California judge overturns Oakland City anti-coal ordinance. Here's why that matters for Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    May 16, 2018 11:25 p.m.

    glad to see common sense for a change.,

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    May 16, 2018 3:42 p.m.

    This is an interstate commerce issue. This is the one area where the US Constitution explicitly gives the Federal Government power. Otherwise the City of St. George could charge duties on all I-15 shipping going through the city (not that it would). And of course the City of Oakland (or any other port city) could deny access to ports for crazy ideological reasons (and apparently it would).

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 16, 2018 2:06 p.m.

    Honestly I think it is time for people to just pull the plug on California with everything -- coal+water+electricity. This loony state can rot for all I care and let their progressive hippie legislature and governor figure out how to save the state minus fossil fuel. Why should Utah give water from the Colorado and Green to California or power from Hoover Dam or the other coal fire plants we have? This is a state which ignores immigration law and is overrun with illegals giving them freebies at every turn so I say let California figure out how to take care of them. This is what happens when liberals run a state...every time. The sane people of California need to get rid of progressive nuts in power before it's too late. Maybe it is already too late?

  • Lester L. Wester Henderson, NV
    May 16, 2018 11:35 a.m.

    NoName: "Industrial users, in contrast, can use coal relatively cleanly."

    No, they can't. Not even when using Trump's "beautiful clean coal."

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    May 16, 2018 11:12 a.m.

    This is too bad, because it means we'll be wasting $53 million of taxpayer money subsidizing this.

    Our legislators are proud to be 'fiscally conservative' when it comes to providing education, but they're plenty happy to spend other people's money as long as it's for bulldozing pristine land, filling our air with smog, giving handouts to their friends in the real estate industry.

  • Spalding55 Placentia, CA
    May 16, 2018 11:06 a.m.

    Easy solution for Oakland. Set the bar whatever they want for the ports. Concern about the use of covered railroad cars, require the cars to be covered. Worried about emissions and air quality, set a standard. Then see how the proponents of this, especially those who will profit from this holler over- regulation and nanny state. And the beat goes on!

  • D Van Duker Syracuse, UT
    May 16, 2018 11:04 a.m.

    utahute69: On appeal, the Courts will (okay...should) only consider faulty application of law, not issues of fact: did the judge, in dismissing the case, error in his express interpretation and application of the law? If there is subjectivity in the interpretation of the facts, the higher-court will (is supposed to) defer to the lower-court. Where the misinterpretation of facts (or reliance on facts not in evidence) may have lead to a misinterpretation, misapplication of the law, the higher-court will (is supposed to) remand to the lower-court retry the case to establish the lacking evidence.

    The REAL reason for the law suit was the City of Oakland doesn't want US coal to be sold to foreign interests. If they can impede the shipping of coal, they have effectively banned the mining of coal in the US. As you point out, it's short-sighted. China & India will simply buy & burn dirtier coal mined elsewhere, with no change in anyone's "carbon footprint." It's valueless moral grandstanding--virtue-signaling their concern for the climate...but, their own coal-fired smelter is okay...because that comes with local jobs in Oakland!

  • Flipphone Sandy, UT
    May 16, 2018 10:44 a.m.

    Good News for Carbon county. I doubt that they county will ever vote democrat again.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 16, 2018 10:39 a.m.

    I am disappointed that Utah is spending 53million on this port through an accounting scheme.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    May 16, 2018 10:29 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi: "I think that the day of coal is over. The stone age did not end because they ran out of rocks. It ended because there were better things."

    When there are better things, at lower prices, we won't need politicians passing laws. The stone age did not end because of legislation. It wasn't legislation that solved the problem of horse droppings in NYC. There is no law that forces people to fly cross country in 6 hours rather than spending 40 hours driving.

    Natural gas is better than coal in many regards, but is also much easier to cleanly use for homes and even automobiles. Industrial users, in contrast, can use coal relatively cleanly.

    Nuclear has real advantages, but suffers from the phobias of a scientifically ignorant electorate. Even if we used nuclear to effect, we'd need at least 20% coal or NG power plants to handle rapid changes in power demand. Nuclear plants don't change output rapidly.

    Every other so-called "green" alternative is currently far more costly, requires far more land, and has significant eco problems of their own that are usually overlooked (bird/bat deaths with windmills, massive land covered with PE panels, transmission lines, etc).

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 16, 2018 9:31 a.m.

    I think that the day of coal is over. The stone age did not end because they ran out of rocks. It ended because there were better things.

    That being said, the Sierra Club said,
    "The city acted in response to serious concerns about air quality from West Oakland residents, which is an area that is already struggling with severe air pollution,"

    But the coal was not going to be burned in Oakland. It was going to be shipped elsewhere and burned there. In addition, Utah coal is low sulfur. It may be in the position to displace high sulfur coal and would actually improve air quality.

    About 35 years ago, supposedly liberal senator Metzenbaum passed legislation that increased the use of high sulfur coal in the east and displaced low sulfur Utah coal. (How liberal was that?)

    "think globally, ACT LOCALLY" should be replaced by "THINK GLOBALLY, act locally".

  • quackquack Park City, UT
    May 16, 2018 7:47 a.m.

    Interesting .... Everybody's attacking the Judge who may or may not just be interpreting the law lets get to the bulk of the matter. If Utah Politicians weren't Backing a lawsuit with Tagami and Terminal Logistics against the city of Oakland this decision wouldn't be an issue.

    Meanwhile, the East Bay Express this week reported that a Kentucky-based coal company donated $750 to Utah State Sen. J. Stuart Adams, who introduced the Utah coal legislation, a total of $5,950 to 11 Utah senators who voted in favor of the bill, and has given money to Gov. Herbert.

    $53 million of taxpayer money for a coal shipping facility in Oakland, The Utah bill, a key piece of funding for a massive shipping terminal near the Port of Oakland, passed through that state’s House and Senate on Thursday and is awaiting a signature from Gov. Gary Herbert, who is expected to sign the bill into law.

    Tagami and Terminal Logistics Solutions have proposed exporting coal as part of the massive, $250 million bulk commodities terminal The coal would be taken by rail from Utah to Oakland and shipped overseas to Asia.

  • Flipphone Sandy, UT
    May 16, 2018 7:26 a.m.

    I'm shocked, a common sense judgment coming from a California Judge.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2018 7:15 a.m.

    Imagine that! A california judge that actually goes by common sense and US law. That's a first. I say get that coal moving. Also, we need a good coal mine down in the bear ears area and also a new one in the San Rafael Swell area. ATV trails everywhere!

  • kreese Ivins, UT
    May 16, 2018 6:48 a.m.

    And they wonder why there is a refugee problem.....people leaving California.

    utahute69 has it right!

  • girlofthesea Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2018 6:06 a.m.

    U.S. Federal Judge, Vince Chhabria is a REPUBLICAN who was appointed by a Progressive, Liberal Democrat, President Barrack Obama.

  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    May 16, 2018 5:30 a.m.

    Wow, a judge in California with sound reasoning and calling out politicians who don't apply the same reasoning to other industries that they want to apply to coal. How refreshing!

  • utahute69 Laguna Niguel, CA
    May 15, 2018 10:44 p.m.

    So the record is riddled with inaccuracies, major evidence gaps, erroneous assumptions and faulty analysis. Typically, the so called progressive political types, in California, don't do business with a judge that doesn't fully endorse their ideology. This decision be overturned shortly by a liberal appeals court judge with the same inaccuracies, evidence gaps, erroneous assumptions and faulty analysis. Ultimately this will probably hit the Supreme Court. BTW, the same group ignores the fact that coal will be obtained from another source and used in another country while American's lose their jobs to foreign workers.