Coal export proponents like to argue that, climate-wise, it doesn’t matter:  Asia will burn the same amount of coal regardless of whether we ship it from the Northwest.  This argument is weak because it: a) defies basic economics – see here; b) ignores the x-factor:  economic “lock-in” to dangerous climate disruption – see here; and c) is morally dubious – see here.  So we know coal export is bad for the climate.  Check out Eric de Place’s social math for scale.

It’s true, however, that Powder River Basin isn’t the only coal available in Asia.  Estimating the net emission impact requires some elaborate economics (forthcoming). [i] But this graph is a rough, directional guide:

Let me explain.

It all comes down to the difference between the cost of producing and transporting Powder River Basin coal and the value of that coal in Asian markets.  That difference appears to be huge.

PRB coal isn’t dirt cheap.  It’s cheaper (than, say, top soil or gravel).  Most of it lies under public land, and the federal government basically gives it away.  Strip-mining is the very definition of quick and dirty – and, yes, super-cheap.  The mine-mouth cost of “producing” PRB coal is in the range of 10-15 bucks a ton.

Transporting it by rail and mega-ship to Asia is much more costly than snatching it from federal land, but there’s still plenty of margin.  Rail costs run about a penny a ton per mile, so that’s maybe another $20 a ton to get it to port.  Throw in say $15 for ocean shipping, tack on a value-added tax and port fees in China, and we’re looking at maybe $70 per ton delivered cost.

The benchmark thermal coal price in China in January was $115 per ton.  So PRB coal suppliers could significantly undercut the market, and still make a bundle.  This also explains why Asia is “just drooling” for this coal, and why, in turn, Big Coal is drooling to get it there.  Saliva speaks volumes.

The fact that they could sell coal so much cheaper also means that other suppliers would have to lower their prices to remain competitive.  And that would mean even greater increases in emissions, and more irreversible commitments to coal infrastructure.

So, both the potential for profits and the potential for net emission increases depend on the same factor – the amount by which the value of the coal in Asia exceeds the cost of getting it there.  In other words, the coal export business succeeds roughly in direct proportion to how much it disrupts the climate.

That means there is a reliable if not precise way to gauge how big the net emission impacts of coal export would be:  by observing how desperately the coal industry tries to make it happen. One more walk through the logic:

The harder the coal industry tries to mow down the opposition to coal export, the more we can infer that enormous profits are at stake.  And the size of the prospective profits is directly related to how competitive their coal is in Asia, which is directly related to how cheaply they can deliver it, which is directly related to how much would be burned.

Yup, how bad it would be for the climate is an indirect function of how much the coal industry wants it.  Judging by the money they are throwing at the early rounds of this battle, it’d be real bad.  And, they have warned, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

There is, of course, a corollary conclusion about how we should respond:

We will know that coal export would be okay from a climate perspective when they give up and stop trying to make it happen.

– KC Golden is Policy Director at Climate Solutions, a Northwest-based nonprofit. This piece was originally published at the Getting a Grip on Climate Solutions blog and was reprinted with permission.

"Activists" offered $50 to wear pro-coal shirts.

Apparently unable to find real activists, the coal industry paid astroturfers $50 to wear pro-coal t-shirts at an Environmental Protection Agency hearing yesterday.

The EPA hearings, held yesterday in Chicago and Washington, D.C., were focused on the agency’s first-ever carbon standards for new power plants. The industry has adamantly opposed these standards, as well as standards on mercury — a pollutant that even Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) admits is harmful.

This year, coal is throwing around its weight by spending tens of millions of dollars on media advertising and political contributions.

Coal is also engaging in fake advocacy campaigns, known as astroturfing. In a Craigslist ad found by the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago, a coal group promised participants $50 to “wear a t-shirt in support of an energy project.” Upon further digging, the Sierra Club blog pieced together much of the deleted Craigslist ad:

People needed to attend a public meeting (Tinley Park /Chicago)

Reply to: px6mq-3031150602@gigs.craigslist.org (email address no longer valid)

Looking for people THIS THURSDAY, MAY 24 who want to make a couple of dollars for a few hours of your time.

All you need to do is wear a t-shirt in support of an energy project for two hours during the public meeting. We will be departing the Tinely Park convention center at 8:15 am for the meeting and we will be back by 1:30 pm. For your time we will pay you $50 cash and provide you lunch once we return to the convention center.

If you can’t beat ‘em, cheat ‘em.

by Daniel J. Weiss

Big polluters and their Congressional allies have created a new straw man to knock down with the invention of the so-called “War on Coal.” It is a multi-million dollar disinformation campaign funded by Big Coal polluters to protect their profits and distract Americans from the deadly effects of air pollution on public health.

However, with the number of coal jobs in key coal states actually on the rise since 2009, it’s more like peacetime prosperity than war in coal country. The War on Coal is nothing more than a new shiny object, designed by big polluters to distract Americans from the real war – the polluters’ attacks on their health – and the truth.

Coal companies and dirty utilities claim that long overdue requirements to reduce mercury, arsenic, smog, acid rain, and carbon pollution from power plants will kill jobs. In West Virginia, however, coal mining employment was higher in 2011 than at any time over the last 17 years. Federal jobs statistics also show modest coal mining job growth in coal states like Virginia and Pennsylvania.

In West Virginia, a recent report from the non-partisan West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy showed coal mining jobs are actually rising, with 1,500 new coal jobs added since 2009. In Pennsylvania, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data shows a 2.3% increase in coal related jobs. And in Virginia, EIA data shows a 6.7% increase in coal mining employment from 2009 to 2010.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated or proposed new clean air standards for smog, acid rain, mercury, air toxics, and carbon pollution that will save lives, create jobs and protect public health. For example, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard alone could prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 130,000 asthma incidents, and 540,000 lost work days every year. This would provide at least $59 billion in economic benefits.

The Economic Policy Institute projects that the mercury standard will actually have a “positive net impact on overall employment – likely leading to the net creation of 84,500 jobs between now and 2015.” The jobs created by the standard, however, would not just be limited to certain industrial sectors. EPI’s study projects that “8,000 Jobs would be gained in the utility industry itself,” along with the over 80,500 jobs that would be created to build pollution control equipment.  While dirty coal companies claim that the mercury standard will cause massive unemployment, EPI notes that “only 10,600 jobs would be displaced due to higher energy costs.” Richard Morgenstern, a former Reagan and Clinton EPA official, predicts that the new standard will have “no net impact” on employment.

EPA predicts that its proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants will have no impact on employment or existing coal plants. In fact, the standard simply complements existing market factors, as the EPA points out:

Because this standard is in line with current industry investment patterns, this proposed standard is not expected to have notable costs and is not projected to impact electricity prices or reliability.

So what is happening to King Coal?  The real culprit is the low price for natural gas. A February, 2012 analysis of coal plant retirements by the Analysis Group found that coal plant declines resulted from basic changes in market forces:

The sharp decline in natural gas prices, the rising cost of coal, and reduced demand for electricity are all contributing factors in the decisions to retire some … coal-fired generating units. These trends started well before EPA issued its new air pollution standards.

Coal industry executives themselves say that low natural gas prices, a warm winter, and a sluggish economy are the primary reasons for coal mining worker layoffs. The Bipartisan Policy Center noted that industry-commissioned doomsday projections of economic losses from EPA standards are vastly exaggerated by including unrelated regulations and worst-case scenarios.  BPC found that “Several investment analysts were conducted prior to EPA’s [rule] proposal and made worst case estimates about what EPA was likely to require.”

Coal generated electricity is relatively inexpensive because the public pays for the external costs from burning coal. These expensive harms include premature deaths, asthma attacks, respiratory ailments, lost productivity and the impacts of climate change. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that burning coal costs $62 Billion annually due to premature deaths, more respiratory ailments, and lost work days.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity – a front group for coal companies and dirty utilities — plans to spend at least $40 million in ads and lobbying to convince Congress to block these vital public health standards. Fortunately, voters won’t be fooled by this attempt to distract them from the real public health impacts of dangerous air pollution. We understand that this isn’t a war on coal. It’s a war on us.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

There are at present six proposals to export coal from Northwest ports. If all of these proposals are built, and if all of them operate at full capacity, the Northwest would be shipping 145 million tons of per coal year.

When burned, that coal will produce roughly 262 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. It’s such a staggering figure, that it’s a little hard to grasp. So here’s some context:

The coal export proposals are, in other words, a disaster for the climate. In aggregate, they are actually far worse than the Keystone XL pipeline.

If you want to dig into the numbers on a project by project basis, here they area:

• Cherry Point, Washington. SSA Marine is planning to build and operate the Gateway Pacific Terminal, a new shipping facility north of Bellingham that would be capable of handling 48 million tons of coal per year. Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private sector coal company, has already agreed to supply 24 million tons of coal.
• Longview, Washington. Millennium Bulk Terminals, a subsidiary of the Australian coal mining company Ambre Energy, purchased a port site on the Columbia River. Arch Coal, a major American coal mining company, has a 38 percent stake in the site. Ambre hopes to export 44 million tons of coal, with 25 million tons in the first phase.
• Grays Harbor, Washington. According to newspaper accounts, RailAmerica is planning to develop a coal export terminal at the Port of Grays Harbor’s Marine Terminal 3 that could handle 5 million tons of coal each year.
• Port of St. Helens, Oregon. Kinder Morgan is planning to build and operate a coal export terminal at the Port Westward Industrial Park near Clatskanie that will be capable of handling30 million tons of coal per year, with 15 million tons in an initial phase of development.
• Port of Morrow, Oregon. Ambre Energy is planning to construct a facility on the Columbia River in eastern Oregon that will transfer coal from rail to barges that will be towed downriver to Port Westward where the coal will be loaded on ongoing vessels. The company says that the system will be capable of handling 8 million tons per year.
• Coos Bay, Oregon. The Port of Coos Bay is considering a mysterious proposal, known to the public only as “Project Mainstay,” that officials say could export 6 to 10 million tons of coal per year.

Notes: My calculations assume that Powder River Basin coal generates 8,500 BTUs per pound, and that 1 million BTUs produces 212.7 pounds of CO2. Gasoline consumption refers to “motor gasoline” and comes the US Federal Highway Administration’s statistics and assumes 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline.

– by Eric de Place. This post is part of the research project, Northwest Coal Exports, and is reprinted with permission. An earlier version can be seen here, Coal Exports and Carbon Consequences.

Related Posts:

• Coal Exports Are Bigger Threat Than Tar Sands Pipeline
• Why Coal Leasing Should Be The Center Of The Climate Fight

A new paper from Dr. Susan Tierney at the Analysis Group confirms that Americans do not have to choose between clean air, a liveable climate, and reliable electricity.

The coal industry has been lobbying intensely against new clean air standards and regulations for carbon dioxide emissions. There are two important takeaways from the report that debunk the coal lobby’s arguments against EPA regulations:

1. Despite coal plant closures, PJM (the largest grid operator in the country) actually exceeded its targeted reserve margin — capacity above peak levels — following its annual auction.
2. Wholesale electricity rates have decreased in since 2009 and are projected to drop 10 percent from 2011 levels by 2015.

The people who operate our grid are doing it reliably and with less coal. Last week, the Energy Information Administration found that coal’s share of electricity generation had dropped from 44.6 percent in Q1 of 2011 to 36 percent in Q1 of 2012. Yet the lights stayed on.

Why It Matters

There are two things consumers want from a utility: to turn on the lights cheaply and to do it without harming public health or the environment.

The idea that we can’t have both is a fallacy. Proponents of coal have conducted a very aggressive (albeit, incorrect) messaging campaign that goes something like this:

1. Coal is cheap
2. Cheap coal makes cheap electricity
3. Therefore, reducing reliance on cheap coal means more expensive and/or less reliable electricity

This argument has come up repeatedly as a reason to reject EPA air quality regulations to limit coal pollution, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) and the Carbon Pollution Rule. Now, most folks believe that these regulations are important — even if they do lead to slightly higher costs, since public health is a serious concern.

But we don’t have to choose between higher costs and less pollution, as Dr. Tierney explains.

Tierney looks at recent results from PJM’s capacity auction to see the impact of coal plant closures. PJM holds an annual auction where it “procure[s] resources needed to guarantee reliability three years into the future.” These auctions allow companies to competitively bid into the market to secure contracts for future generation.

For coal plants affected by regulation, this will theoretically make their operating costs higher and impact their ability to bid. Other resources like nuclear, renewables, and natural gas would then have the opportunity to step up their market share if they can provide a better deal and reliable delivery. In the auction process, PJM shoots to have 15 percent reserve margin, which is the ability to deliver power over peak demand.

If the coal lobby’s argument against regulation were correct, one of two things should have happened: Either electricity should be more expensive, or it should be less reliable to deliver.

But neither of those scenarios came to be. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: electricity prices based on contracts secured at the auction will actually be 10 percent below 2011 prices, and PJM overshot its capacity margin by 5 percent.

Once again, the scare tactics from the coal industry and its allies have been proven false.

Adam James is a Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

by David Roberts, via Grist

The most important thing you can read this week is Joe Smyth’s post on federal coal leasing. I realize “federal coal leasing” is not a phrase to quicken the pulse, but it’s a Very Big Deal.

A couple of weeks ago, I explained the situation the U.S. coal industry is in: Domestic electricity use has leveled off, utilities are switching to cheap natural gas and wind, and the EPA is finally cracking down on dirty old coal plants. All that leaves U.S. coal in a pinch. Their main hope for the future is to increase coal exports. That’s why the fight over coal export terminals matters.

Arguably, though, the coal-export fight is secondary. From a climate-hawk point of view, it would be better just to leave the damn coal in the ground.

Is that even within our power as concerned U.S. citizens? As it happens, yes, it is, because we own much of the coal! The coal that companies like Peabody are itching to export comes from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. And most of the land in the Powder River Basin is owned by the federal government — that is to say, it’s owned by you and me.

The federal Bureau of Land Management leases the land to coal companies at bargain-basement prices, so they can strip-mine it and export the coal at a profit. Does that sound like good public policy to you?

You really should read Smyth’s whole post for the details, but here’s the important bit:

The BLM’s role is critical because unlike other regions such as Appalachia, Powder River Basin coal is mostly owned by the federal government, and BLM is supposed to ensure that coal development there “is in the best interests of the Nation.” But without proper oversight, the BLM has been offering this federal coal to companies like Peabody, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy for bargain rates. Over the last 30 years, this has amounted to a $28.9 billion subsidy to the coal mining industry and helped coal maintain its large share of US electricity generation by keeping coal prices artificially low, as explained in a report [PDF] and legal brief [PDF] by Tom Sanzillo of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

These low prices have also helped the Powder River Basin soar from just 5% of US coal production in 1970 to almost half today — even though the Federal Government no longer classifies the region as a coal-producing region. If this sounds absurd, that’s because the BLM’s process for leasing US coal is skewed to benefit coal mining companies, lacks proper oversight and public participation, and is basically corrupt — check out the WildEarth Guardians for more info. [my emphasis]

Speaking of that corrupt BLM process, there’s a lease auction happening today — BLM is selling off the “South Porcupine Tract,” which contains “an estimated 401,830,508 tons of mineable coal.” But the size of this lease is modest relative to the huge expansion of leasing the administration announced last year. When all that newly leased coal is burned, it will contribute 3.9 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, more than half what the U.S. emits in a year. (See also Joe Romm on this.)

As Smyth writes, this travesty is finally starting to get some attention from politicians like Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D). They are asking why U.S. taxpayers should subsidize coal companies to degrade Western port towns to export coal to Asia where it will accelerate climate change. That makes sense for no one other than the coal companies.

The BLM’s own justification for the lease doesn’t even make sense, as Smyth explains:

Keep in mind that in its Record of Decision [PDF] for [today's] South Porcupine lease, the BLM justified the decision by asserting that doing so would help “meet the national coal demand,” and that “The public interest is served by leasing the South Porcupine LBA tract because doing so provides a reliable, continuous supply of stable and affordable energy for consumers throughout the country.” At a time when coal’s share of US electricity generation has dropped 19% in one year to just 36%, and Peabody’s CEO is touting plans to profit from “the global coal supercycle,” even the twisted logic of BLM’s coal leasing process falls apart. How exactly is it in the “best interests of the Nation” to sell coal that belongs to US taxpayers at a discount so Peabody can strip mine and ship it to Asia? [my emphasis]

That’s a damn good question.

My question is, where’s the climate movement on this? More than Keystone XL, more than individual coal plants, more even than coal export plans, this seems to be where the real action is. The entire climate fight over coal is an attempt, often by indirect means, to keep the damn coal in the ground. And yet here’s a bunch of coal in the ground that U.S. citizens already own, and it’s being sold by an allegedly climate-concerned administration to coal companies for no particular public benefit. It seems like a place where concerted pressure could have an effect.

Why isn’t this the center of the climate fight right now?

David Roberts is a staff writer for Grist. This piece was originally published at Grist and was reprinted with permission.

That stunning drop, which represented almost a 20 percent decline in coal generation over the last year, was primarily due to low natural gas prices. As EIA explains, natural gas generation will climb steadily this year, while coal will see a double-digit drop by the end of 2012:

Natural‐gas‐fired generation continues to expand its share of total generation at the expense of coal‐fired generation. During the first quarter of 2012, natural gas accounted for 28.7 percent of total generation compared with 20.7 percent during the same quarter last year. In contrast, coal’s share of total generation declined from 44.6 percent to 36.0 percent over the same period.

Prices for natural gas delivered to the electric power industry fell by 7.5 percent in 2011, which contributed to a significant increase in the share of natural‐gas‐fired generation. EIA expects this trend to continue in 2012, with electric power sector coal consumption falling by 14 percent. Natural gas in the electric power sector grows by almost 21 percent in 2012, primarily driven by the increasing relative cost advantages of natural gas over coal for power generation in some regions.

EIA also projects that coal production at mines will fall by more than 10 percent this year. However, with prices falling due to an increase in secondary inventories, the agency predicts that domestic consumption may rise by just over 1 percent next year.

The U.S. coal industry if facing major headwinds. The current drop in generation is mostly due to competition from natural gas. But there are other factors that will assist in pushing coal out of the electricity mix: An aging fleet of plants, cost-competitive renewables, new clean air regulations, and a strong anti-coal movement are working together to reduce the attractiveness of coal. Since 2010, plant operators have announced 106 retirements of coal facilities — representing 13 percent of the U.S. fleet, according to the Sierra Club.

The continued decline in domestic coal generation is good news for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel sector are expected to decline by almost 3 percent this year — continuing the 1.9 percent decrease seen in 2011. Emissions from natural gas will rise by 5.5 percent, while emissions from coal will fall by almost 12 percent.

The forest-shaded hills of the Appalachian Mountains near Charleston, WV, may seem an unlikely place for Indian activists to campaign against a destructive coal plant being built 8,000 miles away in Gujarat state in India.  But that is where Soumya Dutta of the People’s Science Forum and Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust are headed this week, to meet with local communities engaged in similar struggles against coal corporations and to build a global coalition to fight back against dirty coal.

Last month Dutta led a team of retired Indian justices and high-level officials on a fact-finding mission to the site of a massive new 4,000 MW coal-fired power station along the shoreline of the Arabian Sea near Mundra, India. The team documented the glaring social and environmental violations being committed by the Tata Power Company which is building the plant. Dutta heard first-hand from local fishing villagers and salt-pan workers how the Mundra plant has contaminated their land and waters and threatened their livelihoods, even forcing some to abandon their ancestral homes.

by David Roberts, via Grist

As I wrote in my last post — and have been writing for years — coal is on the decline in the U.S. The biggest driver of this trend is the current low cost of natural gas from fracking, but it also has to do with increasing competition from renewables, the aging of the U.S. coal fleet, organized grassroots opposition, new EPA regulations, and slowing demand for electricity [PDF].

The rapid move away from coal is hitting U.S. coal-mining companies where it hurts. The Wall Street Journal reports on the fortunes of Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources, the second- and third-largest coal-mining firms in the U.S.:

On a 52-week basis, shares of both Arch and Alpha are down 72%. …

Arch is expected to see its profit fall by 44%, to $33 million. Alpha—still struggling to digest Massey Energy Inc. after spending $7.1 billion to acquire the competitor last year—is seen swinging to a first-quarter loss of $18 million, down from a year-ago profit of $49 million.

Peabody Energy, the largest U.S. coal company, says U.S. coal demand will fall by about 10 percent this year. Some utilities are even canceling coal deliveries because they’ve got big stockpiles of unused coal. (Peabody happens to be sheltered from the storm by the fact that it has mines in Australia.)

Now, here’s the key bit:

Arch, Alpha and the rest of the industry hope that increased coal demand from fast-growing China and India will help turn the tide. But that poses additional problems. U.S. companies are scrambling to increase their access to ports in the Gulf Coast and East Coast to ship coal abroad.

Arch’s and Alpha’s export outlooks, as well as sales forecasts for the higher-priced types of coal used in steelmaking, will be key to how investors view the industry’s prospects in the year ahead.

Moral of the story: The health of the U.S. coal industry hinges on its ability to increase exports to China and India.

To some extent this is already happening, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported last year. Domestic consumption is falling, exports are rising:

The question for the U.S. coal industry is: Can exports rise fast enough to offset declining domestic demand?

The question for climate hawks is: What happens if exports can’t rise fast enough? More to the point, what happens if climate activists are able to block, slow, or at least raise the political and economic costs of coal exports? The happy answer would be that U.S. coal companies wither and a good bit of U.S. coal stays in the ground.

Here’s the coal export situation, in brief:

Currently, most U.S. coal is shipped out of Gulf Coast and East Coast ports; just seven of the 107 million [PDF] short tons of coal exported from the U.S.  in 2011 came from Western ports. (And coal from Western ports has been declining.) This is from Sightline, which has been doing great work on this stuff:

 

Chart created by Sightline using data from EIA’s Quarterly Coal Report.

However, as the WSJ’s phrase “scrambling to increase their access” would indicate, those ports are crowded. What’s more, demand has been shifting from the E.U. to China and India, while supply is exploding in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Both of those trends create huge incentives for Western exports.

Sure enough, there are six new coal ports (PDF) proposed for the West Coast: Coos Bay, the Port of Morrow (near Boardman), and Port Westward in Oregon; Longview, Bellingham, and Grays Harbor in Washington. If they are all built, the Pacific Northwest will export over 150 million short tons of coal a year, making it one of the world’s largest coal export regions.

Suffice to say, coal ports don’t do much for local economies, in the port towns themselves or on the routes to and from them. Rail traffic would radically increase, crowding out other rail-using commodities, cutting towns in half for hours every day, and leaving a coating of toxic coal dust everywhere. Coal ports employ very few people, but are loud and polluted with diesel fumes and coal dust, which renders waterfronts unsuitable for other commercial or community uses. The increase in export capacity would also prompt new rail lines and more Powder River Basin coal mines, with all the attendant environmental ills. Ironically, all this would happen while the Pacific Northwest’s own energy system is moving steadily away from coal.

So: coal companies would get the profits, Asia would get the coal, and the Northwest would get the pollution and disruption. For more in-depth takes on the impacts of coal ports, see: Coal Export: A History of Failure for Western Ports from Sightline and Exporting Powder River Basin Coal: Risks and Costs, from the Western Organization of Resource Councils.

Anyway, activists are fighting all the ports in one way or another, many for these local reasons. There are some promising signs from officialdom as well: Oregon’s Democratic governor, John Kitzhaber, recently called on the feds to do a sweeping review of proposed ports. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has called for a “time out” on coal port plans. The EPA has called for a full review of one of the first Oregon ports. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has called for a review of the feds’ coal leasing program (which determines Powder River Basin production). They are trying to at least slow down what is an insanely rushed process.

But they’re up against a torrent of money from their corporate opponents, including Big Coal and Big Railroad. And this is no small fight: “plans for Northwest coal exports — moving 60 million [metric] tons from Longview, Washington plus 50 million tons from Bellingham, Washington — would more than double the existing total volume of U.S. coal exports.”

And then there’s the climate angle. Your lay economist unfamiliar with the specifics of global energy markets — that is to say, most lay economists in the punditosphere — might protest that blocking particular ports will have no climate benefit. After all, global markets will merely adjust. Coal will flow into Asia from elsewhere, U.S. coal will find other markets, and all the coal will eventually be burned, amen. You squeeze the fossil-fuel balloon somewhere and it pops up elsewhere. You saw a lot of this kind of talk around the Keystone XL fight. “They’ll just burn the tar-sands oil somewhere else!”

But the argument doesn’t work very well for coal. Last year, economist Thomas M. Power released an analysis — “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast” [PDF] — that concluded, among other things, that U.S. supply changes really can affect global coal markets and climate outcomes:

Proponents of the coal export terminals consistently claim that the decision to authorize them will have no effect on the total amount of coal that is burned globally, and hence on the global climate. In their view, opening up the West Coast to the export of Powder River Basin coal will only change the source of the coal burned in Asia — not the total amount. This white paper explains why these arguments are incorrect, and inconsistent with both the basic principles of economics as well as the abundant literature regarding energy use and consumption patterns in Asia.

This paper concludes that the proposed coal export facilities in the Northwest will result in more coal consumption in Asia and undermine China’s progress towards more efficient power generation and usage. Decisions the Northwest makes now will impact Chinese energy habits for the next half-century; the lower coal prices afforded by Northwest coal exports encourage burning coal and discourage the investments in energy efficiency that China has already undertaken. [my emphasis]

This is a case where local activist fights against fossil-fuel projects matter not just for the politics of climate change, but for climate change itself. They matter for China — how much it pays for coal, how much it burns, and how fast it develops alternatives. And they matter for the U.S. The American coal industry is on the ropes. Preventing export terminals can keep it there.

The activist instinct to harry coal at every stage — mining, transport, export, power plant — is the right instinct. Coal is the enemy of the human race. It needs to be kept in the damn ground.

David Roberts is a staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist. This piece was originally published at Grist and was reprinted with permission.

Reposted from the Sierra Club’s Compass Blog

As the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm) closed its 1912 — whoops, we mean 2012 — annual conference, it is clear that the future of the 21st century, to them, is coal. Despite giving lip service to clean tech, the bank awarded its prestigious Sub-Saharan exporter of the year award to Black & Veatch for its work on the Kusile coal fired power plant.

“Using dirty 20th-century technology, this plant will ensure that South Africa’s Highveld continues to exceed limits for dangerous pollutants for decades to come,” said Justin Guay, Sierra Club International Climate Program Representative. “Meanwhile, apartheid-era contracts will keep the price of power below market rates for industrialists while forcing South Africans to endure extreme rises in the price of electricity, forcing many of the poor off-the-grid.”

South Africa isn’t the only place where ExIm is embracing coal. Reliance Power CEO J.P. Chalasani sat on the “Opportunities in India” panel. Reliance received over $800 million in U.S. taxpayer financing for its Sasan coal-fired plant, despite challenges around land acquisition and the cover-up of a smokestack collapse that killed at least 30 workers. Now Reliance’s Krishnapatnam coal-fired power plant has stopped construction and could face 11 lawsuits because the high price of coal has made the plant unviable.

However, ExIm did provide perplexing support for clean technology. There even was a clean energy panel, which openly acknowledged that off-grid renewable energy is lucrative, better capable of addressing energy poverty, and less vulnerable to international fossil fuel price fluctuations. “While ExIm has dramatically increased its renewable energy financing, we are confident that the bank will continue miss the Congressionally-mandated 10% renewable energy target that would help make the U.S. competitive in this emerging global market,” said Doug Norlen, Policy Director for Pacific Environment.

Nicole Ghio, Campaign Liaison for the Sierra Club. summed up the conference: “Aside from the unexpected, albeit cursory, nod to clean technology that could help reduce energy poverty and ensure a safe and healthy future for generations to come, it is clear that ExIm is working to keep the U.S. in the 20th century for another 100 years.”

This piece was originally published at the Sierra Club’s Compass blog and was reprinted with permission.

We wrote about the project last month. This week, activists working to stop coal in Kosovo released a fascinating 15-minute documentary on the issue, outlining the World Bank’s contradictory policies and the potential renewable energy solutions that could help avoid building more dirty coal in the country.

The World Bank says tackling climate change is necessary to “avoid the unimaginable.” But the organization continues to push the dirtiest resource imaginable, lignite coal. When will it actually treat climate change with genuine urgency?

by Jessica Goad and Stephen Lacey

Environmentalists and public health advocates often talk about the harmful “external” costs of coal that are not accounted for in its price.

Those externalities include damage to the local environment, threats to public health, and, of course, climate change.

In a study last year, Dr. Paul Epstein of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School attempted to quantify how harmful coal is:

Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal…. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public.

While these costs are very real, the economic argument can still be abstract to people. So it’s helpful to look at more tangible ways the coal industry is being subsidized by the American taxpayer. Indeed, coal companies benefit from tax breaks, public land loopholes, and subsidized railroads that help them continue being “cheap.”

Below are a few examples of the kind of government support we give the coal industry.

1.  Tax breaks

Just as the oil and gas industry receives tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, coal companies also receive preferential treatment from the Internal Revenue Service.  The Treasury Department estimates that eliminating just three tax preferences for coal would save $2.6 billion between 2013-2022:

-  Expensing of exploration and development costs:  Under current law, coal companies can expense costs incurred by locating coal ore deposits.

-  Percentage Depletion for Hard Mineral Fossil Fuels:  As the tax code currently stands, coal companies can claim a tax deduction to cover the costs of investments in mines.

-  Capital Gains Treatment for Royalties: Some coal royalties for private owners are treated as long-term capital gains, so they are taxed at a lower rate.

2.  Public land loopholes

According the Energy Information Administration, 43.2 percent of U.S. coal comes from public lands.  However, the coal industry benefits from a number of loopholes that make obtaining leases on public lands easier and cheaper.

For example, the nation’s largest coal producing region, the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, is not legally classified as a “coal-producing region.”  This means that coal tracts within it are rarely competitively leased, which shortchanges taxpayers for the value of the land and the coal underneath it.

Additionally, some have alleged that the non-public process by which the Bureau of Land Management determines fair market value for coal on public lands is flawed.  In a lengthy legal brief, Tom Sanzillo of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis outlines how the value established by the government is much lower than would the market would command: “In the broader economic arena where coal is bought and sold, the FMV lease process does not capture the full value of the coal.”

3.  Subsidized railroads

Coal is the most important commodity transported on railroads in America.  As the Association of American Railroads describes, “In 2009, coal accounted for 47 percent of tonnage and 25 percent of revenue for U.S. railroads.”  U.S. railroads get loans and loan guarantees from government agencies like the Department of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration and have received numerous tax incentives for investments in new infrastructure.

The relationship between coal and railroads becomes more important when considering coal exports. On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that American coal exports have “surged” to the highest levels since 1991. A large portion of these exports are going to Asian countries, where coal use has exploded. This begs the question: are American taxpayers subsidizing the coal boom in countries like China, thus helping accelerate global warming at an even faster rate?

In the end, the taxpayer is paying more for coal than the industry would like you to believe.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for American Progress’ Public Lands Project. Stephen Lacey is a blogger with Climate Progress.

Related Post:

• Economics Stunner: “Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.”

UMWA President Cecil Roberts

The rules seek to limit emissions from new power plants, forcing new plants to install carbon capturing technology to comply. United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts opposes those rules, saying that if enacted, they would kill the coal industry the way Navy SEALs killed bin Laden, The Hill reports:

“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Cecil Roberts, president of the powerful union, said during an interview Tuesday on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline. [...]

“I noticed this past week the vice president was talking about the campaign and he mentioned that Osama Bin Laden was dead and General Motors was alive,” Roberts said. “He should have gone on to say that the coal industry is not far behind with respect to what happened with Osama Bin Laden.”

Roberts’ preposterous comparison aside, the new rules wouldn’t affect clean coal, which the industry and its backers — like Roberts — claim exists. Roberts also ignores that despite falling coal production in the nation’s biggest coal producing region — Appalachia is rapidly approaching its peak coal capacity — coal employment rose to a 15-year high in 2011, largely due to EPA regulations.

While the UMWA will most likely avoid challenging President Obama on the issue during the 2012 presidential election, the new EPA rules could cost the president an endorsement. Still, Roberts thinks Obama has “done a lot of great things for the country,” though it isn’t clear whether Roberts considers bringing about the death of the world’s most notorious terrorist to be one of them.

Another video portrays a coal-executive beach party celebrating “the fact that coal pollution never causes any health problems”:

The $300,000 campaign is “a funny send up of just how desperate dirty fossil fuel execs are to keep our country chained to the dirty, outdated 19th-century energy source,” says Mary Anne Hitt, the director of the Beyond Coal campaign. The campaign is on Facebook and Twitter at @mrcoalguy.

The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits between 800 and 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Since the late 1990s, “natural gas has been the fuel of choice for the majority of new generating units,” and in the 2000s, wind power generation also grew significantly. With the high cost of its toxic pollution from mine to plant, coal has been losing out to cleaner sources of fuel in the electric utility sector. Although few new coal plants have been built in the last twenty years, aging plants — some built in the 1930s — still produce about 40 percent of U.S. electricity, and about 80 percent of carbon pollution from the power sector.

In March 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush reversed a campaign pledge to limit greenhouse pollution from power plants, the source of 40 percent of United States global warming pollution. In 2008, Bush White House officials refused to open an email sent by its own Environmental Protection Agency which called for action against man-made climate change.

“This is the third major executive action launched by the Obama administration to reduce carbon pollution,” writes Center for American Progress senior fellow Daniel Weiss. “With growing evidence that the serious impacts of climate change are already here, President Obama deserves credit for this new standard. We must urgently adopt and implement these new pollution reduction standards for power plants.”

by Jackie Weidman

Contrary to coal industry spin, coal is not the cheapest resource for electricity generation — and it is only becoming more expensive, according to a new report titled “Coal is not Cheap Power.”

The study, put together by the Alaskan non-profit Groundtruth Trekking, looked at 20 years of power generation and price data and found:

• 35 of the 48 coal-burning states show no significant correlation between proportion of coal fired electricity and electricity prices
• Less than 10 out of 48 coal-burning states show positive correlation between proportion of coal-fired electricity and electricity prices [1]
• States experiencing high energy prices cannot solve the problem by burning more coal
• States reducing coal use will not necessarily see prices rise
• For newly constructed plants, coal is not the cheapest option

The study found that there is very little correlation between coal use and the cost of electricity.  Other factors – particularly regional energy supply — are what influence consumer prices.  The states with the lowest electricity prices (using 2009 data) are Idaho, with an average price of 5.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, and Kentucky with, 5.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Those low prices are due to their abundant hydropower and coal resources, respectively. However, that doesn’t mean that other states can simply increase production of those resources to lower electricity prices.

States must make decisions about electricity generation based on available resources and energy needs. For example, burning coal in Arizona is correlated with higher energy prices.  This is because Arizona’s coal deposits are small and other electricity sources, like nuclear, gas, and hydro are more cost-effective.

Some states have reduced their coal use without electricity price increases. Florida and Colorado, for instance, reduced coal use by over 20 and 30 percent respectively, with no price hike.

The study found that coal is the most expensive energy when “externalized costs” are factored in. These are the costs of coal use paid for by society, rather than by ratepayers.  This includes the impact on public health and property from increased air pollution. Our reliance on coal has cost the economy between $345 and $534 billion, according to the “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal” study by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School:

“The yearly and cumulative costs stemming from the aerosolized, soil, and water pollutants associated with the mining, processing, transport, and combustion of coal affects individuals, families, communities, ecological integrity, and the global climate.  The economic implications go far beyond the prices we pay for electricity.”

And the price of coal in the U.S. is only increasing as the percentage of coal burned for electricity decreases. This is because it has become more expensive to produce coal, even without external costs factored in. Coal generated  less than 40 percent of U.S. electricity in November and December of 2011, the lowest it has been in 33 years, according to new Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.  The EIA reports that “the last time coal’s share of total generation was below 40 percent for a monthly total was in March 1978.”

In the coming years, some utilities plan to shutter old, inefficient, dirty coal plants rather than invest in pollution reduction.  Meanwhile, the prices for natural gas and renewables continue to drop, making coal less competitive.  The EIA predicts that the upward trend in coal prices reflects “that cost savings from technological improvements in coal mining will be outweighed by increases in production costs.”

With every passing week, it’s becoming harder and harder for the coal industry to claim that coal is “cheap.”

Jackie Weidman is a special assistant for energy and environmental policy at the Center for American Progress.

[1] The 13 states that have significant correlations are nearly evenly split between positive and negative correlations.

Related Post:

• Economics Stunner: “Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.”

State Sen. Eric Stewart (D-TN)

When a man blows up a mountain, he exceeds his authority. When a man tries to rebuild a mountain, he exceeds his ability. We have a duty to protect these mountains.

Watch it:

Stewart is retiring at the end of this session in order to run for Congress in Tennessee’s fourth Congressional District.

Full text below:

TSVPA SB 577 — March 12, 2012, Senator Eric Stewart

Leading up to this session, voters across Tennessee observed 40 Days of Prayer for their Mountains. Clergy from 11 denominations wrote prayers across the state. Tonight, Christians again pray for our discernment, and for our mountains. There are some even in this building tonight that are in prayer as we speak. It is in that spirit that I urge this body to consider this bill.

The bill with the amendment that was originally proposed in Committee two weeks ago defines a ridgeline, a term not previously defined in Tennessee law. The only limitation in the bill says that new coal mining permits can not alter or disturb ridgelines above 2,000 ft. Exceptions make up the remainder of the bill.

Existing permits are unaffected and can be renewed in all 13 of the currently permitted surface mines above 2,000 feet. Underground mining and abandoned mine land can be reclaimed.

The coal industry talks about all the good they do to reclaim that abandoned mine land, and we are willing to work with them, so we added that as an exemption. The bill does not apply to non-coal mining activities, like roads,railroad crossings, or even coal mining above 2,000 feet that does not disturb a ridgeline.

Amendment 1 & 2 as we’ll see protect mountaintops.The only difference between permits issued before the bill and permits issued after this bill is the requirement is that mining operations do not alter a ridgeline above 2,000 ft.

In committee, the friendly amendment that i proposed was replaced with a status quo definition of mountaintop removal. The industry likes this definition, because it says that you can take the tops off of mountains, as long as we pile the little pieces back on top of those mountains. Well, of course they like that. If I were them I’d like it too.

Even my good friend the amendment sponsor said that, “From a practical standpoint, it probably won’t have a big affect.” In later statements, however, members of this body have said the problem of mountaintop removal has been solved. Ladies and gentleman, it has not.

This definition does not recognize the difference between a God-made mountain and those so-called “approximate mountains.” A God-made mountain provides a home for His creatures, both man and beast. An “approximate mountain,” looks like an interstate median with sludge ponds. The difference is obvious. Mountaintop removal is still mountaintop removal, regardless of where we put the leftovers.

This kind of talk is not anything new to this issue. In 2009, the definition of a stream buffer zone became law at the request of the coal industry. TDEC already required a stream buffer zone, yet the coal industry claimed the bill ended mountaintop removal. Last year, a bill was offered to end coal mining in the Great Smokey Mountains, where there is no coal and where this body has no say. Again, that bill was an attempt to claim mountaintop removal had been stopped. And now this year we have an amendment 1 to 1 that once again claims the end of mountaintop removal. Let me be clear: amendment 1 to 1 does not stop mountaintop removal. Our citizens have spoken, and yet we continue to create decoys, delay, and delay real action.

We can stop all that tonight.

The Appalachian Mountains are the oldest mountains in America. We are not considering the shape of Tennessee this year or the next 10 years. What we are deciding is what Tennessee is going to look like now, and for the generations to come.

When this bill was originally introduced, there were five mountains permitted for surface coal mining above two thousand feet in Tennessee. Today, there are 13. Those mountaintops were lost as a direct result of our unwillingness to act. We cannot delay any longer. Y’all when I was my daughters age there were 500 mountaintops across this country that aren’t there today. I just wonder how many we’re going to have when my grandchildren are the age of my daughter. Tonight we can help decide what that will look like in Tennessee.

For those seeking a compromise, the coal industry refuses. In fact, they rejected efforts to negotiate as recently as last week. Every year this bill has become weaker, in an effort to make it more acceptable to Big Coal. Maybe our compromise is five years of narrowing the bill. Maybe our compromise is an additional eight mountains they have claimed. My question is, shouldn’t that be enough?

If we give into big coal and lose our mountaintops, what else are we going to lose? Over the past 30 years, the number of Tennessee coal-mining jobs has decreased by 85 percent. During that same time, we’ve seen a shift from underground mining to explosive-driven surface mining.

According to the National Mining Association, there were a total of 344 surface coal mining jobs in Tennessee. That’s down by about 200 jobs since 2008, even though permits have increased more than 150 percent. If mountaintop removal creates jobs, then why are jobs declining as permits are increasing? Because mountaintop removal employs dynamite, not miners. The whole point of mountaintop removal is to reduce labor cost, putting more miners out of work.

Since oversight of mountaintop removal increased in West Virginia, coal mining jobs there have increased. A shift toward underground mining has increased coal-mining jobs in Appalachia to their highest point in 15 years. We could have more mining jobs in Tennessee to, if we pass this bill.

But what about the jobs of the people who work on the 13 permitted surface mines over 2,000 feet? The bill as presented with amendment 1 or amendment 2 without amendment 1 to 1 grandfathers in all 13 of those permits. Not a single job will be lost as a result of this bill.

But we stand to lose jobs in plenty of other industries, including tourism. Tourism is Tennessee’s second largest industry after agriculture, employing more than 175,000 people. The counties where these mines are located — Anderson, Claiborne, Campbell — receive more than $180 million dollars ever year in direct tourism spending and visitors’ sales taxes. Cumberland Gap, the North Cumberland Wildlife Management Area, and Big South Fork all showcase the Northern Cumberland Plateau for tourists and outdoorsmen. Yet surface mining occurs even in the North Cumberland Wildlife Management Areas, land that we all own together.

Tennessee’s other mountains, the Great Smokey Mountains, are an economic powerhouse. When the Great Smokey Mountains was initially proposed, the logging industry said the exact same thing the coal industry is saying now: that the mountains were ugly; protecting them was a giant waste of time, that those protections would put loggers out of business. Thankfully, our leaders listened to our citizens. We have treasured those mountains ever since, and we are at a similar crossroads today.

We are losing out on jobs when we protect Big Coal. Last year, Hemlock Semiconductor Group testified before the Environment committee. We welcomed Hemlock to Clarksville, where they employ over 500 people. They spoke about why they came here and what component manufacturing companies might follow. They said they had European partners who could produce thousands of jobs and Hemlock wanted them to locate along side their plant here in Tennessee.

But that looked unlikely. They gave two reasons: international red tape and the perception that Tennessee was not hospitable to the green industry. Why would anyone think that? Could it have something to do with the fact that Tennessee continues to destroy our mountains for coal?

There are other opportunities we miss. We have had national experts on water pollution and the timber industry tell us that surface mining sites like the ones we’re creating are poisoning our waters, mutating our fish, and leaving our land unfit for tree growth. We lose out on tourism, timber, fishing, and other industries, all in the name of big coal.

Meanwhile, Big Coal is a big loss for Tennessee taxpayers. An independent study found that, after all the calculations were done, Tennesseans pay more than $3 million dollars every year for the privilege of hosting Big Coal. What do we get for our $3 million dollars? Fewer jobs, more pollution. Why? Why would we let out-of-state billionaires blow the top off of Rocky Top? Our Appalachian Counties are among the poorest in the state, yet they have tremendous economic potential. We can lift our mountain communities, or pile on more oppression.

Allowing Big Coal to blow up our mountains results in a loss of mountain pride and dignity. How proud of your heritage would you be if your community were plagued with mine-related flooding, or you couldn’t baptize new members of a church because the stream outside the church door was orange from surface coal mining? How proud would you be of the increased risk of birth defects? What’s the cost/benefit analysis of an unhealthy baby or the last 10 years of your mother’s life? These are the uncomfortable questions that reveal common problems in areas of Appalachia. No one would suggest blowing off mountaintops for coal in the Rockies. Our mountaintop communities are devalued only because the people are poor. Their own state government needs to come to their aid, not condone this disrespect.

Finally, I want to appeal to those of faith. As a Christian, God calls me to care for my neighbors and the Earth. That is why so many Christians are praying right now across the state. The Earth and all that is in it are the Lord’s. With this bill, Christians seek to love their neighbor and to uphold the responsibilities we have all been given.

Voters have told us to restore and pass the Tennessee Scenic Vistas Protection Act. They have told us by sharing their prayers. They have signed petitions, called radio shows, tweeted, retweeted, Facebooked, blogged. The Knoxville News Sentinel, the Tennessean, the Chattanooga Times Free Press, and the Johnson City Press have all written editorials in support of the bill. In a democracy, voters should decide, and be heard above special interests.

Many in this chamber have said both privately and publicly that we really need to put this issue to bed. The Tennessee Scenic Vistas Protection Act does just that, without amendment 1 to 1.

There’s two things I can promise the ladies and gentlemen of this chamber. With amendment 1 to 1 this issue will still be back next year. The other promise is, of course, that I won’t be.

With amendment 1 to 1, its just passing the buck and moving the issue on down the road a little farther. This issue is much bigger than its sponsor. Its much bigger than any committee, and its much bigger than this body as a matter of fact. This issue is an issue that is important to citizens all across our great state.

I attended one of the prayers sessions, and you know honestly was amazed with the folks and how they felt and what they thought about their support for this bill. Ladies and gentlemen, those folks in prayer honestly, genuinely believe they are put on this earth to be stewards of God’s property. That’s what the Tennessee Scenic Vistas Protection Act attempts to do.

Once our mountains are gone, they’re gone for good. When a man blows up a mountain, he exceeds his authority. When a man tries to rebuild a mountain, he exceeds his ability. We have a duty to protect these mountains. It is our responsibility.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move SB577 on 3rd and final consideration.

As coal use drops dramatically in the U.S. and clean energy continues to grow, King Coal is looking for new customers. The coal industry is now pursuing its corporate profits via coal exports at the expense of the health, safety, and quality of life of thousands of families in several states, including Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon.

Right now, several major coal companies are proposing to develop Northwest ports to export coal from the Powder River Basin to Asia; including ports at Cherry Point, WA; Longview, WA; Grays Harbor, WA; Coos Bay, OR; St. Helens, OR; and Port of Morrow, OR. You can see a map of the proposed ports here.

Coal exports could make thousands of Northwest residents sick with serious respiratory health problems in cities along the rail line, while fouling the air and water that farms and Main Street businesses depend on.  For residents in Montana who have been battling the effects of coal mining in the Powder River Basin, the idea of coal companies tightening their grip on their resources and quality of life to tap international markets is particularly threatening.

by George Black, reposted from OnEarth Magazine

Bad, bad week for Big Coal, epitomized by the announcements that two big utilities, Midwestern Generation and GenOn Energy, are to close ten coal-fired power plants in the Northeast and the Midwest, including two within the Chicago city limits.

For Massey Energy and the giant company that owns it, Alpha Natural Resources, the news was even worse. The name Massey will probably ring a bell. It’s the colossus of the Central Appalachian coalfields, and in a dirty industry it has a particularly dirty reputation, both for its fondness for tearing off the tops of mountains and for its conduct below ground. Most of its active mines are in West Virginia, and that’s where the Upper Big Branch Mine is located, in the town of Montcoal.

Twenty-nine miners died in an explosion at the Upper Big Branch in April 2010, an event now firmly inscribed in the ledger of great industrial disasters, up there with New York City’s Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, in which more than 100 garment workers burned, jumped, or fell to their deaths. (That of course was in the bad old days — or good old days, depending on how you look at it — when industry didn’t have to worry about pesky government regulations.)

But even Big Coal is subject to the law these days. Last week, U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin filed charges of criminal conspiracy against mine superintendent Gary May, alleging that he had “plotted with others known and unknown” to conceal lethal hazards at the Upper Big Branch. A former security chief at the mine, Hughie Elbert Stover, was sentenced Wednesday to a three-year jail term for lying to federal investigators and attempting to destroy company documents by tossing them into a trash compactor.

May is accused, among other things, of deliberately disabling a methane gas monitor and pumping fresh air into sections of the mine to provide a kind of Potemkin Village tour to visiting inspectors from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration — an agency to which the word toothless is frequently attached — who were there to sample levels of airborne coal dust.

What makes his prosecution especially interesting is that it may go much higher than May’s pay grade. Eighteen other company officials have already refused to cooperate with investigators, invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. They include Massey’s former CEO, Don Blankenship. (Salary at the time of his resignation in December 2010: $23.7 million. Most remembered quote: “What you have to accept in a capitalist society, generally, is that I always make the comparison it’s like a jungle, where a jungle is the survival of the fittest.”)

Alpha bought Massey a year and a half ago, for $7.1 billion, making it the third biggest coal company in the nation, after Peabody Energy and Arch Coal. Coming right after the Upper Big Branch, it always felt like a bizarre piece of timing for an industry battered by image problems and struggling to turn a profit in a tight market. It seemed almost to invite a run of bad karma, and last week appeared to prove the point. Two days after the conspiracy charges were filed against Gary May, Alpha announced staggering fourth-quarter losses of $733.3 million, against revenues of just over $2 billion.

Alpha CEO Kevin Crutchfield accounted for these losses, and announced major cutbacks in the company’s Appalachian mining operations, in a conference call that was full of good things for the connoisseur of black humor. (Opening words: “Alpha continued to demonstrate excellent safety performance since our last earnings call.”) Crutchfield followed that with a sober summary of the reasons for the company’s miserable balance sheet: regulatory uncertainty, environmental opposition to new coal-fired power plants, higher production costs for Appalachian coal, fierce competition from natural gas, and the weather. (One byproduct of global warming and weird weather is that people burn less coal in a mild winter like this one. Truly, every cloud has a silver lining.)

But hold the celebrations, and remember that when you have a boxer on the ropes, that’s exactly when you should expect a sucker punch to the kidneys. For the coal industry, that sucker punch has always been jobs. That’s the deal that Massey offered Appalachia for almost a century. Damn black lung, damn the methane, damn the mountaintops; we’re bringing you jobs. Now, Big Coal is again trying to bludgeon its opponents with the same argument — although this time in a different venue.

Over the past couple of years, the coal industry has become convinced that it has an ace in the hole: the surging Asian market, with its promise of sustained long-term demand. That’s why the big coal companies are hell-bent on building coal export facilities on the Columbia River and the coast of Washington State. And that’s where, from the environmental point of view, this week also brought some bad news.

One of the prime sites for a shipping terminal is in Longview, Washington, where Millennium Bulk Terminals, a subsidiary of the Australian company Ambre Energy, was denied a permit last year after it was found to have lied about the amount of coal it intended to ship from the port — as much as 60 million tons a year. But as I predicted then, they have not given up. In fact, a day after Gary May’s arraignment and a day before Alpha’s announcement of its fourth-quarter losses, Millennium was back, filing new permit requests for a Longview terminal with local, state, and federal regulators. Worse, at the end of January, despite heavy local opposition, the Port of St. Helens, 30 miles north of Portland, approved requests from Ambre for two new coal export facilities.

This fight is far from settled. These are local permits, and they will all need state and federal approval. But the jobs argument is potent. The numbers in Oregon and Washington are modest — each terminal will create scores of jobs, not hundreds, and many of them will be temporary construction jobs. But these are depressed communities, and, as we know, we’re talking here about the political third rail in this frail economy.

In announcing Alpha’s losses last week, CEO Kevin Crutchfield said, “By now the headwinds facing U.S. coal producers are well known to most everyone.” To those who are tempted to think that this means the battle is won, I have only one piece of advice: remember that this will be a long and dirty fight, and keep those winds blowing.

George Black is OnEarth‘s executive editor. He has reported from five continents, chronicling civil war in Central America, the democracy movement in China, and climate change in countries from Bangladesh to Peru. This piece was originally published at OnEarth.