The Kentucky Coal Association has posted the newest GAO Report on Surface Mining.
Check it out by visiting:
http://www.kentuckycoal.com/index.cfm?pageToken=fullStory&newsId=39
Author Archive
GAO Report on Surface Mining
January 12, 2010Roger Nicholson: Myths about mining
January 12, 2010The Gazette’s coverage of the meeting between Gov. Manchin and other governmental leaders and some coal industry officials on Nov. 10 was noteworthy in a couple of respects.
First, anti-mining activist Judy Bonds candidly revealed the true extreme agenda of groups like the Sierra Club and the Coal River Mountain Watch. Bonds expressly stated the desire for a complete federal takeover of our state government, when she said, “the federal government needs to come in and take over the state of West Virginia, all the way from the governor to the dog catcher.”
It is rare indeed when anti-mining advocates reveal their true aims, and Bonds’ candid comment is quite telling. Unfortunately, most of the pronouncements from anti-mining groups twist the facts and weave tales designed to lure high-profile liberal foundations and Hollywood stars to join their single-minded pursuit.
Oft-repeated myths propounded by these groups include: –Claims that neither they nor the Obama EPA seek to ban underground mining. In truth, the EPA has targeted 79 permits for “enhanced review” and potential veto, including deep-mining related permits. Moreover, environmental activists are stridently contesting a deep-mining permit in Northern West Virginia that would create 300 new jobs.
Coal Important to All Kentuckians
December 22, 2009Frankfort – In my Senate district in central and northern Kentucky, when we think about coal, we consider its role in the economy of the eastern and western parts of the state. We don’t realize how important coal is to the economic growth of our local communities, but without coal and the cheap electricity it provides, our household budgets and small businesses would be in trouble.
Kentucky relies on coal for 92% of all its electricity needs, giving us the fourth-cheapest energy rates in the nation. In fact, our home energy bills are about half that of people living in New York and New England.
That cheap energy is also a powerful incentive for out-of-state businesses to locate in Kentucky. Utilities make up a sizeable chunk of any company’s non-labor costs, so being able to save money on heat and light goes a long way toward luring them here. Industrial energy in Kentucky is 16% cheaper than in Indiana, and 31% cheaper than in Ohio. If a company wants to locate in this region of the country, Kentucky can reduce their costs considerably.
Roger Nicholson: Myths about mining
December 1, 2009The Gazette’s coverage of the meeting between Gov. Manchin and other governmental leaders and some coal industry officials on Nov. 10 was noteworthy in a couple of respects.
First, anti-mining activist Judy Bonds candidly revealed the true extreme agenda of groups like the Sierra Club and the Coal River Mountain Watch. Bonds expressly stated the desire for a complete federal takeover of our state government, when she said, “the federal government needs to come in and take over the state of West Virginia, all the way from the governor to the dog catcher.”
It is rare indeed when anti-mining advocates reveal their true aims, and Bonds’ candid comment is quite telling. Unfortunately, most of the pronouncements from anti-mining groups twist the facts and weave tales designed to lure high-profile liberal foundations and Hollywood stars to join their single-minded pursuit.
Oft-repeated myths propounded by these groups include:
–Claims that neither they nor the Obama EPA seek to ban underground mining. In truth, the EPA has targeted 79 permits for “enhanced review” and potential veto, including deep-mining related permits. Moreover, environmental activists are stridently contesting a deep-mining permit in Northern West Virginia that would create 300 new jobs.
–Claims that wind projects can effectively replace coal mining jobs. To the contrary, each surface mining operation will typically employ more than 100 people for several years at wages exceeding $60,000 annually with excellent benefit packages. Wind projects involve short-term construction work followed by a handful of maintenance workers.
–Claims that coal currently being surface-mined can be mined by underground methods instead.
One need only read Gene Kitts’ excellent post, “Why We Surface Mine” on the Coal Tattoo blog (link online: http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/07/23/special-guest-blog-exclusive-why-surface-mine/ ), to understand the economic foundation for surface mining.
The other interesting point from the Gazette’s coverage was Congressman Nick Rahall’s continued insistence that Obama’s EPA is just “doing its job.” EPA’s actions (and inaction) belie Rep. Rahall’s stubbornly held view.
Consider the following:
– In the spring of 2009, the EPA publicly stated that there was no moratorium on the issuance of Section 404 permits generally necessary for both surface- and deep-mining operations. Since that announcement, a grand total of two individual permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers in West Virginia. The EPA may not call this a moratorium, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… well, you know the rest.
– In June 2009, EPA announced the framework for a new “enhanced review” of existing permit applications and promised timely review. Since then, as of Nov. 9, enhanced review has begun on only five of the 79 permits.
At that rate, it will take years for affected coal producers to receive feedback on their permits.
–EPA is attempting to revoke a long-issued Arch Coal permit for an active surface-mining operation. That permit underwent a multi-year environmental impact study, which EPA then accepted,
–EPA’s “job” appears to be implementing the goals of the Pelosi and Reid wing of the Democratic Party to end mining and consumption of coal.
Any business, particularly a capital-intensive one, needs to know the rules and have the assurance that those rules won’t change day-to-day. Ken Ward says there’s no permitting crisis; he’s wrong. Just because the large publicly traded companies have been able to adjust their business plans to avoid major disruptions doesn’t mean a crisis does not exist. Ask the smaller independent operators, who typically have no choice but to shut down when their next permit is blocked, if there’s a crisis in the coalfields.
If a bridge is out, you don’t drive full-speed in the hope that the bridge will be there when you arrive. The bridge is out. Those of us who rely on the coal industry for our livelihoods, our electricity and our quality of life should demand that our government agencies and our elected officials heed our concerns.
Nicholson is general counsel for International Coal Group.
Commerce Lexington adopts pro-coal position after trip
December 1, 2009By Andy Mead and Dori Hjalmarson
amead@herald-leader.com
Commerce Lexington has changed its official policy statement to be much more pro-coal after a two-day trip to Eastern Kentucky.
“Basically the chamber was better informed of the impact coal was having on Kentucky’s economy,” said Chad Harpole, the business group’s vice president for public policy.
In its 2009 policy, the group acknowledged that coal has meant low energy rates in Kentucky but noted that federal action was likely to place further restrictions on emissions. That policy called on policy-makers to help utilities “and mitigate price volatility for our families and businesses.” The coal industry wasn’t mentioned.
The statement for 2010 calls pending energy legislation “the most immediate threat to Kentucky’s business climate” and says for the first time that the group supports efforts to “protect the viability of Kentucky’s coal industry.”
The coal industry and some people in the coalfields have been increasingly vocal in fighting back against regulation and what they see as bias by the news media and a lack of appreciation from the rest of the state. There even have been calls for boycotting Lexington businesses.
Harpole said Commerce Lexington’s policy change was a direct result of an October trip to the coalfields.
Commerce Lexington organized a trip that took 65 Central Kentucky business leaders to Irvine, Whitesburg, Pikeville and other spots in the eastern coalfields.
Along the way, they were told about the good salaries coal miners make and the coal industry-related work that goes on in offices in Central Kentucky, presentations that Harpole said “showed how the two economies are linked together.”
Among the business group’s concerns, he said, is that voluntary steps taken by utilities, the Kentucky automobile industry and others wouldn’t be taken into account in the cap-and-trade energy bill approved by the U.S. House last summer.
U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Versailles, voted for that bill. But that doesn’t put Commerce Lexington at odds with Chandler, Harpole said.
“We work with the congressman every day,” he said. “The things we are for, including coal to gas liquification and increased funding for research at the University of Kentucky, the congressman is very supportive of.”
Lane Boldman of Lexington, who is on the Sierra Club’s national board of directors, called the Commerce Lexington policy change “disappointing.”
“It just seems to be an inordinate interest in the coal industry specifically,” she said.
While the Commerce Lexington policy says that low rates from coal-produced electricity have helped Kentucky attract energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminum and automobiles, Boldman pointed out that Kentucky still ranks 44th among the states in per capita income.
“As an argument for economic development, it’s very curious because the numbers clearly don’t support that,” she said.
While others are seeking to diversify the state, she said, Commerce Lexington appears to be taking a step backward.
When a reporter read the new policy to an Eastern Kentucky radio announcer who called for a Lexington boycott, WTUK-Harlan’s Randy Walters said, “We welcome that kind of voice from them. The thing is what we want is their legislators, their senators, congressmen, we want those people saying this.
“We want the people of Lexington ultimately to do that. We want to see this on their media. We want the whole state to get in line with coal like West Virginia did.”
Dave Moss, vice president of the Kentucky Coal Association, said his organization supports the additions to the energy policy, which he said was spawned by the October trip.
“They wanted to go one step further and solidify their support,” Moss said.
http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1040531.html
Chandler Votes Against Kentucky Jobs
July 14, 2009By Bill Caylor
At issue | June 30 column by U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler: “New energy bill aims to save environment and push economy; includes $60 million for clean-coal technology.”
Rep. Ben Chandler claims to have helped the environment by voting for the recent cap and trade tax, but in reality his vote does little other than cost the citizens of Kentucky.
The bill works to cut emissions and reduce energy consumption in the United States by raising the cost of fossil fuels, such as coal, and making energy more expensive. While increasing the cost of coal does not hurt states that use little coal, such as California and Massachusetts (home to the bill’s sponsors), it will have a crushing impact on Kentucky, which relies on coal to generate 92 percent of its electricity and directly employs more than 17,000 Kentucky citizens. Economists estimate the $9 trillion tax will cost an average Kentucky household $3,600 each year and force Kentucky to buy over $385 million in offsets from foreign countries each year. We disagree that a tax which severely impacts Kentucky but not California or Massachusetts is a good way to “transform the economy,” as Chandler suggests.
Further, while Chandler alleges that the bill subsidizes clean jobs, he conveniently ignores that the tax will destroy many more jobs than it creates. This is particularly true in Kentucky where the coal industry serves as a cornerstone of the Commonwealth’s economy and where so many industrial jobs depend on Kentucky having the fourth lowest cost of electricity in the United States.
In voting to levy the largest energy tax in our nation’s history, one would hope Chandler had something of consequence to show for it. In reality, the bill will have minimal impact on global emissions based on the projected growth of developing nations such as China and India. Further, the bill ignores the growing number of scientists challenging Chandler’s assumed theory of human-caused global warming.
It is not difficult to see why so many Republican and Democratic House members from energy producing states like Kentucky voted against the bill or why Senators, including those representing Kentucky, are disinclined to follow the costly and misguided path taken by Chandler and his colleagues from California and Massachusetts.
Please call Ben Chandler at 202-225-4706 and let him know you think he made a mistake in voting for this legislation. It is bad for Kentucky. It is bad for Kentucky coal.
Coal lobby fights back on climate bill
June 16, 2009By Jim Snyder–
TheHill.com
The coal industry is pushing back against a climate change bill that would likely curb coal use by circulating a map that shows which states would see their electric bills increase the most under the legislation.
But supporters of the bill say the industry’s figures are off the mark and don’t factor in ways the bill will offset rising energy costs or the jobs that it will create.
Lobbying has intensified, with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pressing for a floor vote next week. Waxman reported progress on Thursday in talks with Democrats from rural states who have criticized the bill for not doing enough to protect consumers from higher energy costs.
Industry opponents of the bill are working to sow discontent within the Democratic Caucus by estimating the cost impact by state, in hopes of drawing battle lines based on region rather than political party.
House Republicans have picked up on the theme and are circulating the coal industry’s map in hopes of blocking what is a top legislative priority of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and President Obama.
The National Mining Association, a trade group that represents coal producers, has claimed credit for the map, although an official at Peabody Energy, a large coal company, is listed in a .pdf as its specific author.
According to the map, electricity prices in Texas could increase by more than $1 billion and in Pennsylvania by $636 million in 2012 and each subsequent year if the climate change bill becomes law.
Utilities in these states will not receive enough free allowances from the government to cover their emissions, leaving them to buy additional credits in a marketplace created by the bill, invest in projects that would offset their carbon pollution, find ways to conserve electricity or switch to more climate-friendly fuel sources.
Consumers in Washington state, Oregon and California, in contrast, would see their electric bills decrease under the bill because utilities there emit less carbon dioxide and will likely have a surplus of allowances to sell in the marketplace.
The bill creates a transfer of wealth from states with high carbon emissions to those with lower levels, critics say.
Luke Popovich of the mining group said the map combines estimates from the Congressional Budget Office as to what the price of carbon will be in 2012 with emissions data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department.
“This is simply to say, ‘Let’s be careful before we leap into the dark here,’ ” Popovich said.
Under the bill, utilities and other industrial sectors would have to obtain allowances to cover their carbon dioxide emissions. The majority of those allowances would be given away for free during an initial phase to help prevent dramatic cost increases. But some companies will likely have to buy additional allowances to cover their emissions.
The cost disparity comes because allowances are distributed based on both emissions and electric sales. So a utility that relies on hydroelectric power and therefore has a relatively small amount of emissions to cover would likely have a surplus of allowances it could then sell to a utility that is short.
The coal industry’s map shows that states that rely on coal to get their power will see the electricity prices increase more than other areas like the West Coast and Northeast, areas that depend more on hydroelectric and nuclear power, neither of which emits carbon dioxide.
Coal now accounts for more than 50 percent of the electricity produced in the United States. But coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. Legislation that caps carbon dioxide emissions is likely to make coal use less economical versus other fuel sources.
But a spokesman for one of the climate bill’s main authors, Energy and Commerce Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), said the map grossly overstates the bill’s cost.
“Many other studies on a clean energy jobs plan, including the EPA study on Waxman-Markey, show that the cost increases would be vastly lower, and many other quality, transparently created studies show energy savings and job increases,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder. “The positive results of those studies calls into question the validity of this map, especially given the fact that the authors appear to be those who oppose a clean energy plan.”
Burnham-Snyder said the map doesn’t take into account electricity savings generated by energy efficiency programs promoted by the bill.
Another map circulating on Capitol Hill shows far less of a cost impact in 2012, the first year of implementation
It shows that electric rates in Texas and Pennsylvania would increase only $3. Consumers in Washington state and Oregon would see a savings, but only of $1, and electricity prices in California would increase by that amount. The map was developed by M.J. Bradley & Associates, a Massachusetts-based consultancy whose clients include a consortium of utilities that supports climate change legislation.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meanwhile, has estimated that the climate bill would cost consumers between $98 to $140 a year on average.
Other studies show that a cap-and-trade program akin to what Congress is considering will be much costlier.
Steve Gardner Defends Coal
April 20, 2009Check out the newest posting by our contributor Steve Gardner of Engineering Consulting Services.
http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/greenblog7/blog.html
Governor Beshear unveils Friends of Coal License Plate
March 13, 2009The following is a press release from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Office of Public Affairs:
FRANKFORT, Ky. (March 12, 2009) — Gov. Steve Beshear joined lawmakers and members of the coal industry today to unveil the Friends of Coal license plate.
The new license plate is currently on sale in county clerk offices across Kentucky. The plate’s concept was introduced by Jean Scruggs from James River Coal company.
“Kentucky owes a lot to coal. Coal creates over 17,000 jobs, 90-plus percent of our electricity and more than a billion dollars in direct wages,” said Gov. Beshear. “The Friends of Coal specialty plate gives drivers in the Bluegrass a chance to show their appreciation for the mineral and those who mine it.”
The Friends of Coal is a volunteer organization, with members from Kentucky and beyond, dedicated to informing and educating citizens about the importance of the coal industry.
“Our goal is to provide a united voice for an industry that has been and remains a critical economic contributor to Kentucky,” said Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. “By working together, we can provide good jobs and benefits for future generations, which will keep our children and grandchildren close to home. This plate reminds us of these endeavors.”
Information about Friends of Coal is available at http://www.friendsofcoalky.com/index.cfm.
