logologo_light
  • News
  • Blog
  • States
  • Resources
  • Videos
  • About Us
  • Take Action
  • News
  • Blog
  • States
  • Resources
  • Videos
  • About Us
  • Take Action

Missouri Should Brace for Potential Rise in Power Costs with Implementation of Stream Protection Rule

Via The Kansas City Star:

We sometimes forget that Missouri has been a coal-producing state for decades.

Although not a major producer such as Wyoming or West Virginia, our state has mined coal along with lead, zinc, copper and silver for more than a century. This mining has not only employed thousands in family-supporting, middle-class jobs but has underpinned some of key industrial sectors.

In one area, however, coal is still of pre-eminent importance to Missouri — power generation. Thanks to the modern technology that scrubs emissions from coal-fired power plants, Missouri relied on coal for 78 percent of its electricity generation in 2015 — ranking us No. 4 nationally in coal use.

There are real benefits to using coal, particularly when it comes to reliable and affordable power generation for our cities, schools and water infrastructure. Coal still generates more than one-third of U.S. electricity — more than any other single power source.

Unfortunately, Missouri’s enjoyment of low-cost electricity faces a real challenge because the Obama administration is preparing to implement a Stream Protection Rule aimed at keeping coal in the ground.

You wouldn’t know it from the name, but the new Stream Protection Rule could spell the end for much of the U.S. coal industry. It extends far beyond streams and instead deals more with enhancing a federal agency’s mission than addressing environmental issues.

The federal government’s own reports have already demonstrated that, after decades of careful and improved oversight, virtually all U.S. mining operations now carry no off-site environmental impacts.

The U.S. Office of Surface Mining is preparing to foist the Stream Protection Rule on coal producers, even though the agency spent six years dodging its legal obligation to consult with state mining agencies before proposing such a massive rule. In fact, coal states were left in the dark as the Office of Surface Mining assumed new authority to set mining standards. Such a bullheaded approach is part of the reason that 17 coal-producing states are now formally protesting the rule. It matters to Missouri because the Stream Protection Rule is certain to drive up the cost of mining.

The annual value of lost coal production from the Stream Protection Rule could reach $29 billion, with federal and state tax revenue falling by as much as $6.4 billion annually. Displacing affordable coal power with higher-cost alternatives will mean heavier price burdens on everyone.

Missouri has already learned how to modernize its coal plants and to ensure that they produce affordable power without the waste emissions that once gave coal a bad name. But driving up the cost of coal by eliminating much of America’s coal production will hit our state hard.

Overall, the Stream Protection Rule is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and one that will not only close down many of America’s coal producers but needlessly drive up electricity prices.

Our elected officials need to say “no” to such a heavy-handed effort that will hurt many working families.

Terry Jarrett served on the Missouri Public Service Commission from 2007-2013. He is currently an attorney with Healy Law Offices. He lives and works in Jefferson City.

See the article here.
  • On October 4, 2016
Recent Coal in the News Posts
  • The EPA’s plan to break the electricity grid
  • No Energy Transition Without a Reliable Electric Power Grid
  • America faces chronic electricity shortages in push for renewable energy
  • The latest Biden energy crisis
  • Capito, Miller Introduce Bill to Block Implementation of EPA’s Power Plant Proposals
  • Opinion: Looming power shortages highlight flawed policy
  • Experts Warn of Grid Crisis as PA Senators Demand Green Energy
Popular Posts
  • Be part of the revolutionApril 14, 2015
  • Missouri Should Oppose Obama’s “Clean Power Plan”August 14, 2015
  • NMA Calls EPA’s Power Plant Rule a Reckless Gamble with the EconomyJanuary 7, 2014
Recent Comments
  • Clean Power Plan Facing Opposition in Missouri | Count on Coal on Missouri Should Oppose Obama’s “Clean Power Plan”
  • Death of a Shalesman: U.S. Energy Independence Is a Fairy Tale | SuddenlySlimmer on Voices
Tags
affordability baseload power Bloomberg California carbon capture utilization and storage China coal Department of Energy (DOE) electricity grid electricity prices Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) emissions energy addition energy transition Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Europe Fatih Birol Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) fuel diversity Germany grid reliability infrastructure International Energy Agency (IEA) James Danly Jim Robb Joe Biden Mark Christie Michael Regan Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) National Mining Association (NMA) natural gas New England North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) PJM Interconnection polling renewable energy Rich Nolan Southwest Power Pool (SPP) technology Texas transmission lines U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) United Kingdom Wall Street Journal wind power

Sierra Club Pressed EPA to Create Impossible Coal Standards

Scroll
Count on Coal
Recent Posts
  • PJM’s Power Crunch: Why Coal Is Critical to Closing a 60-Gigawatt Gap
  • China’s Coal Playbook Is Winning
  • Today’s Gas Glut, Tomorrow’s Price Shock
  • The Global Pivot to Coal Is About More Than Electricity
  • New U.S. Coal Capacity is Coming
RECENT TWEETS
Tweets by @countoncoal
Privacy Policy | © Copyright Count on Coal 2024