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

By 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.