Coal Age

MAR 2014

Coal Age Magazine - For nearly 100 years, Coal Age has been the magazine that readers can trust for guidance and insight on this important industry.

Issue link: https://coal.epubxp.com/i/277753

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 13 of 59

n e w s c o n t i n u e d million tons the region turned out in the fourth quarter of 2008, when Kentucky mines cranked out 121 million tons of thermal and metallurgical coal. With a total of 10.9 million tons in 2013, Pike County remained the largest coal producing county in eastern Kentucky and the state's sec- ond largest producing county overall, trailing only Union County in western Kentucky. Still, production fell by 16.9% in Pike County last year. Harlan County, another longtime coal producer in the region, reg- istered a huge 35% decrease, while Martin and Perry counties checked in with 16.7% and 15.1% declines, respectively. The situation comparatively was better in western Kentucky, part of the high-sulfur Illinois Basin that continues to gain market share at the expense of Central Appalachia. Western Kentucky mined 41 million tons of coal in 2013, the v a s t m a j o r i t y — 8 6 % — f r o m u n d e r g r o u n d m i n e s . S t i l l , t h e region's total output decreased by 2.7% for the year and the rate of production for the fourth quarter was 9.9 million tons a quar- ter. The trend toward more underground mine was obvious in western Kentucky in 2013, with deep mining actually increasing by 2.8% over 2012. EPA's Power Plant Gamble — A Risk We Can't Afford D A T E L I N E W A S H I N G T O N The following article by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) describes the impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based power plants. Their bipartisan bill to restrain EPA regula- tory overreach passed the House of Representatives on March 6. This editorial first appeared in The Huffington Post that day. "Among the many things government can do in the broad public interest, and surely among the first things it should do, is to secure an affordable and reliable supply of electricity for its people and its industries. The blessings of liberty may be secured by laws and cus- tom, but the blessings of modern civilization are unthinkable without electricity, a truly indispensable commodity in the 21 st century. Our country has enjoyed the advantage of low-cost electricity for so long that we may be taking it for granted. This may be about to change. That's the disturbing conclusion we draw from regulations pro- posed by EPA for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal- fired power plants. EPA would require new coal-fired plants to use carbon capture technology that is not only unproven for power plants but is commercially unavailable and won't be for at least a decade or more. The deliberate effect is to rule out for future use the one energy source that provides more electricity than any other. The agency's proposal leaves us with little doubt about its inten- tions for regulating emissions from existing coal plants with a separate rule expected this summer. Aside from the doubtful legality of mandating non-existent, undemonstrated technology for real world application, EPA's approach is grossly irresponsible as public policy in two ways. First, the agency is taking a dangerous gamble with the nation's economy. By removing coal from future use, EPA weakens, if not destroys, what has been a strength of our economy — a diversified energy portfolio. The result is a far less reliable electricity grid, a risky reliance on one major fuel source for generating base load power, and the certain prospect of higher electricity prices. Lincoln advised us 'not to swap horses in midstream.' Good advice now as then. Yet EPA ignores it. In testimony before a startled congressional committee last week, a senior Department of Energy official can- didly confirmed what EPA has tried to conceal. EPA's insistence on carbon capture technology for new coal-powered plants could, we learned, drive up wholesale electricity prices by 80%. Much of this increase would be passed on to households and industries, break- ing family budgets and rendering energy-intensive industries less able to compete in a global market. In short, this is not about bur- densome costs to the coal industry; it's about rising costs for scores of industries heavily reliant on affordable power and higher utility bills for millions of families including the most vulnerable. The gamble EPA is taking with affordable electricity is disturb- ing enough, but even more so for being entirely unnecessary for environmental improvement. EPA could achieve significant and steady reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without sending price shocks throughout the economy by requiring best-in-class technology that is available for use today. Gasification and super- critical coal are proven technologies suitable for large-scale use, effective for reducing emissions and available for new plant con- struction. Compared to older plants they replace, advanced plants with these technologies use at least a third less coal to generate the same amount of electricity and emit 35% less carbon dioxide.* This common sense approach would minimize further loss of coal- generating capacity that has already greatly exceeded the agency's forecasts. In fact, EPA's estimate of plant retirements from its reg- ulations have proven as hollow as its reassurances about cost increases. Because EPA insists on ignoring common sense solutions, we are proposing one of our own. Our bill will base emissions stan- dards for new plants on the best performing technologies actually in use today. For existing plants, Congress will weigh in to ensure that states are accorded the proper leeway we intended for them under the Clean Air Act. Far from barring EPA from controlling greenhouse gas emissions, by insisting on proven technology, our approach will actually work. We will not improve the livelihood of Americans or the health of the environment with emissions standards based on technologies that are unproven with costs that are unaffordable. It's time we pro- vided workable solutions, not unrealistic aspirations." 12 www.coalage.com March 2014 * National Coal Council CA_pg04-23_V2_CA_pg06-23 3/12/14 12:31 PM Page 12

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Coal Age - MAR 2014