and the life expectancy of an electric locomotive is far longer than a diesel. With the present state of the US government and many states there is not any available funds to help electrify. In several places on the NE corridor the wires have been pulled down. The poles are still there but the lines from Washington's Union Station to Potomac Yard are gone. Several places on Amtrak's line to Harrisburg you can see where the wires are no longer in use. Why? Finally we see pictures of NS using their trackage rights on the NEC pulling their trains with diesels. Why have they not invested in a few electric locomotives for this service?
You're right Schlimm....I remember in the 50's when all dumped doom on the diesels while Sainting the steam machine! Nah, diesels cannot replace steam. Nope. No way.
It's strange, how on a railroad forum, any change in the status quo is pooh poohed, whether HSR, electrification, expanded passenger rail service or commuter/light rail. If there had been such a forum as this in the late 30's and things were as they are around here now, I suppose those new, pretty *** fast streamliners like the Zephyr or UP M-10000 would have been greeted with similar naysaying and a thousand reasons why it can't work, too expensive, blah blah...
We area all bogged down in 19th and 20th Century politics, economics, and technologies, at least. Things were what the were but things are what they are and change will be a part of what will have to be. We just can't figure it out yet.
Mainline electrification is a good idea, the railroads thought so 100 years ago, but the terrifying expense that put them off all those years ago is still there. Bear in mind, the Pennsy did its major electrifications in the 1930's due in part to low-interest government loans. And even if the RR's do electrify, where's the "juice" going to come from? We've all heard the litany: Coal is bad, oil is bad, dams are bad, solar panels are eyesores, windmills are eyesores and they kill birds too. And don't get "them" started on nukes! Again, I believe we're dealing with enviornmental fanatics dedicated to making this world a better place for themselves to live in and who don't care who gets hurt in the process. Fanatics are like that, you know. History books are full of the results.
Paul_D_North_Jr Placing limits on or attempting to ban diesels from running and moving under load, however, is another story. That's a clear threat to the present technology and industry. As such, any such change should be studied carefully - and perhaps often - and again - and again - so that we're really sure of what we're doing, and all of the intended - and unintended - consequences before we leap into it.
Placing limits on or attempting to ban diesels from running and moving under load, however, is another story. That's a clear threat to the present technology and industry. As such, any such change should be studied carefully - and perhaps often - and again - and again - so that we're really sure of what we're doing, and all of the intended - and unintended - consequences before we leap into it.
Agreed, of course, there needs to be incentive to do those studies. research for it's own sake, whether privately or publicly funded is at a nadir right now.
In the meantime, I'm convinced a lot of the mainlines will be electrified anyway, mainly on the economic basis of fuel cost savings and capacity increases, etc. I know I'm just a lone 'voice in the wilderness' on this, but that's OK. It'll happen anyway, sooner or later. Maybe sooner if some clever railroads figure out a way to get someone else to help pay for part of it, too . . . . - Paul North.
In the meantime, I'm convinced a lot of the mainlines will be electrified anyway, mainly on the economic basis of fuel cost savings and capacity increases, etc. I know I'm just a lone 'voice in the wilderness' on this, but that's OK. It'll happen anyway, sooner or later. Maybe sooner if some clever railroads figure out a way to get someone else to help pay for part of it, too . . . .
I'd like to agree with this. I have a suspicion that this is an opportunity to pull another Sprint.
In other words, SP used it's right of way to run telecom cables which it then sold into the creation of Sprint.
Electrifying Transcontinental corridors would be a good time to also rebuild the US electrical grid which is about a close to spit and bailing wire as you can get. right now.
Same with all those power plants. If someone could craft a plan (and get it passed and funded privately and publically) to do such a thing. It would be win win.
The barrier, contrary to the thinking of some, isn't free market vs government regs. It's the increasing emphasis on the short-term bottom line, often only the next quarter to two years. Used to be, before stock option compensation wasn't so common, that investment in long range growth was the key.
I think it will happen, too, with time. Air quality standards will play a role, availability/price of any and all fuels will, too. Same with generation, storage, and transportation (conduction) of all fuels; there will be breakthroughs. Despite what many say, there is always progress that will overtake the status quo in almost everything!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.