8 ms·

U.S. Judge Blocks Oakland Port's Ban on Coal Shipments

32 points by protomyth 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Can't California just slap a fat tax on ports based on tonnage of coal handled?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewBissell 8y ago
  No? That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case.
  - sxates 8y ago
    Berkeley can tax Soda but Oakland can't tax Coal?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - presidentender 8y ago
      Berkeley can only tax soda because the court hasn't ruled.
    - simcop2387 8y ago
      Berkeley is also only trying to tax soda sold in berkeley. Oakland's issue is that they're trying to control the item being sold in other places, just because they're being brought through oakland.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        Which is why I’m curious about California taxing its ports for handling coal. Port services are sold in California.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case. The judge blocked this on contract, not interstate commerce grounds. FTFA: “The legal dispute hinged on whether the coal ban violated an agreement between the city and a company developing a bulk loading terminal near the city’s port.”
    - rtkwe 8y ago
      That's through their current attempt which from the article sounds like it raised health and safety concerns. > Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes as a way to significantly discourage bringing coal through the Oakland port where the article is about them just attempting a regular ban which is against the contract which probably only allows the city to ban the port from moving a good if it poses a health/safety risk to the town.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes Right, but he didn't just say that such an effort would raise interstate commerce issues (which would be sort of correct, although the Art. I, Sec. 8 Commerce Clause issue—what is usually referred to by interstate commerce issues—is dwarfed by the bright-line Art. I, Sec. 9 export tax/duty issue) but that it would raise “all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case” which is wrong (or at least meaningless) since this was a case decided on contract, not interstate commerce, grounds.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Aren't import taxes one of the few clear privileges in the Constitution that the Federal Government is supposed to have over the States?
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    This case was about exports.
    - koolba 8y ago
      Tariffs can be for both import and export.
      - bluGill 8y ago
        In the US export tarrifs were not allowed, though other countries do (or at least have)
      - alistairSH 8y ago
        The parent comment specifically mentioned import tariffs, which are the only type allowed in the US Constitution, and would not be applicable to this case, which is about exports.
cryptoz 8y ago
Some questions/comments. > The developer, Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Therefore it seems clear that any shipping activity has health impacts for those nearby, coal or otherwise. This is confusing. Is he lying, or am I incorrect? (Edit: Does coal come in by truck? If so then it will very clearly have a health impact on the surrounding communities as this study has already been done: http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-cost-of-oakland-port-truck-diesel-pollution-and-the-broken-trucking-systemmore-than-153-million-drained-from-the-economy-each-year/ http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-co... and if the coal doesn't come in by truck, would it still change or alter truck patterns in the area?) I cannot fathom how someone thinks that increasing shipments at the Port of Oakland will have no health impacts on the surrounding communities - going so far as to say that there isn't any 'substantial' information about it which is clearly a lie. > Reversing the ban could increase exports by as much as 19 percent, according to the Sierra Club...The National Mining Association cheered the ruling. This seems like tragedy of the commons. Clearly all the miners would be better off if there were no coal shipments, because we'd all be better off if there were no coal shipments. The National Mining Association should applaud reductions in harmful greenhouse gasses as it prepares to move its workers into a more sustainable field.
- djrogers 8y ago
  > I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here - the question is will allowing coal shipments cause more health risk than shipping anything else from the port. The port of Oakland is important enough to the state and national economy that it will pretty much be at or near full capacity at all times, so coal would mostly displace other shipments, making your edit-linked article moot (oh, and it would mostly be rail anyway). Ports are a necessary fact of a global economy, and the fact is they tenhave historically had large cities develop around them due to the jobs and opportunities they created. It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get completely shut down. That's an opinion, but it's unrelated to this case - and unlikley to get anywhere. You'd be much better off moving away from the port and teh city that grew up around it.
John_KZ 8y ago
Is there a real reason this happened besides attacking the coal industry? Is this even considered legal now?
- mikeash 8y ago
  The reason is the potential health impact on locals, and given that a judge struck it down, I suspect that it is not legal.
  - John_KZ 8y ago
    It's extreme. The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust that can be eliminated with a piece of tarp. I don't object the people's right to try and pitchfork down the coal industry, but the company should appeal.
    - cryptoz 8y ago
      > The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust... That is absolutely not the only thing that coal loading can produce. The locals have to breathe air too, and the locals may very well be concerned about the breath-ability of their own air after another half century of greenhouse gas emissions, increased outputs of coal mines, etc. Claiming that the "only" thing that coal loading does to locals' health is small amounts of dust is wrong. Your claim is provably wrong, and it seems like you're making the claim intentionally knowing it is wrong, just to say it anyway. Handling coal at the Port of Oakland has a long list of negative consequences for the locals that you are completely ignoring, acting dismissive of and otherwise rude about how the locals feel about their own health. It's insane to suggest people are trying "pitchfork down" an industry while completely ignoring a majority of issues caused by the coal loading.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        Ok, so it is not the fact that it is that 'specific' port that the health consequences happen. The green house gasses would be caused whether it is that port or a different one.
orasis 8y ago
This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine international commerce policy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Keverw 8y ago
  Also local governments such as Los Angeles are planning to ban Diesel and Gas by 2030. So I guess people on vacation visiting will get a huge fine, car impounded, etc for just visiting? I think local governments are overstepping their bounds. Now if it has to do with sales of gas/diesel within city limits that would make more sense, people who disagree can just go give money to the next city over if they prefer liquid over electric. However couldn't find much info on it, just a pledge right now. I think they did it to despite Trump for dropping out of the Paris agreement. So I'm hoping it's more of just trying to create PR than actually creating any new laws. Plus that's a huge area where I doubt every one can afford to go buy a electric, plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs. Then you also got classic car collectors too. Just imagine being told by some city you have to buy a new car by a certain date and gas stations all closed by then too.
  - phil248 8y ago
    You sound very concerned about a proposal you read about that might happen in 10 or 15 years in a city you don't live in. "...plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs" You also seem to know very little about electric vehicles.
    - Keverw 8y ago
      In America we have freedom of movement. So I think a city banning certain types of cars is wrong if it's legal on the federal level, so I do very much care about this sort of topic. Electric you have to plan where to charge instead of just fueling up anywhere. Plus liquid pours faster than electric, and fast charging isn't healthy for batteries according to some articles I read. Suppose to be more for emergencies. Not every hotel or camping spot has EV chargers. Same for restaurants, tourist attractions, and other places you'd naturally stop. Orlando to Los Angeles is over 2,500 miles. Then RV people can go off the grid for weeks at a time, just visiting town to dump tanks, fill up water and fuel. Quartzite is a popular destination for snowbirds. Sure a lot of people who go off the grid has solar for like powering their lights and electronics, but not sure if the storage and solar is there yet to also worry about the engine itself and not just the house batteries. Especially since you still need to run the generator for AC. I think electric still needs more development. I feel like mandating it is limiting people's freedom of movement... Maybe the government of California would rather keep it's residents from moving to Texas and Florida which is happening according to statistics. People want to be able to afford housing and cheaper goods. I guess if it does become a mandate, you could just tote around a bunch of fuel containers and a standalone generator to charge your electric engine up if it ever did come to that... I think solar is cool but even then you don't get enough sun everyday or something acts up, so fuel for backup is always good to have too. Then Lithium ion batteries are more efficient than other batteries, but fire is a concern. Especially how cars can heat up like a oven. Personally I'm more open to a hybrid than 100% electric. I know they are coming out with a Jeep Wrangler hybrid, along with a diesel model too which sounds interesting. Electric for city driving or fuel for highway and off road driving sounds awesome. Best of both worlds. Clean for city driving or when wanting to go on a long distance trip no need to worry about range.
mrguyorama 8y ago
So wait, if I live in a city with a very busy port, and things happening at that port lead to damage to my health, do I really have no choice but to live with it or move away? I can't vote for policies restricting the damaging things the port is doing? Is there a more local equivalent of the EPA? One that could legally have teeth without being swatted down by the Supreme Court?
- true_religion 8y ago
  No, due to federal supremacy, individual cities aren't allowed to control international commerce. They can ban use, but not possession, or mere transportation. Even cities which banned handguns had to allow you to transport your handgun through them on your way to someplace else.
  - fiter 8y ago
    It's not so much the intentional transportation that's the issue. The leakage is the problem. Are individual cities required to allow leaky transportation of hazardous materials on their roads?
DrScump 8y ago
This judge is a distinguished graduate of U.C. Berkeley, a former clerk to Justice Breyer, and an Obama appointee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria

32 points by protomyth 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

Can't California just slap a fat tax on ports based on tonnage of coal handled?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AndrewBissell 8y ago
No? That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case.
- sxates 8y ago
  Berkeley can tax Soda but Oakland can't tax Coal?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - presidentender 8y ago
    Berkeley can only tax soda because the court hasn't ruled.
  - simcop2387 8y ago
    Berkeley is also only trying to tax soda sold in berkeley. Oakland's issue is that they're trying to control the item being sold in other places, just because they're being brought through oakland.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      Which is why I’m curious about California taxing its ports for handling coal. Port services are sold in California.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case. The judge blocked this on contract, not interstate commerce grounds. FTFA: “The legal dispute hinged on whether the coal ban violated an agreement between the city and a company developing a bulk loading terminal near the city’s port.”
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    That's through their current attempt which from the article sounds like it raised health and safety concerns. > Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes as a way to significantly discourage bringing coal through the Oakland port where the article is about them just attempting a regular ban which is against the contract which probably only allows the city to ban the port from moving a good if it poses a health/safety risk to the town.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes Right, but he didn't just say that such an effort would raise interstate commerce issues (which would be sort of correct, although the Art. I, Sec. 8 Commerce Clause issue—what is usually referred to by interstate commerce issues—is dwarfed by the bright-line Art. I, Sec. 9 export tax/duty issue) but that it would raise “all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case” which is wrong (or at least meaningless) since this was a case decided on contract, not interstate commerce, grounds.
icebraining 8y ago
Aren't import taxes one of the few clear privileges in the Constitution that the Federal Government is supposed to have over the States?
- alistairSH 8y ago
  This case was about exports.
  - koolba 8y ago
    Tariffs can be for both import and export.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      In the US export tarrifs were not allowed, though other countries do (or at least have)
    - alistairSH 8y ago
      The parent comment specifically mentioned import tariffs, which are the only type allowed in the US Constitution, and would not be applicable to this case, which is about exports.

cryptoz 8y ago

Some questions/comments. > The developer, Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Therefore it seems clear that any shipping activity has health impacts for those nearby, coal or otherwise. This is confusing. Is he lying, or am I incorrect? (Edit: Does coal come in by truck? If so then it will very clearly have a health impact on the surrounding communities as this study has already been done: http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-cost-of-oakland-port-truck-diesel-pollution-and-the-broken-trucking-systemmore-than-153-million-drained-from-the-economy-each-year/ http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-co... and if the coal doesn't come in by truck, would it still change or alter truck patterns in the area?) I cannot fathom how someone thinks that increasing shipments at the Port of Oakland will have no health impacts on the surrounding communities - going so far as to say that there isn't any 'substantial' information about it which is clearly a lie. > Reversing the ban could increase exports by as much as 19 percent, according to the Sierra Club...The National Mining Association cheered the ruling. This seems like tragedy of the commons. Clearly all the miners would be better off if there were no coal shipments, because we'd all be better off if there were no coal shipments. The National Mining Association should applaud reductions in harmful greenhouse gasses as it prepares to move its workers into a more sustainable field.

djrogers 8y ago
> I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here - the question is will allowing coal shipments cause more health risk than shipping anything else from the port. The port of Oakland is important enough to the state and national economy that it will pretty much be at or near full capacity at all times, so coal would mostly displace other shipments, making your edit-linked article moot (oh, and it would mostly be rail anyway). Ports are a necessary fact of a global economy, and the fact is they tenhave historically had large cities develop around them due to the jobs and opportunities they created. It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get completely shut down. That's an opinion, but it's unrelated to this case - and unlikley to get anywhere. You'd be much better off moving away from the port and teh city that grew up around it.

John_KZ 8y ago

Is there a real reason this happened besides attacking the coal industry? Is this even considered legal now?

mikeash 8y ago
The reason is the potential health impact on locals, and given that a judge struck it down, I suspect that it is not legal.
- John_KZ 8y ago
  It's extreme. The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust that can be eliminated with a piece of tarp. I don't object the people's right to try and pitchfork down the coal industry, but the company should appeal.
  - cryptoz 8y ago
    > The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust... That is absolutely not the only thing that coal loading can produce. The locals have to breathe air too, and the locals may very well be concerned about the breath-ability of their own air after another half century of greenhouse gas emissions, increased outputs of coal mines, etc. Claiming that the "only" thing that coal loading does to locals' health is small amounts of dust is wrong. Your claim is provably wrong, and it seems like you're making the claim intentionally knowing it is wrong, just to say it anyway. Handling coal at the Port of Oakland has a long list of negative consequences for the locals that you are completely ignoring, acting dismissive of and otherwise rude about how the locals feel about their own health. It's insane to suggest people are trying "pitchfork down" an industry while completely ignoring a majority of issues caused by the coal loading.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      Ok, so it is not the fact that it is that 'specific' port that the health consequences happen. The green house gasses would be caused whether it is that port or a different one.

orasis 8y ago

This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine international commerce policy.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Keverw 8y ago
Also local governments such as Los Angeles are planning to ban Diesel and Gas by 2030. So I guess people on vacation visiting will get a huge fine, car impounded, etc for just visiting? I think local governments are overstepping their bounds. Now if it has to do with sales of gas/diesel within city limits that would make more sense, people who disagree can just go give money to the next city over if they prefer liquid over electric. However couldn't find much info on it, just a pledge right now. I think they did it to despite Trump for dropping out of the Paris agreement. So I'm hoping it's more of just trying to create PR than actually creating any new laws. Plus that's a huge area where I doubt every one can afford to go buy a electric, plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs. Then you also got classic car collectors too. Just imagine being told by some city you have to buy a new car by a certain date and gas stations all closed by then too.
- phil248 8y ago
  You sound very concerned about a proposal you read about that might happen in 10 or 15 years in a city you don't live in. "...plus electric seems limiting for road trips or for RVs" You also seem to know very little about electric vehicles.
  - Keverw 8y ago
    In America we have freedom of movement. So I think a city banning certain types of cars is wrong if it's legal on the federal level, so I do very much care about this sort of topic. Electric you have to plan where to charge instead of just fueling up anywhere. Plus liquid pours faster than electric, and fast charging isn't healthy for batteries according to some articles I read. Suppose to be more for emergencies. Not every hotel or camping spot has EV chargers. Same for restaurants, tourist attractions, and other places you'd naturally stop. Orlando to Los Angeles is over 2,500 miles. Then RV people can go off the grid for weeks at a time, just visiting town to dump tanks, fill up water and fuel. Quartzite is a popular destination for snowbirds. Sure a lot of people who go off the grid has solar for like powering their lights and electronics, but not sure if the storage and solar is there yet to also worry about the engine itself and not just the house batteries. Especially since you still need to run the generator for AC. I think electric still needs more development. I feel like mandating it is limiting people's freedom of movement... Maybe the government of California would rather keep it's residents from moving to Texas and Florida which is happening according to statistics. People want to be able to afford housing and cheaper goods. I guess if it does become a mandate, you could just tote around a bunch of fuel containers and a standalone generator to charge your electric engine up if it ever did come to that... I think solar is cool but even then you don't get enough sun everyday or something acts up, so fuel for backup is always good to have too. Then Lithium ion batteries are more efficient than other batteries, but fire is a concern. Especially how cars can heat up like a oven. Personally I'm more open to a hybrid than 100% electric. I know they are coming out with a Jeep Wrangler hybrid, along with a diesel model too which sounds interesting. Electric for city driving or fuel for highway and off road driving sounds awesome. Best of both worlds. Clean for city driving or when wanting to go on a long distance trip no need to worry about range.

mrguyorama 8y ago

So wait, if I live in a city with a very busy port, and things happening at that port lead to damage to my health, do I really have no choice but to live with it or move away? I can't vote for policies restricting the damaging things the port is doing? Is there a more local equivalent of the EPA? One that could legally have teeth without being swatted down by the Supreme Court?

true_religion 8y ago
No, due to federal supremacy, individual cities aren't allowed to control international commerce. They can ban use, but not possession, or mere transportation. Even cities which banned handguns had to allow you to transport your handgun through them on your way to someplace else.
- fiter 8y ago
  It's not so much the intentional transportation that's the issue. The leakage is the problem. Are individual cities required to allow leaky transportation of hazardous materials on their roads?

DrScump 8y ago

This judge is a distinguished graduate of U.C. Berkeley, a former clerk to Justice Breyer, and an Obama appointee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria