U.S. says new rules would cut thousands of coal jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Obama administration's own experts estimate their proposal for protecting streams from coal mining would eliminate thousands of jobs and slash production across much of the country, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement document says the agency's preferred rules would impose standards for water quality and restrictions on mining methods that would affect the quality or quantity of streams near coal mines. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations that set up buffer zones around streams and were aimed chiefly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.

The proposal — part of a draft environmental impact statement — would affect coal mines from Louisiana to Alaska.

The office, a branch of the Interior Department, estimated that the protections would trim coal production to the point that an estimated 7,000 of the nation's 80,600 coal mining jobs would be lost. Production would decrease or stay flat in 22 states, but climb 15 percent in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.

Peter Mail, a spokesman for the surface mining reclamation office, said the proposal's aim is "to better strike the balance between protecting the public and the environment while providing for viable coal mining."

Mali said the document is the first working draft that was shared with state agencies, which are giving their comments on it. Comments also were received from environmentalists, industry, labor and others at meetings held across the country.

"Input received from the public will help shape the final regulatory refinements that will better protect streams and the public while helping meet America's energy needs," Mali said.

The National Mining Association blasted the proposal, saying the federal agency is vastly underestimating the economic impact.

"OSM's preferred alternative will destroy tens of thousands of coal-related jobs across the country from Appalachia to Alaska and Illinois to Texas with no demonstrated benefit to the environment," the trade group said in a statement. "OSM's own analysis provides a very conservative estimate of jobs that will be eliminated, incomes that will be lost and state revenues that will be foregone at both surface and underground coal mining operations."

The agency has submitted the proposal to several coal producing states for feedback before it releases proposed regulations by the end of February.

The states aren't happy with what they've seen.

They blasted the proposal as "nonsensical and difficult to follow" in a Nov. 23 letter to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement director Joe Pizarchik. The letter was signed by officials from Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

"Neither the environmental impact statement nor the administrative record that OSM has developed over 30-plus year of regulation ... justify the sweeping changes that they're proposing to make," West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection official Thomas Clarke told the Associated Press on Wednesday. "I've had OSM technical people who are concerned with stream impacts and outside contractors for OSM who are subcontractors on the EIS give me their opinion that the whole thing's a bunch of junk."

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said that if thousands of mining jobs could be lost, "then I will do everything in my power to block this wrong-headed proposal.

"Let me be crystal clear: I will fight any proposal from our federal government that poses a threat to our country's energy supply, West Virginia's coal industry, our jobs and our way of life," he said.

Manchin already plans to introduce legislation to curb the powers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which recently vetoed a permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had long ago issued for Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County.


  • Common sense, Get a Grip
    Seems every one here is either viewing this as unrealistically simple or as a simpleton. Joe says there is not an argument, but he cannot spell argument. No brainer is an adjective for those who do not want to use theirs. Having worked for and with coal companies in the past, I can tell you that they always feel any regulation will result in the end of the world. Get a grip here, this is a first draft, you can bet it will change a lot by the time everyone in congress gets their cut from their favorite lobbyist.
  • Duh
    Well, this looks to be just the latest in the power grab big government leftist neo-Luddites who "know what's best" for me and mine.... but they don't. What would replace all that coal-fired generating capacity? NOTHING CAN, in the present climate - either economic or regulatory. Nukes? Those same greenie neo-Luddites won't allow nukes. Wind? Solar? Not even close to meeting demand, even if every square inch of North America were covered with solar panels and/or wind turbines. Fusion? Years away from even a pilot plant - we're still working on theory! What's left are the fossil fuels - coal and oil. And since we seem to have about a millennium's worth of coal at expected growth rates....
  • Higher Utility Rates for All
    Yea! Just this is exactly what we need in Indiana. Those no good evil mining companies not protecting our streams. Who cares that that Indiana gets 60+% of its electricity from coal and our rates would go up even higher than they currently are? We must protect our environment at all costs!!11!!!11!
  • duh
    I agree with Joe. At this point anything we can do to keep our water supply cleaner is a no-brainer! Common sense seems to be a tough thing for a lot of people to get their head aroundâ?¦
  • about time....
    I almost laughed reading an article comparing the importance of 7,000 jobs to the health of our nation's water supply. How can this become an arguement?

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ