Whose War on Coal?

Republicans blame the Environmental Protection Agency for coal’s sinking fortunes. EPA blames cheap natural gas. Who’s right?

**FILE** In this Nov. 21, 2004, file photo a coal train winds its way into the mountains near the New River at Cotton Hill in Fayette County, W.Va. While President Bush has been a friend of coal, no one overlooks the next president's role in shaping the nation's energy policy. President-elect Barack Obama has stressed that he advocates finding environmentally friendly uses of coal, a source of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas attributed to climate change. (AP Photo/Jeff Gentner)
Add to Briefcase
Amy Harder
July 12, 2012, 1 p.m.

Amer­ic­an coal is un­der siege; that much is clear. It ac­coun­ted for 62 per­cent of the coun­try’s elec­tri­city in 2006, ac­cord­ing to the En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion, the stat­ist­ic­al arm of the En­ergy De­part­ment; today, it’s down to just 32 per­cent. Between now and 2035, up to 22 per­cent of coal-fired elec­tri­city will go off-line. Who is re­spons­ible for the im­plo­sion of this cent­ral part of the Amer­ic­an en­ergy sec­tor? De­pends on who you ask. 

Pre­dict­ably, both parties have a polit­ic­ally ex­pedi­ent an­swer. Con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans blame the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency’s suite of clean-air reg­u­la­tions, in­clud­ing its rules on mer­cury, tox­ic pol­lut­ants, and green­house gases. “This ad­min­is­tra­tion is con­tinu­ing its war on coal,” said Rep. Ed Whit­field, R-Ky., last June after Amer­ic­an Elec­tric Power de­cided not up­grade a coal plant in Ken­tucky — a sign that the util­ity will likely close it al­to­geth­er. Top EPA and ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, mean­while, blame eco­nom­ics: The agency just hap­pens to be de­vis­ing court-man­dated rules at a time when low nat­ur­al-gas prices are push­ing out coal-gen­er­ated elec­tri­city. “Many [plant] re­tire­ments are ex­pec­ted just simply as a res­ult of in­ex­pens­ive nat­ur­al gas,” EPA As­sist­ant Ad­min­is­trat­or for Air and Ra­di­ation Gina Mc­Carthy told a Sen­ate hear­ing last month.

In truth, both Re­pub­lic­ans and EPA are (some­what) right. Thanks to cheap re­serves opened by new ex­trac­tion tech­niques, nat­ur­al gas ac­counts for 32 per­cent of the na­tion’s elec­tri­city, up from 16 per­cent in 2006; it tied with coal’s mar­ket share for the first time since the gov­ern­ment began col­lect­ing data in 1973. For now, util­it­ies pay $3.32 per mil­lion Brit­ish thermal units of nat­ur­al gas, still 91 cents more than coal. (That dif­fer­en­tial shrank 83 per­cent since 2006.) But gas power plants pro­duce elec­tri­city so much more ef­fi­ciently that pro­viders get far more bang for their buck. 

At the same time, EPA’s rules are ac­cel­er­at­ing coal’s de­cline by mak­ing util­it­ies think twice about in­vest­ing in such a deeply reg­u­lated en­ergy source. A rule to lim­it mer­cury emis­sions could cost the in­dustry $10 bil­lion in an­nu­al com­pli­ance, for ex­ample, and the draft green­house rules re­quire new coal plants to have car­bon-cap­ture tech­no­logy that is so costly it will make build­ing them pro­hib­it­ively ex­pens­ive. “Due to low nat­ur­al-gas prices, util­it­ies are dis­patch­ing gas rather than coal plants. And as util­it­ies ask wheth­er they should ret­ro­fit coal plants to meet new EPA reg­u­la­tions, low nat­ur­al-gas prices make that in­vest­ment harder to jus­ti­fy,” says Richard Newell, who resigned last year as EIA ad­min­is­trat­or. “The net res­ult is that the com­bined im­pact of low gas prices and EPA reg­u­la­tion on coal power is lar­ger than each factor in­di­vidu­ally.” 

It’s good polit­ics for Re­pub­lic­ans to blame gov­ern­ment over­reach and for ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials to cite all the re­serves of shale nat­ur­al gas re­cently found in many parts of the coun­try. (Can’t ar­gue with mar­ket forces!) It’s harder to ad­mit — and harder to ex­plain — that the real reas­on for coal’s de­cline is a com­plex web of fluc­tu­at­ing fuel prices, a still-weak eco­nomy, en­vir­on­ment­al reg­u­la­tions, and loc­al factors such as grid re­li­ab­il­ity.

If Re­pub­lic­ans really wanted to pro­tect coal, they wouldn’t just flay EPA; they’d would also clamp down on nat­ur­al-gas drilling. But the point is more to vil­i­fy the “job-killing” agency than to pick fossil-fuel win­ners. EPA has been more forth­right, but just barely. At a hear­ing of the En­ergy and Power Sub­com­mit­tee of the House En­ergy Com­mit­tee last month, Mc­Carthy kept in­sist­ing that low gas prices were push­ing coal plants out of busi­ness. Fi­nally, after a brusque ex­change with Whit­field, the chair, she ad­mit­ted that clean-air rules also af­fect util­it­ies’ de­cisions. “No one has ever denied that our reg­u­la­tions [are] a factor,” she said.

“That’s what I wanted to hear,” Whit­field said, cut­ting her off.

It’s a good thing the ad­min­is­tra­tion has shale gas to fall back on, says Kev­in Book, man­aging dir­ect­or of Clear­View En­ergy Part­ners, a Wash­ing­ton-based con­sult­ing firm. Thanks to cheap gas and a weak eco­nomy, the im­pact of EPA rules on Amer­ic­ans’ elec­tri­city prices has been neg­li­gible. “The people who would or­din­ar­ily com­plain aren’t feel­ing it — the end users,” Book says. “Gas is a pal­li­at­ive. We might not feel the pain un­til the eco­nomy ex­pands.”

Mean­while, EPA’s green­house-gas regs are en­sur­ing that util­it­ies won’t switch from nat­ur­al gas back to coal, so those end users may feel more pain down the road, when en­ergy de­mand could rise faster than sup­ply. The newly nom­in­ated EIA ad­min­is­trat­or cau­tiously con­ceded this point at an en­ergy sym­posi­um last week: “Longer term, my guess is that just the age of coal plants and the need for emis­sions re­duc­tions will tend to move, you know, put pres­sure on coal,” said Adam Siem­in­ski, the former chief en­ergy eco­nom­ist at Deust­che Bank.

What EIA doesn’t fore­cast is polit­ic­al factors. Nat­ur­al gas is poised to win out over coal eco­nom­ic­ally, but it faces rising op­pos­i­tion from en­vir­on­ment­al groups fo­cused on glob­al warm­ing. Even though nat­ur­al gas burns 50 per­cent few­er car­bon emis­sions than coal, that’s still not enough to cut U.S. green­house-gas emis­sions 80 per­cent by 2050, the goal set by in­flu­en­tial en­vir­on­ment­al voices. The Si­erra Club, the coun­try’s largest en­vir­on­ment­al group, is already start­ing to step up its op­pos­i­tion to nat­ur­al gas. 

But that’s a battle for an­oth­er day. Today’s war is about coal. And between the Re­pub­lic­an ex­plan­a­tion (reg­u­la­tion) and the Demo­crat­ic one (com­pet­i­tion), King Coal is fight­ing a war on two fronts. 

Contributions by Olga Belogolova

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.