New Mexico is considering reversing former Gov. Richardson’s cap and trade program on carbon dioxide emissions because the upfront costs are proving too much to bear.

Deputy Secretary of the state’s Environment Department, Butch Tongate, testified before the Environmental Improvement Board to explain why New Mexico alone cannot combat pollution, and why efforts to curb toxins should be a national and global priority.

From the AP:

“The cap-and-trade program does not come free. It requires significant investment from industry as well as the state and it will have an impact on every citizen of the state,” he said.

While he acknowledged not being an economic expert, Tongate pointed to the 80,000 New Mexico households that received federal assistance to pay their energy bills in 2009. He also said nearly 20 percent of New Mexicans live below the federal poverty level.

“With the cap-and-trade rules and increases in energy and transportation costs, the poorest people of the state will be required to pay higher bills and that’s equivalent to a regressive tax,” Tongate said.

The arguments over whether New Mexico should regulate greenhouse gases haven’t changed since the debate first began nearly three years ago. Approval of the regulations last year followed battles before the state’s highest court and days of testimony by economists, climate experts and the public.

And while federal greenhouse measures have been a divisive issue among pundits and the business community community, influential figures in New Mexico have also griped about Washington intervention on environmental matters.

On Friday Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it would pressure a coal-fired plant that services and employs tribal members.

Also from the AP:

Shelly says in a letter to the EPA that he supports the state of New Mexico and Public Service Company of New Mexico in their efforts to appeal the agency’s decision.

New Mexico contends the agency infringed on its ability to adopt its own plan for curbing haze-causing pollution at the San Juan Generating Station.

Shelly describes the EPA’s mandate as “enormously burdensome.” He accuses the agency of ignoring the culture, geography and economics of the Four Corners region.

And yesterday, a public health scare  in La Bajada, a roughly 40-resident area in the center of Santa Fe county,* was caused over detection of the bacterial strain E.Coli in the city’s water supply. The Environment Department issued a “boil water advisory,” and made specific mention of the risk children and the elderly have in growing ill from the water.

In 2010, a New Mexican article cited a scientific report that Santa Fe water exceeded EPA limits on contaminants on numerous occasions over a multi-year period.

*This post as been updated to clarify the specific area within Sante Fe county affected by the E. Coli detection

After more than a year of litigation, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman didn’t need a trial to convince him to rule in favor of the utility. He said the Environmental Protection Agency went to court too soon and needs to collect more data to determine whether improvements at Monroe Unit 2 have caused an increase in emissions.

DTE last year replaced key boiler parts at the plant about 40 miles south of Detroit. The EPA claims the project qualified as a “major modification,” which should have forced the utility to install state-of-the-art pollution controls.

DTE acknowledged the “project may eventually prove to be a `major modification,’” Friedman wrote in a 12-page decision dated Aug. 23. “That determination, however, cannot be made until the completion of the first year for which such measurements are required.”

Monroe Unit 2 emitted 27,320 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 8,205 tons of nitrogen oxide in 2009 and is the largest individual source of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the state, according to EPA. The agency said that DTE has predicted that by 2013, Monroe Unit 2 will emit 33,816 tons of SO2 and 14,494 tons of NOX.

EPA had asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to order DTE to shut down its Monroe Unit 2 until pollution control equipment is installed and requested civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day.

DTE’s Monroe facility produces more than a quarter of Michigan’s total CO2 emissions according to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project.

So when Vilsack’s Denver-based sustainable energy non-profit Elephant Energy researched the situation on the Navajo Nation last year, discovering dangerous kerosene lanterns and heaters and more than 18,000 households completely off the grid, they changed their name to Eagle Energy in the Four Corners area.

Arizona's Monument Valley in the Navajo Nation (David O. Williams photo).

Originally founded to provide similar products in Namibia, Eagle Energy is now working hard to deliver solar light bulbs from Denver-based Nokero [No Kerosene] and other sustainable energy products to the Navajo Nation – all the while hoping to stimulate the small-scale entrepreneurial companies offering such services.

“Yeah, many Navajo people are still using kerosene,” said Vilsack, a Colorado College and University of Colorado graduate whose father is Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Most people still don’t have heating. They’re using wood for energy. There’s just a huge need for even these really small-scale technologies to get rid of this kerosene problem on the Navajo Nation.

“It’s a stunning thing to be happening here in our own country.”

Vilsack formed Elephant Energy three years ago to improve the quality of life in Namibia, where only about 15 percent of the rural population is connected to the electrical grid. Kerosene is a potentially toxic fuel source that presents numerous health problems, including the very real risk of household fires. An attorney, Vilsack was doing some work on the Navajo Nation when he noticed similar conditions there.

He said there are several barriers to connecting the estimated one-third of the Navajo Nation households that are off the grid – most of them having to do with expense and geography – but he adds that alternative energy products may hold the best hope for short-term relief.

“There should be a lot of money put into larger scale [solar] systems on people’s houses down there, but you have to start somewhere, and if it’s with a $5 or $10 solar-powered light bulb, you can accomplish a heck of a lot with that,” Vilsack said. “With one of these bulbs at least you can go a long way toward removing the need for people to go buy kerosene at Wal-Mart.”

Adella Begaye, a Navajo Nation nurse, said she started working as an interpreter for the Indian Health Service when she was a teenager in the 1970s. Back then, she said it was very rare to see patients with asthma or other respiratory diseases. Now it’s common.

Begaye, also a community advocate with Diné CARE, points to the large coal-fired power plants built in the region in the 1960s and 70s. She sees the irony in so many people living so close to huge power plants but completely off the grid.

“I know the statistics are pretty high,” Begaye said of the lack of connectivity, “and the sad thing is there’s a lot of people that live right in the vicinity of these big power plants and they do not have electricity. And the health impact is worse. Not only is it asthma, it’s cardiac problems and just having a hard time breathing. Of course it affects your heart.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently issued an order compelling PNM’s 1,800-megawatt, coal-fired San Juan Generating Station 15 miles west of Farmington, N.M., to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent in the next five years.

The company is fighting the decision because of what it deems the unnecessary costs, but the EPA cited air-quality and health concerns on the Navajo Nation as well as adverse impacts to nearby national parks and monuments such as Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado.

Late last month it was revealed that the state of New Mexico fined PNM $125,000 (pdf) for six major air pollution violations at the San Juan plant over the course of the last year.

Follow David O. Williams on Twitter. ]]> http://washingtonindependent.com/111229/seeking-solar-possibilities-amid-the-coal-fired-power-plants-of-navajo-nation/feed 82 http://washingtonindependent.com/111148/tri-state-spokesman-coal-expansion-doesnt-mean-company-looking-to-increase-its-reach http://washingtonindependent.com/111148/tri-state-spokesman-coal-expansion-doesnt-mean-company-looking-to-increase-its-reach#comments Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:21:40 +0000 admin http://washingtonindependent.com/111148/tri-state-spokesman-coal-expansion-doesnt-mean-company-looking-to-increase-its-reach The state’s second largest power provider – Tri-State Generation and Transmission – has an all-of-the-above approach to energy resources, but that doesn’t mean its interest in a coal plant expansion in Kansas is meant to transform the Westminster-based company into a larger regional power wholesaler.

“We serve 44 co-ops More...

At a heated Wednesday hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power EPA Director Lisa Jackson was questioned for hours about the impact of new Clean Air Act regulations on business.

Since the beginning of the year, EPA has required industry to report their CO2 emissions, and major new sources of pollution are required to conduct an analysis of the “Best Available Control Technology” for reducing CO2 emissions. EPA has also announced that it will propose greenhouse gas standards for utilities and refineries this year and finalize them next year.

“Let’s face it,” said House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), “these regulations and others from EPA amount to a war on domestic coal. Coal is the energy source America possesses in the greatest abundance. It provides half the nation’s electricity and 92 percent in my home state of Kentucky, and it does so because it is affordable.”

Whitfield, together with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) ranking member of the Senate Committee On Environment and Public Works, are the sponsors of the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.

The bill states:

The Administrator may not, under [the Clean Air Act], promulgate any regulation concerning, take action relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change.

In her testimony, Jackson called the Clean Air Act a public health measure that has prevented 205,000 deaths since 1990, and she said that the agency move to regulate greenhouse gas emissions was a necessary science-based decision aimed at protecting the country from the public health threat that is climate change.

Jackson also pointed out that EPA’s responsibility to regulate carbon emissions was acknowledged (PDF) by her predecessor in the Bush administration.

“Chairman Upton’s bill would, in its own words, ‘repeal’ the scientific finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions, she said. “Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question — that would become part of this committee’s legacy.”

But many lawmakers and witnesses at the hearing seemed comfortable with such a legacy.

Any EPA regulation of greenhouse gases will be “all pain and no gain” said Rep. Inhofe. “[I]t is unfair and unacceptable to ask the steel worker in Ohio, the chemical plant worker in Michigan, and the coal miner in West Virginia to sacrifice their jobs so we can reduce temperature by a barely detectable amount in 100 years.”

Nucor Steel environmental manager Steve Rowlan told the committee that uncertainly about greenhouse gas rules caused his company to scale down a new iron facility in Louisiana.

The impact of these new regulations on capital projects is real. We recently received a permit, under the new GHG rules, for a direct reduced iron facility in Louisiana. This is a $750 million project that will create 500 construction jobs and 150 permanent ones. It is a great job-creating investment, particularly in this economy. But this project is not as large as the $2 billion investment we initially intended. Due to the uncertainty created by these regulations, we made the difficult decision to delay the $2 billion investment, also delaying the creation of 2,000 construction jobs and 500 permanent ones.

Rowlan said that his biggest concern is that future EPA carbon regulations could increase the cost of electricity.

“Cheap energy is lifeblood of industry,” he said in an interview with The American Independent. “You always hear people say, ‘We need clean green power’ well we need ‘Clean, green, affordable and reliable power.’”

Steve Cousins, vice president of Lion Oil of El Dorado, Ark., told the committee that he is troubled by the EPA requirement that any expansion of refinery operations involve implementation of best available control technology for greenhouse gas emissions.

“It is unclear what technology constitutes BACT,“ he said. “EPA’s federal guidance on what defines BACT is far too broad and confusing regarding what measures our refinery would be able to employ to control emissions, and whether permits would actually be approved and issued in certain circumstances.”

U.S. Steel Corporation environmental manager Fred Harnack said that EPA carbon rules will not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Since greenhouse gas emissions are a complex global issue, a simplistic regulatory approach may reduce greenhouse gas emissions locally (in United States) while increasing emissions outside the United States by encouraging companies to move or expand operations to another country. As demonstrated by the United Kingdom’s example, energy-intensive manufacturing activity will decline, but consumer demand for energy-intensive goods will still grow. The net environmental effect of such is actually worse for the environment as goods are sourced from less efficient producers and additional long-distance transportation is required.

In a memo (PDF) to Democratic members of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, said that the Upton bill would threaten implementation of renewable fuel standards and create legal uncertainty about the status of the recent motor vehicle standards adopted by EPA.

An ORC International poll conducted earlier this month found the 63 percent of people — including most Republicans — believe the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.

That survey found that only 18 percent of Americans believe that Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards.

Environmentalists are concerned that a common method of natural gas drilling can release dangerous chemicals into groundwater. (Bryan Smith/ZUMApress.com)

Less than two hours after President Obama suggested in a post-midterm press conference that Republicans and Democrats could find common ground on proposals to develop the country’s natural gas resources, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune underscored environmentalists’ love-hate relationship with the fossil fuel.

“To be clear, natural gas is not clean, but it’s cleaner than some dirty energy,” he told reporters at a separate Nov. 3 press conference on the prospects for energy and climate legislation in the new Congress.

[Environment1] Natural gas is shaping up to be one of a small handful of energy issues that could get significant attention in the next Congress. As a result, environmentalists are being forced to grapple with the complexities surrounding the expanded use of natural gas. On the one hand, burning natural gas produces about 40 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than coal; on the other hand, natural gas drilling presents its own set of concerns that make environmentalists cringe.

“We want to make sure natural gas is not viewed as some kind of magic bullet,” said Franz Matzner, climate legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But we need to look at ways in which we can reduce our carbon footprint now and it’s appealing that it has a smaller footprint. It’s not a replacement for getting renewables online.”

Meanwhile, hoping to ride the momentum from Obama’s high-profile remarks last week, the natural gas industry is preparing to push next year for a number of provisions that favor natural gas. One natural gas industry official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said natural gas will be a key issue in any bipartisan energy bill next year. “There is some potential to gather bipartisan support for an energy proposal that involves promotion of natural gas,” the official said. “There can be some kind of adjustment policy that allows for the benefits that natural gas provides: stable pricing, domestic production and plentiful resources.”

The natural gas industry plans to lobby for the inclusion of natural gas as an option for meeting a renewable energy standard, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar.

In a Nov. 5 letter to President Obama obtained by The Washington Independent, the heads of the country’s four major natural gas industry groups laid out their policy priorities. “Should Congress move forward on a renewable or clean electricity standard, natural gas generation should be included as a compliance option,” the letter said.

Environmentalists and clean energy advocates say they will oppose such an effort. “Natural gas is not a renewable energy source,” said Dan Weiss, senior fellow and the director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. “Therefore it does not belong in an RES.”

David Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club, echoed Weiss’ sentiments. “We really would need to look at the details,” Hamilton said. “But we’ve traditionally been protective of what gets called clean.”

A third clean energy advocate with close ties to Congress dismissed the prospect that environmentalists would be willing to compromise on including natural gas in an RES. “We would rather have nothing than that,” the clean energy advocate said.

But Weiss suggested there is room for negotiation on the issue. He said a proposal to pass a separate low-carbon electricity standard requiring that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from natural gas, coal with carbon capture technology and nuclear power “is something that we’d look at seriously.”

Any proposal that would allow natural gas to compete on the same footing as wind and solar, however, would face major opposition, Weiss said. “A low-carbon standard would incent low-carbon kinds of energy, but it would not compete directly with renewables,” he explained. For example, Congress may choose to pass a 15 percent RES and then an additional low-carbon standard of 10 percent, Weiss said.

The first natural gas-related piece of legislation is slated to come up for a procedural vote next week in the lame-duck session. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a cloture vote for Nov. 17 on the Promoting Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act of 2010, which would provide incentives for electric and natural gas vehicles. The proposal has bipartisan support and is likely to be the only energy-related bill to see floor action in the lame duck.

While environmentalists support the vehicles proposal, they also say that any effort to encourage natural gas production should be coupled with natural gas drilling reforms. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” involves injecting chemicals, sand and huge quantities of water into the earth to loosen large underground deposits of natural gas. It is currently the cheapest and most widespread method for extracting natural gas from the ground. But environmentalists say the chemicals used during fracking can contaminate groundwater and cause significant damage to the land.

Hamilton, of the Sierra Club, suggested that environmentalists and liberal Democrats would be more likely to support efforts to expand natural gas development if Congress also considers drilling reforms. “We are very much of the mind that the regulatory structure for fracking should be in place before there’s more drilling,” Hamilton said. “The quicker that regulatory structure gets in place, the less resistance they’re going to get.”

Matzner, of the NRDC, called on lawmakers to pass natural gas drilling reforms that, among other things, require companies to disclose the amount and types of chemicals that are used in fracking and tighten regulation of the practice.

“There’s space here to put policies in place to make sure that natural gas is done in a more responsible way,” Matzner said.

There are proposals on the table in the House and the Senate that would address many of these issues. The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act would give the Environmental Protection Agency regulatory authority over fracking. But the EPA is currently conducting a study on fracking that won’t be completed until 2012. Some have suggested it’s best to wait to address the issue in Congress until the study is finished.

Amy Mall, senior policy analyst at NRDC, has been working on fracking issues for years. Based in Colorado, she has seen the environmental impacts of the practice firsthand. Yet she recognizes that natural gas is a necessary part of the country’s energy mix, underscoring the complicated relationships environmentalists have with the fossil fuel. She, like many environmentalists see natural gas as a “bridge fuel,” or an interim step on the way to broader reliance on renewables.

“Our country needs a lot of energy,” she said. “Our first priority should be efficiency, then conservation. In the short term, we can’t meet all of our energy needs. We support natural gas as a bridge fuel, but we don’t think it’s a silver bullet solution.”

Even as many politicians, environmentalists and consumers want renewable energy and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, a growing number of projects are being canceled or delayed because governments are unwilling to add even small amounts to consumers’ electricity bills.

The reason these projects are being canceled is twofold. First, renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) currently costs more than traditional energy sources like coal and natural gas. Second, the United States has created uncertainty among investors by neglecting to pass policies at the federal level that incentivize renewable energy use.

The Times has a nice example of the problem lower down in the story:

In April, for example, the state public utilities commission in Rhode Island rejected a power-purchase deal for an offshore wind project that would have cost 24.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. The utility now pays about 9.5 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity from fossil fuels.

The state legislature responded by passing a bill allowing the regulators to consider factors other than price. The commission then approved an agreement to buy electricity from a smaller wind farm, although that decision is being challenged in the courts.

In the example, the cost differential between fossil fuels and offshore wind is staggering. But because cost is not the only factor involved in these decisions (others include public health and welfare), the state legislature passed a bill to broaden the discussion beyond the price issue.

Passing such legislation has proven difficult at the federal level. As it stands now, states offer a patchwork of regulations, but uncertainty abounds without federal rules. This drives investment to China.

The Times said:

In its most recent quarterly assessment of the renewable energy sector, the accounting and consulting firm Ernst & Young identified China as the most attractive market for investment in renewable energy.

It was mostly bad news for House Democrats who voted for the chamber’s cap-and-trade bill. The two most stinging defeats were Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who worked furiously behind the scenes to secure benefits for his coal-dependent state in the bill before finally giving his “yes” vote, and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who became somewhat of a celebrity on the left for standing by the more liberal wing of his party on a number of key votes, including cap-and-trade. Boucher, from Virginia’s 9th district, lost to his Republican opponent, Morgan Griffith, and Perriello, despite a big last-minute push by environmentalists and President Obama himself, lost to state Sen. Robert Hurt (R).

Politico ran the numbers this morning. At least 12 freshman Democrats who voted for the cap-and-trade bill lost their re-election bids, while at least seven (I noted Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) last night) won, with some races still too close to call. In total, Politico notes, more than 30 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill fell to their Republican opponents last night.

In the West Virginia Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, managed to eke out a victory over Republican John Raese. While Democrats can technically put Manchin in their column, he campaigned against nearly every significant Obama administration policy, including cap-and-trade. In one now-infamous ad, he shot the House climate bill with a shotgun.

But there was some good news for environmentalists last night. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, won her reelection bid against Carly Fiorina. Boxer has always been a strong advocate for environmental protections, but her job is likely to get harder in the next Congress. She has already been accused of unwillingness to reach across the aisle, but with more Republicans in the Senate, she’ll have no choice if she wants to pass energy and climate bills.

At the same time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) survived a tough race against Tea Party darling Sharron Angle. The big question going forward now is what will Reid do on energy and climate legislation next Congress. By now, it’s common knowledge that it will be next to impossible to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the next two years. So it seems Reid will focus on a series of low-hanging-fruit provisions that are popular on both sides of the aisle, including bills to incentivize electric vehicles, improve energy efficiency and weatherize homes.

The fate of two big-ticket items for environmentalists — a renewable energy standard and a much-delayed oil spill response bill — remains unclear. While there’s still time in the lame-duck session to try to pass both provisions, Republicans have more incentive to block the bills until next Congress, as they’ll have more sway later. There is Republican support for an RES, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, but GOP gains in the Senate could make it more likely that Republicans will push to add nuclear power and coal with carbon capture technology to the mix, a nightmare scenario for environmentalists.

It’s even less clear what will happen with the oil spill response bill. More than six months after the massive Gulf oil spill, Congress has yet to pass significant legislation to overhaul offshore drilling (on the regulatory side, the Interior Department has issued its own new drilling rules). A number of contentious issues, like how liable an oil company is for damages from a spill, are sure to take on new significance now that more Republicans are in the Senate.

In other key midterm results, Proposition 23, a California ballot initiative that would suspend the state’s landmark climate change law, failed. It’s a huge win for environmentalists, who funneled millions of dollars into the “No on Prop 23″ campaign, pitting themselves against two Texas oil refiners that campaigned heavily for passage of the initiative. California’s climate law is viewed by environmentalists as the gold standard. Passage of the ballot initiative would have been the icing on the cake of a disappointing year for climate activists.

At the same time, it looks like another California ballot initiative, Proposition 26, will pass. The measure would require a two-thirds majority vote in the state legislature and in local government bodies to impose new fees on industry. Environmentalists say the proposition will make it more difficult to implement key environmental rules, including parts of the state’s climate law. In the last days of midterm election campaigning, as it became clear that Prop 23 would fail, activists’ attention shifted to Prop 26. But it was apparently too late to make a significant difference at the polls.

It’s also worth noting that the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) was defeated last night. Obsertar worked for years to reform pipeline safety and was in the process of developing new legislation to do so in the aftermath of a massive oil pipeline spill in Michigan and a natural gas pipeline explosion in California.

Two other key Senate races remain too close to call this morning. In the Colorado Senate race, Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Republican Ken Buck are still neck and neck. As I noted yesterday in my midterm preview, the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have trashed Buck in ads, highlighting his comments questioning whether climate change is man-made. Environmentalists have made Buck the poster child of Republican climate skeptics running this cycle. For his part, Buck’s spokesman said his official position is this: “Ken believes climate change is occurring, but that it’s natural more than man-made.”

Bennet does not support the House version of cap-and-trade, but his campaign said recently that he would support a “well-thought-out, market-based bill.” Buck’s campaign jumped on the comments, saying Bennet’s position on the issue is unclear.

Don’t hold your breath for results of the Alaska Senate race between incumbent and write-in candidate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), Tea Party favorite Joe Miller (R) and Democrat Scott McAdams. Murkowski appears to be winning, according to early results. Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Though she has opposed cap-and-trade bills in the past, she has a history of working closely with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the panel’s chairman, on key energy bills, including the comprehensive energy bill they passed in 2009.

Federal regulators have increased their inspections at 89 coal mines with poor safety records, including Loveridge. They have also upped their use of orders to shut down mines until safety problems are fixed.

But despite their efforts, five men were killed by heavy machinery; four were killed by falling rock. They died in mines where safety citations had increased about 31 percent after the Upper Big Branch blast.

The story sheds light on the flawed mining oversight process. When companies are cited for safety violations, they often appeal them, resulting in a massive backlog. In turn, penalties often aren’t paid for long periods of time.

Here’s an example from the story:

At Consol, for instance, the company has contested 31 percent of the safety citations issued to its mines since January. That’s more than 1,000 citations, with fines totaling $2.6 million, which won’t be paid until the cases are resolved.

Mike Lillis, who has since left The Washington Independent for The Hill, did some great work on mining safety for TWI. You can read his stories here.

Separately, The Huffington Post notes today:

In one of the most bizarre Big Coal public relations ads yet, online readers of the Washington Post today were forced to view a fatuous “clean coal” ad prior to viewing an extraordinary photo galley on “Death at American coal mines.”

“Obama said he wants to tax coal even to bankruptcy,” the narrator of the ad says. “So listen to Obama’s rubber stamp Joe Manchin, he’s for it too.” This statement is enough to make the Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. want to tear his hair out, but worse, he notes, is an Associated Press story that basically mimics Raese’s claims as facts:

“Manchin supported energy legislation that passed the state legislature calling for a 25 percent reduction in the amount of coal that West Virginia power plants can use over the next 15 years, an idea similar to what national Democrats are pushing.”

OK, now the next sentence in the story was a quote that might indicate to some readers that this wasn’t necessarily fact, but was an allegation tossed around by Raese campaign ads and political consultants:

“It’s Obama’s cap and trade bill, West Virginia style,” an announcer says in one Raese television ad.

But the best that AP’s Elliott could do in explaining whether this allegation was true was this:

“The West Virginia Coal Association on Thursday endorsed Manchin, saying the energy law he backed would help — not hurt — the state’s coal industry.”

I’ll oblige Ward and note that the state law Manchin supported isn’t at all like the one House Democrats signed to set up a cap-and-trade system for carbon. Not only is Manchin’s bill supported by the coal industry, but it stipulates that the 25 percent quota of “alternative energy” that utilities must generate by 2025 can include all sorts of coal energy, including fuel produced by a coal gasification or liquefaction facility, waste coal, or “advanced coal technology” — which can mean basically anything the industry wants it to.