The poll — commissioned by major environmental groups — indicates that cap-and-trade was not a major issue for Republican voters in a slew of House races. Republican voters were asked to name their biggest concern with the Democrat running in the race. While 27 percent chose voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) agenda, only 7 percent said it was because the Democrat supported the House cap-and-trade bill when offered a list of six options. The poll surveyed 1,000 voters in 83 “battleground” congressional districts.

The poll has received a lot of attention in the last 24 hours not just for its content, but for how it has been reported. Environmentalists have criticized Politico and others for reporting the results of the elections as a “day of reckoning” for lawmakers who voted for the House climate bill. They have also criticized reporters (including me) for treating the poll as an effort by environmentalists to spin the election results. Now, the poll certainly is an effort to spin the election results, but that doesn’t mean the results aren’t significant.

I thought I’d try to give some insight into why reporters cast the poll the way they did. First, and most obvious, the poll was conducted by environmentalists, the very group that benefits from the poll’s findings.

Second, environmental beat reporters did not take into account the broader election narrative. In many ways, this is a problem created by beat reporting. Environmental reporters scoured the election results on Tuesday night looking for story ideas.

Two key races were foremost on my radar and, I can assume, on the radars of other environmental reporters: those of Reps. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.). When both candidates lost in quick succession, the cap-and-trade “referendum” narrative began to take shape.

Perriello has become something of a celebrity on the left, having voted for cap-and-trade, health care and the stimulus package as a Democrat, decisions that could put him in a tight spot in his conservative district on Tuesday. Boucher, also from a conservative Virginia district, voted for the cap-and-trade bill as well, after long negotiations with key lawmakers.

When both Perriello and Boucher lost their races, environmental beat reporters (myself included) quickly noted that both lawmakers had voted for cap-and-trade. The problem is, other issues came into play in these races too. The environmentalist poll says, for example, that only 5 percent of the people who voted for Perriello’s opponent, Republican Robert Hurt, said their biggest concern was Perriello’s vote for the House cap-and-trade bill.

So while 43 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill either lost their races or retired their seats, which were then won by Republicans, it’s difficult to say without specific polling data whether they lost because of their climate vote or for other reasons. Further complicating the idea that the vote was a “referendum” on cap-and-trade, 27 of the 43 Democrats who voted against the House climate bill lost their seats.

While we can’t say cap-and-trade was a key issue in the election, it’s important to note that it was an issue in many races. Cap-and-trade is deeply unpopular among Republicans, and the policy was one of many the GOP employed to criticize President Obama and Democrats. The success of the Republican overall argument — which touched on the economy, the role of government, health care and, yes, cap-and-trade — was the reason for the massive Republican gains in the House and Senate.

I’ve spoken to a few environmentalists who point to several Senate races as examples of where climate change played a major role, including Colorado and Nevada. But while there was a lot of talk of climate change in those races (see Ken Buck), I haven’t seen any indication that either of those races turned on the issue. Like many races in the country, climate change was one of many issues that formed voters’ opinions.

One of the only places, it seems, where climate change played a demonstrable role in the election was in California, with Proposition 23. The ballot initiative, which failed after intense campaigning by the oil industry on one side and environmentalists on the other, would have overturned the state’s landmark global warming law.

At a press conference today at the National Press Club, the heads of the major environmental groups stressed to reporters that the midterm election was not a “referendum” on climate change.

As I noted in my story this morning, in total, more than 43 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill either lost their races or retired their seats, which were then won by Republicans. The two most stinging defeats, and the ones cited in most energy-related stories on the issue (including mine), were those of 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 something 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, despite the conservative makeup of his district.

But cap-and-trade proponents counter that 27 of the 43 Democrats who voted against the House climate bill lost their seats and point out that many other issues were at play in the races.

At the press conference today, the environmental groups — including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Environment America and the League of Conservation Voters — also released a poll surveying 1,000 voters in 83 “battleground” congressional districts that they say “clearly illustrates that members’ support for the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) did not contribute to this defeat.”

In the poll, Republican voters were asked to name their biggest concern with the Democrat running in the race. While 27 percent chose voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) agenda, only 7 percent said it was because the Democrat supported the House cap-and-trade bill when offered a list of six options.

In polling results conducted in Perriello’s district, only 5 percent of the people who voted for Hurt said their biggest concern was Perriello’s vote for the House cap-and-trade bill.

The environmentalists also touted California voters’ rejection of Proposition 23, which would have suspended the state’s landmark climate change law. They said California was the only state where climate change was on the ballot and therefore was the only case where the votes could be a referendum on climate change.

There was no mention at the press conference of California’s Proposition 26, which would require that any new fees imposed on industry be approved by a two-thirds vote in the state legislature. The ballot initiative, which passed, could greatly impact the implementation of the states climate law, environmentalists have said.

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), a strong supporter of climate legislation, lost his re-election bid on Tuesday. (Andrew Shurtleff/ZUMApress.com)

After a year of frustration in the Senate for environmentalists and climate activists, a slowly building expectation that it would be nearly impossible to pass significant climate legislation in the chamber in the near future appears to have been cemented last night.

[Environment1] One of the few bright spots for Democrats in the midterms was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) come-from-behind win over Tea Party darling Sharron Angle. The big question going forward, however, is what will can and will Reid do on energy and climate legislation next Congress. It will be next to impossible to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the next two years, but it appears 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 January, when they’ll have more policy-making clout. There is some 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 oil companies’ liability for damages from a spill, are sure to take on new significance now that more Republicans are in the Senate.

And it there was bad news for some House Democrats who voted for the chamber’s cap-and-trade bill. The two most stinging defeats were those of 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 something 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, despite the conservative makeup of his district. Boucher lost to his Republican Morgan Griffith, and Perriello, despite a big last-minute push by environmentalists and President Obama himself, fell 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 won, with some races still too close to call. In total, more than 43 Democrats who voted for the House climate bill either lost their races or retired their seats, which were then won by Republicans. Cap-and-trade proponents are already pushing back against the notion that the losses are a “referendum” on cap-and-trade, noting that 27 of the 43 Democrats who voted against the House climate bill lost their seats and pointing out that many other issues were at play in the races.

While the House Republican energy agenda, led by presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (D-Ohio), was unclear as of this morning, an energy proposal introduced last year by House Republicans gives some hints at GOP priorities. Expect a great deal of discussion about expanding nuclear power. The House Republican bill calls for bringing 100 new nuclear power plants online in the next 20 years and streamlining the approval process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At the same time, the bill calls on the NRC to continue its review of the embattled Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository “without political interference,” a clear reference to the Obama administration’s efforts to prevent the site from accepting waste.

The bill also calls for expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic. (This bill, of course, was introduced before the oil spill, so it remains to be seen how it would change as a result of the disaster). House Republicans would then use revenue from increased drilling to create a fund for renewable and “alternative” energy technology like wind, solar, so-called clean coal and biomass.

The proposal also calls for “cutting red tape and reducing frivolous lawsuits.” This includes curtailing environmental reviews and limiting the review time allowed in environmental lawsuits.

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 rifle.

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 re-election 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.

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.

Over in Minnesota, the powerful House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D) was defeated last night. Oberstar 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.

In the very close Colorado Senate race between Sen. Michael Bennet (D) and Republican Ken Buck, it appears that Bennet will garner just enough votes to win without a recount. 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.

It may take some time to get the 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.

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.

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Pundits may differ over which natural disaster analogy was most fitting — tidal wave or  earthquake? — but Republicans made large gains in both chambers of Congress and various statehouses across the country on election day. And while, at the time of writing, races in several key Western states were far from decided, the election night shaped up to be one of few surprises for either party. Republicans guaranteed themselves a majority in the House, while Democrats can rest assured that they’ll retain a majority in the Senate come 2011.

[Congress1] The evening began with quick victories for GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, raising expectations of a Tea Party-backed surge in Congress. Bellwether House races, including those of Rep. Barron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), all went for their Republican challengers, causing pundits to revise their estimates for GOP House gains from the 50s up into the 60s, or perhaps higher.

Whether one voted for the Obama health care bill, like Rep. Tom Periello (D), or against it, like Rep. Glenn Nye (D), being a House Democrat in Virginia tonight ended up spelling doom and setting the tone for Democrats’ chances in House races across the country. Even veterans like Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C), chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were not spared by the GOP wave that swept Southern and Midwestern Democrats. And while DCCC head Rep. Chris Van Hollen criticized the news networks for calling the House for the GOP early, a takeover quickly began to look inevitable.

While liberal Democrats like Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) also lost their seats, groups that had backed them maintained that Democrats lost because they failed to fight and defend their liberal values. “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic,” wrote Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green. “What the average voter saw of Democrats was weak, watered-down change — and weak Democratic leaders who cut deals with the very Wall Street banks and insurance companies they are supposed to be fighting.

On the Senate side, however, quick and decisive victories for Gov. Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R) in West Virginia and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) over Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut allowed Democrats to breathe easy about their control of the upper chamber.

“Tomorrow starts the rebuilding, the road of rebuilding America,” Manchin told supporters in his victory speech. “We must start tomorrow. And I really believe that Washington can learn a few things and a few lessons from West Virginia.” What kind of Democrat Manchin will be after having to run so far to the right to win office remains a big open question for Democrats.

A solid defeat for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, meanwhile, at the hands of Chris Coons (D) put Republican chances of taking the Senate nearly out of reach and revived questions about the efficacy of the Tea Party in aiding a GOP wave. “It gave me no pleasure to say that she was unlikely to win,” said Karl Rove after her loss became clear. “But this again provides a lesson. This is a candidate who was right on the issues but who had mishandled a series of questions brought up by the press.”

Likewise, a victory for the Democrats’ very vulnerable majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, over Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle confirmed the dangers of a Republican nomination process that often stressed ideological purity over electability.

Democratic Senate candidates Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois got off to strong starts in the polls with high turnout and early reporting from Philadelphia and Chicago, prompting talk of small but significant upsets for the Democrats in those races. But as the rural counties began reporting their tallies, Republican Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Mark Kirk in Illinois eventually took control of both races. Likewise, Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who shot out to an early lead over Ken Buck, fell slightly behind as more ballots were counted.

In the governors’ races, Democrats lost seats as well but managed to hang on to victories in close races in Colorado, where Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper held off his American Constitution Party challenger, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Minnesota, where Democrat Mark Dayton was the beneficiary of a three-way race and defeated Republican nominee Tom Emmer*. But in key races in other swing states — ones that President Obama will likely have to win to secure re-election in 2012 — Republicans can look forward to being in control. Rick Scott (R) rode the coattails of Rubio’s victory, defeating Alex Sink (D) in Florida, while the close race in Ohio never got close enough for incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who lost to challenger John Kasich (R).

As for the fate of the Tea Party, early decisive Senate wins for Paul and Rubio were offset by decisive drubbing of Christine O’Donnell and a narrow loss for Angle. In the House, Tea Party candidate Sean Bielat, who at one point looked to be posing a credible challenge to Rep. Barney Frank (D) in Massachusetts, lost by a wide margin — but enough Tea Party candidates claimed seats to form a sizable caucus in the next Congress.

Speaking at the Grand Hyatt Ballroom in Washington, likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was unable to hold back his tears. “Listen, I’ll be brief, because we have real work to do, and this is not a time for celebration,” he said, “not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work … not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt … not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. The American people have sent an unmistakable message to him tonight, and that message is: ‘change course.’ We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding. To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

*UPDATE: Democrat Mark Dayton continues to lead Republican Tom Emmer in the Minnesota Governor’s Race, but the margin is so slim that a recount appears likely.

Boucher may very well be one of the first Democrats to lose a seat, in part, because of his vote for cap-and-trade. Virginia’s 9th district is quite conservative and Boucher’s vote for the bill was an unpopular one.

In the wake of Citizens United, and later, SpeechNow.org v. the Federal Election Commission, the FEC issued advisory opinions this summer that said political groups making “independent expenditures” — political spending for or against a candidate that’s crafted and funded entirely independent of a candidate or party — are allowed to collect unlimited contributions from corporations or individuals, but should register with the FEC as a political action committee and detail their finances, if they plan to do so. Some groups, like American Crossroads and Club for Growth, signed up, while others, like Americans for Job Security, said ‘thanks, but no thanks.’

DirtyEnergyMoney.com tracks industry contributions from 1999 to June 2010 based on Federal Election Commission disclosures. The web site was launched by MoveOn, Public Citizen, Greenpeace, Energy Action Coalition, True Majority, 350.org and others.

According to the site, the top five “dirtiest politicians” (those that took the most money from industry) are:

1. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

2. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)

3. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

4. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)

5. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)

The site also targets Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is facing a tough reelection battle this year. Lincoln has accepted $814,882 since 1999, the site says. According to the site:

Arkansas’ Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln seems to have drilled into the largest deposit of dirty campaign cash in the most recent election cycle. What has she done to deserve such generosity? She voted for the Murkowski Big Oil Bailout, a bill that would have gutted clean air protections and increased our oil dependence. She also voted to keep sending our taxpayer money to big oil and gas.

In a front-page feature, reporter Kimberly Kindy takes a close look at the Tiller No. 1 Mine, a Massey-owned operation in Tazewell County, Va., that federal regulators consider one of the most unsafe mines in the country. Indeed, they’re trying to put the mine under a “pattern of violations” status — a rarely used tool that would allow inspectors to close the entire mine until it was deemed safe for the workers inside.

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration says the injury rate at Tiller is 40 percent higher than at Upper Big Branch and twice the national average. Even as MSHA inspectors prepare to reenter Upper Big Branch on Wednesday for the first inspection since the fatal accident, the agency has focused much of its energy in recent weeks on the infractions at Tiller. MSHA officials say they have spent more than 1,000 hours building a case that Tiller deserves to be the first mine in the country to face the toughest enforcement tool available to regulators.

The mine’s owners and operators have devoted equal effort to fighting off the sanctions.

And it’s not just Massey fighting the sanctions. It’s the workers as well. That’s counterintuitive on the surface, considering that it’s the miners who are putting their lives at risk by going underground everyday. But in Appalachia’s coal country — among the most destitute nooks of the U.S. — the miners’ fears of losing their jobs often trump their fears of working in unsafe conditions. (This is largely due to the fact that, aside from flipping burgers, there aren’t many other employment options in coal country — a condition that the industry has fostered for decades in order to have greater leverage over its workforce.)

One Tiller miner, Randy Lester, told Kindy that the safety inspectors are “nitpicky.”

He fears that government regulation of the mine ultimately would shut it down — taking his job with it.

And it’s not just permanent closures that the miners fear. In non-union mines, even a temporary shutdown means that the workers don’t get paid until the hazards are cleared — not exactly a system that would encourage a miner to complain about the safety conditions in his or her mine.

The district where the Tiller No. 1 is located is represented by Rep. Rick Boucher, a 14-term Democrat who’s taken more money from the coal industry than all but four of his Capitol Hill colleagues, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Since April 5, when the Upper Big Branch mine exploded, Boucher — like a number of other coal-country lawmakers — has remained silent on the question of whether Congress should intervene to tighten the nation’s mine-safety laws. In the wake of the Post story, we’ve posed that question again. Updates as they arrive.

But the Mine Safety and Health Administration is looking to change that.

West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported this morning that a Massey-owned underground coal mine in southwest Virginia could face the rare pattern of violations status. The Tiller No. 1 Mine has racked up 82 safety violations this year, according to MSHA. Forty of those were deemed “significant and substantial,” indicating that they are “reasonably likely to result in a reasonably serious injury or illness.”

The rules go something like this: If MSHA inspectors find a recurring number of S&S violations, they issue a written warning to the mine operator. If, within 90 days, the operator “significantly reduces its violation frequency rate,” it can avoid the dreaded pattern of violations status, which would shutter the mine. That it’s happened so rarely is the failing of MSHA decision-makers, according to some mine safety experts, for not wanting to confront the powerful coal industry.

“This is for companies that just refuse to comply with the law,” Tony Oppegard, a Kentucky-base attorney, told West Virginia Public Broadcasting. “But the way MSHA has neutered it through this warning notice and through establishing these complex criteria is why it’s never used. Therefore you get mines like Upper Big Branch that … continue to place miners lives in jeopardy and be sanctioned in any way.”

The area of Virginia where the Tiller mine sits is represented by Rep. Rick Boucher, a 14-term Democrat who’s long-defended the coal industry on Capitol Hill. Boucher, who’s accepted more than $186,000 from the coal industry over his long career, has been among those coal-country lawmakers who’s remained silent on the issue of mine safety since the deadly West Virginia blast.

Correction: This post initially stated that the “pattern of violations” was already in effect. In fact, the issue is currently before the courts. An MSHA spokeswoman told TWI, “This matter is currently tied up on court. So, no, the Tiller Mine is not on a pattern at this time.” We regret the error; we have a call in to MSHA for clarification and will continue to provide updates as the story progresses.