Archive for the ‘General’ Category

UN climate chief resigns

February 19, 2010

By Moises Velasquez-Manoff / February 18, 2010

The head of the UN body tasked with hammering out an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions and therefore curb their effect on Earth’s climate, is stepping down.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since September 2006, announced his resignation Thursday. It will become effective July 1.

“It was a difficult decision to make,” he said in a statement. “But I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector and academia.” Mr. De Boer will join KPMG, a consultancy group, as global advisor on climate and sustainability.

De Boer’s resignation wasn’t a surprise to many familiar with the UNFCCC process, and especially those who attended the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) this past December.

For many agitating for an international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, the COP15 meeting fell far short. “Copenhagen took a personal and physical toll on him,” says Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in Washington.

For more info, click here:http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0218/UN-climate-chief-resigns

Five ways to lose the Senate majority…….

February 16, 2010
By: David Catanese
February 16, 2010 04:48 AM EST
Sen. Evan Bayh’s stunning decision Monday to pass on a reelection campaign in Indiana is the latest blow to a Senate Democratic majority that is suddenly within striking distance for the GOP.While the retirements of Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) had a clear political logic to them—both involved vulnerable incumbents badly trailing their prospective opponents, according to publicly released polling—Bayh’s calculus was less obvious since he had a comfortable double-digit cushion and a nearly $13 million head start.

Either way, the two-term senator’s departure now places 10 Democratic-held Senate seats at risk—if all are swept under by a November GOP wave, Republicans are back in control of the Senate.

The lesson of the tumultuous last 45 days is that the contours of the political landscape can change in an instant—and a death, a retirement, or a top candidate’s decision not to run can wreak havoc on the best laid political plans.

With that in mind, here’s a list of 5 developments that would make the Democratic hold on the Senate even more tenuous:

The situation in Arkansas continues to deteriorate

By most measures, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is checking all the boxes as she gears up to run for a third term. She’s made staffing additions to the campaign squad, boasts a healthy $5 million dollar war chest, and a spokeswoman reports the senator is planning a headquarters grand opening on the same day she files for re-election in two weeks.

While Lincoln’s office dismisses speculation that she will be the next incumbent to drop, Bayh’s unexpected bombshell is a reminder that the act of gearing up for a campaign doesn’t necessarily guarantee an incumbent will run again.

Unlike in Bayh’s case, however, it’s not entirely clear whether Lincoln’s retirement would help or hinder the cause. Her standing in the polls seems near terminal: a recent Public Policy Polling survey had her trailing Republican Rep. John Boozman by a jaw-dropping 23 points. Other automated polls have shown her trailing lesser-known GOP foes.

In Connecticut, Democrats vastly improved their chances in November when Sen. Christopher Dodd decided not to seek reelection and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal stepped into his shoes. Blumenthal now holds commanding leads over the same Republicans who were shown to be trouncing Dodd.

There is a potential Arkansas Democratic candidate with statewide elected experience who could fit the bill: Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. But Halter is no Blumenthal—the outside-the-state progressive forces that are already clamoring for Halter to challenge Lincoln in a primary may not be an asset to him in a general election in conservative-minded Arkansas.

 

Romanoff roughs up Bennet in Colorado

Appointed Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D-Colo.) allies argue that his Democratic primary opponent, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, doesn’t have the financial wherewithal to become a serious threat in the primary.

But Romanoff’s keen political antennae, coupled with Bennet’s inexperience on the campaign trail, could produce a messy August primary that leaves little time for the party to reunite behind the victor.

Romanoff has cannily framed himself as “an outsider,” while at the same time racking up endorsements from dozens of state lawmakers and labor groups. And Bennet’s soft polling numbers are also allowing Romanoff to claim the electability card.

“Despite being outspent 10-to-1, I do as well against any of the Republicans,” Romanoff told POLITICO last week, citing an early February Rasmussen Reports poll that put him just seven points behind Republican frontrunner Jane Norton.

While Bennet, who carries President Obama’s backing, would have to be labeled the primary frontrunner, Democrats can already envision a nightmarish set of circumstances where Bennet gets bloodied by Romanoff and staggers into the fall homestretch against the GOP nominee.

Colorado’s precinct caucuses, which begin next month, are already fertile ground for Romanoff, a favorite of progressives who tend to turn out for such an activist-oriented event. A worst case scenario for the Democratic establishment: Romanoff edges out Bennet at the Colorado Democratic State Assembly in May.

But whether Romanoff accomplishes that, or easily surpasses the 30 percent necessary to qualify for the August ballot, it could be just the momentum his campaign needs to fight Bennet through the summer.

A Gillibrand challenge gels in New York

Democrat Harold Ford is the latest in a parade of prospective candidates to float their interest in challenging appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

If he ends up passing on a run for the U.S. Senate in New York, it will go down as just another Big Apple political sideshow—and a welcome break for Democrats who desperately want to put an end to worries that the vulnerable rookie senator could get waylaid by a family feud.

But recent comments from Gillibrand and the former Tennessee congressman suggest the diversion might continue on for some time, though Ford has said he’ll let his intentions be known in the coming weeks.

If it’s a go, buckle up—New York’s primary doesn’t take place until Sept. 14th, which leaves months of potential bloodletting before a nominee is chosen. The New York GOP is probably too weak to capitalize in any event, but that could change if a Republican with immediate stature saw an opportunity—someone like former Gov. George Pataki.

 

Third time’s a charm for Rossi in Washington

Sen. Patty Murray’s (D-Wash.) high-water mark in three races is 58 percent—hardly the stuff of an untouchable incumbent.

If the GOP can reel in a big fish who can connect with suburbanites and dominate in eastern Washington—not a heavy lift since Murray lost every county east of the Cascades in 2004—this seemingly sleepy seat could be in play.

The polling data demonstrates that Republican Dino Rossi could be that candidate. Sure, he’s a two-time loser to Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire — in 2004 by a mere 129 votes and in 2008 by six points — but a recent Rasmussen Reports survey had Rossi leading the three-term Democratic senator 48 percent to 46 percent, including an 8-point advantage with independents.

It marked the first time a public poll showed Murray behind this cycle. And while saying he has “no plans to run for any office,” Rossi wasn’t exactly Shermanesque in a recent interview with POLITICO.

“Never say never,” he added.

Rep. Dave Reichert, who has held a Democratic-leaning suburban Seattle seat during a dismal period for the GOP, also might make an attractive opponent to Murray, though he isn’t likely to run, close associates say.

The Republicans already in the field, including state Sen. Don Benton and former NFL tight end Clint Didier, at the moment don’t appear to have the standing or fundraising ability necessary to seriously challenge Murray.

So it might all come down to Rossi. “He’s got a good narrative, he’s got good statewide ID. The environment on the ground is vastly improved. I know he’s receiving the full-court press to run,” said Republican strategist Rick Wilson.

Meanwhile, Murray’s sending up the warning flares — she recently wrote supporters in a fundraising e-mail that after the Massachusetts Senate special election in January, Republicans “are emboldened like perhaps never before and their thirst for victory is unquenchable.”

Another GOP advantage: The relatively late filing deadline of June 11 means prospective candidates have ample time to make up their minds.

Specter’s campaign trail vigor in Pennsylvania

Pols don’t get any tougher, or more resilient, than Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the five-term Democratic incumbent who switched parties last year.

In recent years he’s dealt with a brain tumor and Hodgkin’s disease and even wrote a book—titled “Never Give In”—about his experience battling cancer while serving in the Senate.

But as he confronts a stiff primary challenge, followed by an equally tough general election contest, the delicate issue of his age and health remains a widespread, though rarely publicly aired, topic of discussion among Pennsylvania political insiders. A single, well-publicized gaffe or stumble could suddenly insert the issue into the public conversation in a race where Specter has little room for error.

Specter, who turned 80 years old last week, doesn’t have to look far to find examples of campaigns where a senator’s advanced age played a key role in determining the outcome.

Specter is now older than former GOP Sen. William Roth of Delaware, the popular late incumbent who lost re-election in 2000 at the age of 79 after several campaign trail incidents reminded voters of his age—and underscored the relative youth and vigor of his Democratic opponent, Tom Carper.

Across the border in New Jersey, there’s another example: Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg (himself now 86) also first won his seat in 1982 by questioning the “fitness” of septuagenarian Sen. Millicent Fenwick.

Jonathan Martin and Josh Kraushaar contributed to this report.

Republicans mine coal-country anxieties

February 15, 2010

Noise, shadows from wind farms are creating uproar in rural Minnesota

January 19, 2010

Noise, shadows from wind farms are creating uproar in rural Minnesota

By TOM MEERSMAN – Star Tribune (Minneapolis)

ELKTON, Minn. — Every sunny morning, shadows from the massive rotating blades swing across their breakfast table. The giant towers dominate the view from their deck. Noise from the turbines fills the silence that Dolores and Rudy Jech once enjoyed on their Minnesota farm.

“Rudy and I are retired, and we like to sit out on our deck,” Dolores said. “And that darned thing is right across the road from us. It’s an eyesore, it’s noisy, and having so many of them there’s a constant hum.”

Just as they are being touted as a green, economical and job-producing energy source, wind farms in Minnesota are starting to get serious blowback. Across the state, people are opposing projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Opposition is also rising in other states. It’s not likely to blow over quickly in Minnesota, which is the nation’s fourth-largest producer of wind power and on track to double its 1,805 megawatt capacity in the next couple of years.

To be sure, many people who live more than half a mile from machines are not bothered by noise, and those with turbines on their property enjoy an economic windfall. They typically sign 30-year easements and receive up to $7,500 a year for each turbine on their land.

But the Jechs do not own the land across the road, where a turbine stands about 900 feet from their 100-year-old farm home east of Austin. Flickering shadows from the 122-foot blades make east-facing rooms seem as if someone is flipping a light switch for hours at a time. “We can pull our drapes, we can put earplugs in, or we can wear dark glasses, I guess, but it doesn’t really make the problem go away,” said their daughter Patti Lienau.

After complaining to the developer, they received two large evergreen trees to partly block the view, and $3,000 a year to compensate for the noise. But Lienau said that no money can restore tranquility for her “shell-shocked” 85-year-old father, who struggles with panic attacks and anxiety.

Similar concerns have spread about proposed wind farms in Dakota, Goodhue, Fillmore, Nicollet, Mower, Freeborn, Clay and other counties.

“I’m not against wind. They’re going to put them up whether I like it or not,” said Katie Troe, leader of Safe Wind for Freeborn County. “What we’re asking is that every turbine be looked at and placed correctly.”

The rising numbers of complaints have taken Minnesota regulators by surprise.

“I’ve been doing this for 14 years and people are raising issues I’ve never heard of,” said Larry Hartman, manager of permitting in the state’s Office of Energy Security.

For the most part, Hartman said, wind farms have been welcomed by struggling farmers and revenue-hungry counties. However, some projects are drawing fire, often from non-farmers who built country homes and commute to nearby cities.

“The rural area isn’t what it used to be anymore,” said Kevin Hammel, a dairy farmer about nine miles east of Rochester, where wind developers are active.

Hammel supported wind generators initially, but changed his mind after a developer took him and busload of neighbors to visit a wind farm. The tour made him feel like he was in an industrial park, he said. Yet others admire the sleek, graceful turbines with towers up to 325 feet tall, topped by generators the size of a bus.

Federal subsidies and state mandates for utilities to produce more electricity from renewable sources are accelerating wind farm development.

Minnesota regulations require that wind turbines be at least 500 feet away from a residence, and more to make sure sounds do not exceed 50 decibels. In most cases, that amounts to at least 700 to 1,000 feet, depending upon the turbine’s size, model and surrounding terrain. Whether 50 decibels is too loud depends upon individuals, who perceive sound differently, but it approximates light auto traffic at 50 feet, according to wind industry reports.

Critics say setback distances should be tripled or quadrupled. Nina Pierpoint, a New York physician who has examined the issue, describes “wind turbine syndrome” with symptoms that include sleep disturbance, ear pressure, vertigo, nausea, blurred vision, panic attacks and memory problems.

Canadian Wind Energy Associations released a report that reviewed those claims and said they lacked merit.Rita Messing, a supervisor at the Minnesota Department of Health, co-wrote a report last July to help guide the state on noise decisions.

Wind turbines emit a broad spectrum of sound, she said, including higher frequencies covered by state noise regulations and lower frequency sounds that are not. Her report does not recommend changes in the state noise rules, but notes that local governments can impose longer setbacks.

That needs to happen, said Tom Schulte, who’s upset about a proposed wind farm near his new home in Goodhue County. “When I built this house, the county told me where to build: how far from my neighbor, how far from a fence line, how far from a feedlot, and out of 23 acres there wasn’t a whole heckuva lot of land left where I could have put a house,” Schulte said. “And yet somebody can plop a 400-foot-tall turbine 500 feet from my house and the county steps back and says they don’t have any say about it.”

The debate over noise and setbacks will drop into St. Paul this month when the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission takes up the matter. Comments filed by 16 wind developers said the state’s noise rules and setback distances do not need to be changed, that “shadow flicker” from rotating blades can be solved by better modeling and siting, and that there’s no evidence that low-frequency sounds affect human health.

Others are not convinced and want Minnesota to re-evaluate the rules. People who live near wind turbines are “experimental subjects, who have not given their informed consent to the risk of harm to which they may be exposed,” said Per Anderson of Moorhead. He postponed plans to build a house on land near three proposed wind farms in Clay County.

Some people challenge the industry’s claim that 50 decibels is no louder than light traffic or a refrigerator running. Brian Huggenvik, who owns 17 acres near a proposed wind farm two miles from Harmony, said he has driven to various wind farms and listened to the noise to judge for himself. Huggenvik, an airline pilot, said turbines can also produce a whining sound, similar in frequency to a jet engine idling on a taxiway, though not as loud. “It’s not like living next to a highway with constant sound and your mind blocks it out,” he said. “It’s something that you just can’t get used to. It is a different kind of sound.”

Bill Grant, executive director of the Izaak Walton League’s Midwest office, said that all energy sources impose certain costs and inconveniences. If there are legitimate conflicts about wind turbine noise and public health, the siting guidelines should be revised, he said.

But Grant cautioned against putting severe restrictions on a renewable industry that offers so many benefits. “What people who want to scale back wind are overlooking is the number of deaths that occur annually from air pollution from coal plants,” he said.

WIND POWER

-Minnesota is among the nation’s leaders in wind energy production, ranking fourth behind Texas, Iowa and California

-The state’s first wind farm was Kenetech Windpower’s 73 machines built in 1994, which produce 26 megawatts of power for Xcel Energy

-More than 60 wind farms have sprouted up in Minnesota with a total energy capacity of 1805 megawatts

-Today’s typical machines produce 1.5 megawatts each

Source: American Wind Energy Association

Coal brings jobs to state beyond the coalfields

January 16, 2010

At issue | Dec. 15 Associated Press article, “GE to expand in Louisville; New line of washers adds 400 jobs, solidifies future for Appliance park;” Dec. 17 Herald-Leader editorial, “Green technology generating jobs; GE plant’s rebirth sign of the future”

By Mark Burris

Kentucky possesses an abundant natural resource — coal — that provides jobs for our people, economies for our communities and affordable electricity for our nation.

In fact, over half of the electricity consumed in our nation’s homes, schools, businesses and factories is generated by coal.

But that is lost on outside activists and their bureaucratic allies in Washington, D.C. All too often we see the crowd from outside of our state descend on coal country in an effort to stop coal mining, and specifically surface mining.

Evidently, Kentucky’s heritage and economy don’t factor in the outsiders’ equation as they work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to kill a critical industry.

What the outsiders don’t want you to know is that coal creates jobs far beyond the coalfields of east and west Kentucky.

A perfect example of this happened in Louisville recently when Jim Campbell, CEO of General Electric’s Consumer and Industrial Appliances division, announced that his company was moving 400 jobs from its operation in China to Appliance Park in Louisville.

There’s nothing physically wrong with the Chinese factory, and it won’t be cheap to move those jobs here.

So why do it? While Louisville has an exceptional work force that makes it an attractive place for any company, one of the chief reasons GE made its decision was because of coal. Plain and simple, electric rates here are low because of Kentucky coal and that’s why GE made its move.

Over half of American electricity comes from coal. In Kentucky, 94 percent of electricity comes from coal and our mining industry supports tens of thousands of jobs.

Coal gives Kentucky some of the most affordable electricity anywhere, the final factor that enabled GE to bring 400 jobs to Louisville.

The company I work for provides good jobs to people in nine states because of the coal industry. We aren’t engaged in mining operations at our headquarters on Poplar Level Road, but the people who work with me at Rudd benefit because of the coal industry.

Along with GE, Rudd is another example of how coal positively impacts the economy even in places where there are no coal mines.

When the professional activists and outsiders attack coal, they are attacking American workers and holding back economic recovery by killing jobs during a terrible recession. Decisions like the one made by GE show that we can speed economic recovery by embracing coal as a part of our national energy plan.

Coal helps create jobs in Louisville and across the country. Businesses like GE and Rudd are taking action and providing real solutions, made possible by coal.

If you want to know the real score when it comes to fixing our economy, don’t ask one of the outsiders who could care less about jobs in our state.

Ask a local business owner what it takes to keep the lights on and to create jobs. I am sure he or she will quickly tell you that lower electric rates brought to you by coal help tremendously.

Mark Burris is president of Rudd Equipment Company, headquartered in Louisville.

EPA Chief: Coal Waste Can Be Safely Recycled To Make Cement

January 15, 2010
By Siobhan Hughes
Dow Jones Newswires

 

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s chief challenged criticism that a pending coal-waste proposal would damage the building-materials industry, saying Thursday that the waste produced by coal-fired power plants may be safely recycled into products such as cement.

“There seems to be genuine agreement that the use of coal ash in concrete and concrete-like products does not cause a threat to human health and the environment,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in remarks to the Woman’s National Democratic Club. “The threats associated with coal-ash waste are from leaching,” she said, “which is not a problem from a concrete perspective.”

The Obama administration is walking a fine line as it seeks to regulate coal ash after a December 2008 spill from a Tennessee Valley Authority facility sent about a billion gallons of ash and water over as many as 300 acres. That raised public health fears, since coal ash contains arsenic, selenium, and other contaminants that can be damaging. The EPA found elevated levels of metals such as arsenic after the spill, though it said that municipal drinking water was safe.

Companies such as LaFarge SA (LG), the world’s biggest cement maker, have gone to the White House to warn that regulating coal-waste as a hazardous material would create a stigma around reusing the waste for other purposes, even if the EPA decides to exempt coal ash when it is recycled into other products. More than 40% of coal waste is recycled, added to products such as cement and drywall, a practice known as “beneficial reuse.” The rest is disposed of in landfills or retention ponds.

The White House has held weekly meetings on the subject, a review that has delayed release of the EPA proposal, which was supposed to happen by December. The issue has also prompted lobbying by the American Coal Ash Association, which has lined up support in Congress and warned against “events in Washington” that threaten “the very survival of a multibillion dollar industry.”

“There has been a lot of hullabaloo over coal ash, and I’m disappointed that some of the folks, especially on the industry side, haven’t taken the time to wait and let us try to craft rulemaking,” Jackson said. “I think we agree that coal ash can be reused–in fact we would love to incentivize the reuse of coal.”

She didn’t say whether coal waste could be safely used in other products, such as drywall, or added to the soil as “fill” material.

The EPA is trying to find a middle ground between business and environmentalists. If the EPA decides to treat coal ash as a hazardous waste, it would lead to the first nationwide standards and could potentially force power plants to shift to landfills instead of holding ponds. Retention ponds are considered riskier by environmentalists because of the chances that the waste can ooze out into water supplies.

Environmentalists for years had pressed the EPA to do more, saying that leaving regulation up to states would put the public at risk. In 2000, the Clinton administration’s EPA decided against treating the sludge produced by generators and electric utilities as hazardous. It said that characterizing coal waste as a hazardous material might stigmatize the “beneficial reuse” of the waste. The EPA also said that states had been improving their regulations of the disposal of waste.

(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires

Copyright © 2009 Dow Jones Newswires

GAO Report on Surface Mining

January 12, 2010

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

Roger Nicholson: Myths about mining

January 12, 2010

The 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.

(more…)

Coal Important to All Kentuckians

December 22, 2009

Frankfort – 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.

(more…)

Roger Nicholson: Myths about mining

December 1, 2009

The 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.

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/200911300808