The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just issued this announcement:
Today, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a final Clean Water Act (CWA) permit to Coal-Mac Inc. for the Pine Creek Surface Mine project in Logan County, West Virginia.
More about this permit in this previous post.
According to EPA:
Consistent with the Clean Water Act and the recent EPA guidance on mountain top mining, the Agency’s consultation with the Company and the Corps led to significant changes to the permit that will reduce potential adverse impacts to water quality and avoid significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystems in the Pine Creek watershed. The key changes include reductions to stream impacts, protection of water quality through a strict conductivity level, enhanced mitigation and restoration, and reduction of cumulative impacts. EPA also reached an agreement with the company related to sequencing of valley fill construction. The company may only proceed with the first valley fill and any additional valley fills will have to be evaluated individually as part of the agreement. If EPA and the Corps find that any of the valley fills are adversely impacting water quality, we will not approve additional mining at the site. The company agreed to meet all conditions presented by the Agency.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
“If EPA and the Corps find that any of the valley fills are adversely impacting water quality, we will not approve additional mining at the site. The company agreed to meet all conditions presented by the Agency.”
This has the potential, if the EPA sticks to its guns, to be huge. I wonder who will sue them first – the National Mining Association, the West Virginia Coal Association, or the US Chamber of Commerce?
I suppose congratulations are due to the EPA for demonstrating that they can impose the guidance standards and still permit mountaintop removal mines.
Problem is, they’re still blowing up our mountains. There oughta be a law.
Fact of the matter is, EPA issued this permit recognizing that some impact is going to occur. It is the nature of mining or any other resource extraction or land disturbance operation. On the one hand EPA has whipsawed mining saying that you can’t impact anything in the 402 process, and on the other hand, EPA appears to recognize the reality that some impacts simply cannot be avoided in the 404 process.
As an affected mountain community resident this saddens me greatly.
We took Lisa Jackson at her word. Once again the people of Appalachia have been lied to and manipulated by outside interests. The EPA said they needed to base their decisions on science, well the science is in and it seems the industries lobbyists are still speaking over the screams of the sick, dead and dying of Appalachia.
I sat in a meeting a few weeks age with an EPA official and he spoke about the “small discrete populations that live at the toe of these valley fills”. This was about the same time that the BP official was on the front lawn of the White House speaking of the “small” people of the Gulf.
It has become difficult for me to tell the difference between industry and regulatory.
We all should be working very hard for good paying sustainable jobs so the people we love can stay on the land they love and still take care of their families. We can do this.
there should be a law…..if there was you would have a electric bill that would be triple what it is now……coal is the only viable resource we have right now to produce the electricity that makes this country what it is today….it gives you the freedom to speak your mind on this computer…it supplies the electricity to power the a/c to cool your house…..all the other electircally powered devices you use in your life are also powered by the coal the wv miners provide to the world…..not to mention all the products that coal is a part of that you use, but would never know unless you were told…….if you could find a cheaper more cost efficient way to produce electricity that was actually realistic then the laws of supply and demand would make it a reality…..however right now there is a huge demand by the world for our coal…it has always been our duty to provide it to this great nation….through war times……through times of economic expansion and depression……this country has remained powerful because of our ability to provide sustainable power through our coal……mountain top “relocation” is one of the safest and most cost effective ways to produce the coal everyone depends on…….i am from wv…. i support our miners and their families….i support coal because it is just commonsense
Mr. Commonsense,
Of course, you’re welcome to your opinion … but regular readers of Coal Tattoo know that there’s a long distance between your opinion as expressed here and the facts …
To start off with, coal is only “cost efficient” because so many of the costs associated with it are hidden and not taken into account by our economy or our current energy policies.
See for example this National Research Council report that outlines $62 billion a year in hidden costs in premature deaths from coal-fired power plant air pollution, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/10/19/national-academy-blockbuster-coals-huge-hidden-costs/ …
And, of course, the impacts from carbon dioxide pollution from these plants are a hidden subsidiary from our planet to coal … Legislation to cap greenhouse gases is about leveling that playing field and making coal compete with greener forms of energy.
And the impacts of mountaintop removal’s damage to the entire Appalachian ecosystem are still not fully accounted for in any of the systems — economic, energy, regulatory — See this previous blog post, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/01/07/bombshell-study-mtr-impacts-pervasive-and-irreversible/ …
Ken Ward Jr.
Also, Mr. Commonsense, not for nothing … but at least in part because of these impacts — and because of efforts by many to force these costs of coal to be taken into account — coal’s share of our national energy supply continues to decline … As I’ve previously written:
Coal’s share has dropped every year since 1997, and is now down to 44.6 percent. It has dropped more than seven percentage points since 1996.
See this blog post:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/06/18/west-virginia-sen-jay-rockefeller-coal-and-climate-change-the-facts-are-already-changing/
Ken.
It has been our “duty” to provide coal … right. I can see that, maybe, in times of war or national emergency or somesuch – this is not one of those times. West Virginia has been a national Energy Sacrifice Zone for more than 150 years. If coal was so “good for us,” then why a we as a state near the bottom when it comes to things like health, earnings, and prosperity, as a whole?
Mr Commonsense, you also fail to take into account the massive subsidies given to the coal industry. If coal were forced to clean up its own messes and not rely on government handouts and tax breaks, it would cost a fortune.
Ken, I agree with some of what you say but I do not understand the statement about leveling the playing field and making coal compete with greener forms of energy. That makes as much sense as leveling the playing field by putting surcharges on regular Fords and Chevys so I can drive a Cadillac!
How can anyone rightfully compare supposed subsidies to the coal industry to the proportionately HUGE subsidies given to “green” energy such as wind farms, the solar industry and bio-fuels? That’s the sole reason the ‘green’ industry has taken a few percentage points of electricity production from coal.
If you could select your electrical source at the meter, I would venture to say not many would be “going green” when they saw the difference in the cost per KWH.
JP,
You don’t provide any sourcing for your statement that green energy gets far more government subsidies than coal … perhaps you would be so kind as to do so …
I would refer you and other Coal Tattoo readers to this interesting study by the Environmental Law Institute, http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358 (in particular the graphic posted here: http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf which shows that fossil fuels actually get far more …
And especially when you add in the comparison of hidden costs outlined in the National Academy of Sciences report I mentioned above, it paints quite a different picture from what you describe. And frankly, I think you totally miss the point — certainly, someone who doesn’t live near a mountaintop removal mine or a slurry impoundment, or someone who hasn’t lost loved ones to a mine explosion or black lung (meaning: Most Americans) doesn’t care much about the hidden costs. But to folks in the coalfields, these things are hidden costs that need to be considered. In fact, if you look at the National Academy report, it focuses on costs that are shared not just by folks in the coalfields — premature deaths from air pollution from coal-fired power plants. And, the costs or global warming aren’t even considered.
It’s all well and good for folks who support coal to opine endlessly about how cheap coal is … it’s not wonder they get upset when academics and others actually begin to add up the real numbers.
Ken.
You missed the little word “proportionately”. If you would look at the subsidies as a proportion of the gross product, i would surmise not only your perception would change but their graph would dramatically change.
Just as I would not trust some “Environmental Law Institute” academics to be unbiased when adding up the “real numbers”, I am sure they and you will not listen to me opine endlessly with no academia backing regardless of what references I may post.
JP,
I didn’t miss the word … If you have some references or links to studies that have examined the subsidies in the way you suggest, please post them. I and other Coal Tattoo readers would certainly be interested.
And I would again say that the subsidies are not the entire picture. The hidden costs of coal are not currently considered by the market that decides where our energy comes from.
I’ll look forward to you providing us with some references to back up whatever opining you wish to do … Ken.
Take your own references Mr. Ward and then let us examine the the DOE data for electrical generation by energy source at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
If you take the Environmental Law Institute data “at face value” and then examine the electrical generation of fossil fuels vs. everything else (except nuclear), the picture comes into focus.
According to the ELI report, 72.5 billions dollars in subsidies went to fossil fuels while only 29 billion dollars went towards renewable sources. The DOE data for the same period in question (2002-2008) has fossil fuels generating 20,027,402 thousand megawatthours – that is 6.2 times the 3,223,851 thousand megawatthours of electricty generated from all renewable energy. Apply a bit of math and you can calculate the subsidies for fossil fuels supposedly total $3.62 per megawatthour while the susbsidies for renewable energy total $9.00 per megawatt hour.
The ELI wants us to believe that sudsidies to fossil fuels dwarf those subsidies for renewable energy. But in reality renewable energy is subsidized 2-1/2 times the rate of fossil fuels.
I was poetically reminded of the stark contrast of renewable energy versus fossil fuels several months ago while flying across the western states. High above the landscape on a clear fall morning, one could easily see from a distance any coal-fired power plant from the tell-tale steam producing stacks. Suddenly and unmistakably we came upon quite a contrasting scene. Below us was a literal “wind farm” with dozens if not hundreds of the enormous towering propellers seemingly sprouting up from the plateau below. Rows upon rows of them for what seemed to be miles and miles…
and not one of them was turning.
JP,
Interesting math. Thanks for continuing the discussion … you don’t include anything in your calculations to consider the hidden costs of fossil fuels that I mentioned the National Academy of Science report about.
Are you aware of any scientific papers or advocacy group or other reports that examine in more detail the issues you’re raising regarding subsidies based on the amount of power generated? If so, please provide links.
Thanks, Ken.