Can King Coal Compete in 2016?

A declining industry faces a do-or-die year.

AP Photo/David Goldman
Add to Briefcase
Jason Plautz
March 8, 2016, 8:01 p.m.

Faced with van­ish­ing de­mand, cheap­er com­pet­i­tion, massive lay­offs and costly fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions, the coal in­dustry could use a polit­ic­al sa­vior now more than ever.

Ac­cord­ing to the En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion, nat­ur­al gas is pro­jec­ted to fuel a lar­ger share of the coun­try’s elec­tri­city than coal for the first time ever in 2016, and longer-term pro­jec­tions for the in­dustry are dire. Last year, nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-based elec­tri­city gen­er­a­tion was re­tired, ac­count­ing for more than 80 per­cent of the over­all re­tire­ments.

In­dustry ex­ec­ut­ives say they need to elect a pres­id­ent who would ease the reg­u­lat­ory bur­den to help coal get a leg up, but it will be a steep climb for King Coal.

“I can’t stress how crit­ic­al this elec­tion is. If we don’t get the right can­did­ate, we may not be around much longer,” said Bill Bis­sett, pres­id­ent of the Ken­tucky Coal As­so­ci­ation. “But this is also a very dif­fi­cult time for us to be polit­ic­ally en­gaged.”

How dif­fi­cult? Of the 10 coal com­pan­ies that spent the most in the 2012 race, tracked by the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics, two—Al­pha Nat­ur­al Re­sources and Arch Coal—have filed for bank­ruptcy. Pat­ri­ot Coal, which cracked the top 10 in the 2014 cycle, also filed for bank­ruptcy.

And sev­er­al oth­er gi­ants are circ­ling the drain. Pe­abody En­ergy, the world’s largest private mine op­er­at­or, is $6.3 bil­lion in debt and ana­lysts are pre­dict­ing that it could file for bank­ruptcy. Mur­ray En­ergy had plans to lay off more than 500 work­ers at the end of 2015, hav­ing already laid off hun­dreds of work­ers the pre­vi­ous May. Oth­er coal firms like CON­SOL En­ergy and Foresight En­ergy have gone through lay­offs in the past year and have been flagged by in­vestors for po­ten­tial trouble.

As a res­ult, the in­dustry’s polit­ic­al dol­lars are at a premi­um. Ac­cord­ing to the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics, the in­dustry’s over­all lob­by­ing has dropped by more than half, from $17.5 mil­lion in 2012 to just $8.2 mil­lion last year. The Na­tion­al Min­ing As­so­ci­ation, which rep­res­ents the coal in­dustry in Wash­ing­ton, spent about a mil­lion less in 2015 ($4.8 mil­lion) than it did in 2014 ($5.8 mil­lion, which rep­res­en­ted a high for the group).

In the 2012 pres­id­en­tial race, coal com­pan­ies gave nearly $1 mil­lion to Re­pub­lic­an con­tender Mitt Rom­ney (and $4,700 to Pres­id­ent Obama), with the Na­tion­al Min­ing As­so­ci­ation’s COALPAC spend­ing $10,500 on Rom­ney. And al­though it’s still early in the race, there seems to be little in­dic­a­tion that coal will com­pete on the same level in 2016. Con­tri­bu­tions to sev­er­al com­pan­ies’ polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees are off pace from pre­vi­ous cycles.

The Na­tion­al Min­ing As­so­ci­ation de­clined to com­ment on its 2016 strategy for the PAC.

As Bloomberg re­por­ted last month, much of the in­dustry’s at­ten­tion has switched to the courts, where states and in­dustry groups are chal­len­ging fed­er­al en­vir­on­ment­al reg­u­la­tions.

“The lay­offs and bank­ruptcies af­fect our polit­ic­al in­flu­ence, no ques­tion about it,” Bis­sett said.

And can­did­ates don’t seem in­clined to take up the mantle of coal. Hil­lary Clin­ton and Bernie Sanders have both said that they’d con­tin­ue Pres­id­ent Obama’s en­vir­on­ment­al reg­u­la­tions, which have cracked down on coal-fired gen­er­a­tion (Clin­ton did re­lease a $30 bil­lion plan to provide aid to coal com­munit­ies hit hard by the in­dustry’s slow­down).

On the Re­pub­lic­an side, coal has largely been grouped in­to a lar­ger dis­cus­sion of “all of the above” en­ergy that in­cludes nat­ur­al gas and, in the case of Marco Ru­bio and John Kasich, clean en­ergy as well. The en­ergy is­sue sec­tion on Ted Cruz’s cam­paign web­site doesn’t men­tion coal at all, al­though it de­tails an all-of-the-above strategy em­ploy­ing “oil to nat­ur­al gas to eth­an­ol.” Don­ald Trump caught flack for hav­ing said in a 1990 Play­boy in­ter­view that miners “don’t have the ima­gin­a­tion” to find dif­fer­ent jobs, but he touted the in­dustry at a Ken­tucky rally be­fore that state’s March 5 caucus. “Obama has decim­ated the coal in­dustry—decim­ated it—and we’re go­ing to bring the coal in­dustry back, folks,” he said.

“We were talk­ing about a ‘war on coal’ in the 2012 race and the can­did­ates have used some of that same rhet­or­ic, but I don’t see the dia­logue pro­gress­ing bey­ond that,” said Jason Bo­hr­er, pres­id­ent of the Lig­nite En­ergy Coun­cil, which rep­res­ents coal pro­du­cers in North Dakota. “That’s the frus­trat­ing part; the coal in­dustry is al­most just a trope that both parties at the can­did­ate level some­times bring out to gin up sup­port.”

Re­pub­lic­ans have uni­ver­sally vowed to lift reg­u­la­tions on the in­dustry, like the Clean Power Plan, which set the first-ever car­bon-di­ox­ide lim­its on new and ex­ist­ing coal-fired power plants. The in­dustry has also said that mer­cury and air-tox­ics stand­ards, which re­quired costly pol­lu­tion-con­trol devices, have dam­aged the in­dustry.

But even the most pro-coal ad­min­is­tra­tion may not be able to do much to stem the bleed­ing. The frack­ing boom drove down the price of nat­ur­al gas, mak­ing it a more at­tract­ive op­tion for power pro­viders, while sol­ar and wind power are get­ting cheap­er (the Clean Power Plan also in­centiv­ized a move from coal to gas and clean en­ergy). The En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion has con­sist­ently pro­jec­ted that coal will de­cline even without the Clean Power Plan.

“Maybe it’s a wait-and-see ap­proach,” said Jesse Cole­man, who tracks fossil-fuel dona­tions for Green­peace. “But if you look at what the in­dustry is go­ing through right now, it’d be hard to say it’s not hav­ing an in­flu­ence on polit­ics.”

Graphic by Libby Isenstein

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.