Download:
pdf |
pdfU.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Headquarters Office
Federal Coal Program Review
Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Our Vision
To enhance the quality of life for all citizens
through the balanced stewardship of America’s
public lands and resources.
Our Mission
To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity
of the public lands for the use and enjoyment
of present and future generations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. ES-1
Background.................................................................................................................................................. ES-1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
Overview of Federal Coal Production .................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Federal Coal Program ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Previous Comprehensive Reviews ............................................................................ 2-4
Federal Coal Program Review Public Involvement Efforts from March 2015 to
January 2021................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2021 Federal Coal Program Review Public Involvement Effort ........................................ 2-6
CHAPTER 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS .................................. 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Federal Register Notice and Public Comment ......................................................................... 3-1
Tribal Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 3-2
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS AND FINDINGS................................. 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
December 2021
Comment Analysis Process ........................................................................................................ 4-1
Summary of Unique Submissions .............................................................................................. 4-2
Form Letter Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-6
Summary of Comments .............................................................................................................. 4-7
Issues to be Addressed per the Notice of Intent ................................................................. 4-9
Comment Summaries ................................................................................................................4-10
4.6.1 Data and References ...................................................................................................4-10
4.6.2 Policy Options and Recommendations...................................................................4-10
4.6.3 Issue 1 General Federal Review Process ...............................................................4-11
Issue 1.1 and 1.2 Comment Period Extension Request and Mailing
List ...............................................................................................................4-15
Issue 1.3 Requests for Public Meetings ..............................................................4-15
Issue 1.4 Other Laws..............................................................................................4-15
4.6.4 Issue 2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................4-16
4.6.5 Issue 3 Climate Change ..............................................................................................4-17
4.6.6 Issue 4 Carbon/Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................4-18
Issue 4.1 Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal .....................4-18
Issue 4.2 Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, etc. ...............................................4-20
Issue 4.3 Carbon Capture .....................................................................................4-22
Issue 4.4 National Carbon Reduction Goals ....................................................4-22
4.6.7 Issue 5 Coal Issue Topics ...........................................................................................4-23
Issue 5.1 General Comment on Coal .................................................................4-23
Issue 5.2 Coal Land Use Planning Decisions .....................................................4-24
Issue 5.3 Specific Coal Lease Applications ........................................................4-25
Issue 5.4 Coal Leasing Process .............................................................................4-26
Issue 5.5 Coal Bonding ...........................................................................................4-28
Issue 5.6 Fair Return/Bonus Bids, Rents, and Royalties .................................4-29
Issue 5.7 Pre-sale Fair Market Value Estimate ..................................................4-33
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
i
Table of Contents
4.6.8
4.6.9
4.6.10
4.6.11
4.6.12
4.6.13
4.6.14
4.6.15
4.6.16
Issue 5.8 Coal Exports ...........................................................................................4-35
Issue 5.9 Coal Reclamation ...................................................................................4-36
Issue 5.10 Coal Mitigation .....................................................................................4-37
Issue 5.11 Coal Transportation/ROW ...............................................................4-37
Issue 6 Environmental Justice....................................................................................4-38
Issue 7 Public Health and Safety ...............................................................................4-40
Issue 8 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................4-41
Issue 9 Tribal Interests and Native American Concerns ...................................4-42
Issue 10 Surface Owner and Surface Management Agency Interests .............4-43
Issue 11 Visual Resources ..........................................................................................4-43
Issue 12 Water Resources ........................................................................................4-43
Issue 13 Biological Resources ...................................................................................4-44
Issue 14 Renewable Energy .......................................................................................4-44
TABLES
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
Page
Submissions by Methods of Submittal ..................................................................................................... 4-2
Submissions by Affiliation ........................................................................................................................... 4-3
Commenters by Geographic Area .......................................................................................................... 4-4
Form Letter Submissions ........................................................................................................................... 4-6
Comments by Issue Category .................................................................................................................. 4-8
Issue Cross-Walk......................................................................................................................................... 4-9
FIGURES
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
Page
Count of Submissions by Methods of Submittal................................................................................... 4-3
Submissions by Affiliation ........................................................................................................................... 4-4
Commenters by Geographic Area .......................................................................................................... 4-6
Comments by Issue Category .................................................................................................................. 4-9
APPENDICES
A
B
C
ii
Notices of Intent
List of Commenters
Comments by Issue Category
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Full Phrase
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
DOI
US Department of the Interior
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CO2
carbon dioxide
EA
environmental assessment
EIA
US Energy Information Administration
EIS
environmental impact statement
FLPMA
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
FMV
fair market value
GAO
Government Accountability Office
GHG
greenhouse gas
LBA
leasing by application
MLA
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
NEPA
ONRR
OSMRE
PEIS
SMCRA
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
SO
BLM State Office
USC
United States Code
USGS
December 2021
US Geological Survey
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
iii
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
iv
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
In addition to its responsibilities for managing 247 million acres of surface land
and other resources, the US Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is responsible for managing coal leasing on approximately
570 million acres where the coal mineral estate is owned by the federal
government. Most of these areas are in 12 western states, including Alaska. The
BLM manages these resources on behalf of their owners, the American people.
This responsibility includes advancing the safe and responsible development of
energy resources while promoting the conservation and protection of scientific,
historic, and environmental values of our lands for future generations.
The last time the federal coal program received a comprehensive review was in
the mid-1980s. Most of the existing regulations were promulgated in the late
1970s and have been only slightly modified since that time. The direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the federal coal program have not been fully analyzed
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in over 30 years.
This has led to requests from a variety of sources for review of many facets of
the program, including the return to the American taxpayers, climate change
considerations, resource protection mandates, and process efficiency.
In the spring 2015, former Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) Sally Jewell
called for a review of the federal coal program and options for modernizing it.
The DOI subsequently held listening sessions around the country that summer.
As a result, in early 2016 Secretary Jewell issued Secretarial Order 3338
directing the BLM to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement
(PEIS) under NEPA to identify and analyze potential leasing and management
reforms for the federal coal program.
On March 30, 2016, the BLM published a Notice of Intent to prepare the PEIS
and initiated public scoping. During the initial scoping efforts, the BLM requested
comments on how, when, and where to lease; the fair return; climate impacts;
other impacts; socioeconomic considerations; exports; and energy needs. The
BLM also welcomed comments related to other areas.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
ES-1
Executive Summary
Following completion of public scoping for the PEIS, changes in administration,
executive and secretarial direction, and litigation paused the review of the
federal coal program. Changes included a new secretarial order (Secretarial
Order 3348) by former Secretary Ryan Zinke that lifted the coal leasing pause
and halted the preparation of a PEIS. The secretarial order allowed for the
continuation of coal leasing and mining on federal lands. Subsequent litigation of
this secretarial order by Citizens for Clean Energy, ecoCheyenne Montana,
Environmental Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of
Wildlife, Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and
the States of California, New Mexico, New York, and Washington (the plaintiffs)
resulted in a ruling from the US District Court in Great Falls, Montana, that
environmental review was required prior to ending the coal leasing
moratorium.
In response to this ruling, the BLM completed an environmental assessment
titled Lifting the Pause on the Issuance of the New Federal Coal Leases for
Thermal (Steam) Coal (Final EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact. The
Final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact were published in February 2020.
In July 2020, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ request to file a
supplemental complaint challenging the EA and FONSI. This lawsuit is
ongoing but is subject to a temporary stay order while the current federal
review proceeds (the stay expires January 13, 2022).
In January 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, “Executive
Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science
to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” This was followed in April 2021 by Secretarial
Order 3398, which rescinded Secretarial Order 3348 and reinitiated the BLM
review of the federal coal program.
In August 2021, the BLM published a Notice of Intent to conduct a review of
the federal coal leasing program. That notice served to inform the public of the
BLM’s intent to review the federal coal program and to solicit comments from
the public. In particular, the Notice of Intent posed whether the current
regulatory framework should be changed to provide better mechanisms to
decide which coal resources should be made available and how the leasing
process should work, including when and where to lease.
All written submissions postmarked or received on or before October 5, 2021,
are documented in this comment summary report. Late submissions received
after the close of the comment period, but before publication of this report, are
also noted. The BLM screened each written submission to determine whether it
was a form letter or a unique submission. All unique submissions were assigned
a submission tracking identifier and commenter information. The BLM also
entered the submission text into a comment analysis database. This report
summarizes the BLM’s review of the comments received through the public
comment process.
ES-2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Chapter 1.
Introduction
The US Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
is responsible for managing coal leasing on approximately 570 million acres
where the coal mineral estate is owned by the federal government.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended (30 United States
Code [USC] 181 et seq.), and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of
1947, as amended (30 USC 351 et seq.), the BLM is responsible for the leasing
of federal coal and regulation of the development of that coal on the
mineral estate that is owned by the federal government. This responsibility
includes federal mineral rights on federal lands and federal mineral rights
located under surface lands with nonfederal ownership.
As of fiscal year 2020, the BLM administers 287 coal leases, covering 437,039
acres in 12 states, with an estimated 7 billion tons of recoverable federal coal.
Over the last decade (2011–2020), the BLM sold 17 coal leases and managed
leases that produced approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.2
billion in revenue collections by the United States.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is authorized to lease coal as the
Secretary finds “appropriate and in the public interest” (30 USC 201(a)(1)). This
includes consideration of federal coal leasing’s implications for climate change, as
a threat to the health and welfare of the American people. The Secretary must
also “weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits” (43
USC 1712(c)(7)). Such consideration is an important part of the Secretary’s
responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to
manage “the public lands and their various resource values so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of
the American people” (43 USC 1701(a)(7) and 1702(c)).
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
1-1
1. Introduction
When resource extraction from public lands is determined to be appropriate, it
is also incumbent upon the DOI to ensure the public receives the appropriate
compensation for the use of its resources. “No bid [on a coal lease tract] shall
be accepted which is less than the fair market value, as determined by the
Secretary, of the coal subject to the lease. Prior to determination of the fair
market value of the coal subject to the lease, the Secretary shall give
opportunity for and consideration to public comments on the fair market value”
(30 USC 201(a)(1)). This requirement to receive fair market value (FMV) places
a floor on the monetary return the public must receive once the Secretary
determines that it is appropriate and in the public interest to lease a coal
tract. In other words, in determining where, when, and how to lease a coal
tract, the Secretary must ensure the sale of this public resource fairly
compensates the public by receiving the highest price a willing seller would
realize when leasing to a willing buyer. This is similar to what any party would
seek in selling resources in a commodity market.
There has not been a comprehensive review of the federal coal program since
the mid-1980s. Most of the existing regulations were promulgated in the late
1970s and have been only slightly modified since that time. The direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the federal coal program have not been fully analyzed
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in over 30 years.
In 2016, former Secretary Jewell issued Secretarial Order 3338. This secretarial
order directed the BLM to pause coal leasing and to conduct a comprehensive
review of the federal coal program. Following the release of this order, the BLM
initiated the NEPA process and published a Notice of Intent to prepare a
programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS).
Following completion of public scoping for the PEIS, changes in administration,
executive and secretarial direction, and litigation paused the comprehensive
review of the federal coal program. These included a secretarial order
(Secretarial Order 3348) by former Secretary Zinke that lifted the coal leasing
pause and halted the preparation of a PEIS. The secretarial order allowed for
the continuation of coal leasing and mining on federal lands. Subsequent
litigation of this secretarial order by Citizens for Clean Energy, ecoCheyenne
Montana, Environmental Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, the Northern
Cheyenne Tribe, and the States of California, New Mexico, New York, and
Washington (the plaintiffs) resulted in a ruling from the US District Court in
Great Falls, Montana, that environmental review was required prior to ending
the coal leasing moratorium.
In response to this ruling, the BLM completed an environmental assessment
titled Lifting the Pause on the Issuance of the New Federal Coal Leases for
Thermal (Steam) Coal (Final EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact. The
Final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact were published in February 2020.
1-2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
1. Introduction
In July 2020, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ request to file a
supplemental complaint challenging the EA and FONSI. This lawsuit is
ongoing but is subject to a temporary stay order while the current federal
review proceeds (the stay expires January 13, 2022).
In January 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, “Executive
Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science
to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” This was followed in April 2021 by Secretarial
Order 3398, which rescinded Secretarial Order 3348 and reinitiated the BLM’s
programmatic review of the federal coal program.
On August 20, 2021, the BLM published a notice in the Federal Register to
announce its current review of the federal coal leasing program. This notice
included a 30-day public comment period, which was later extended an
additional 15 days.
This report summarizes the federal coal program and previous public
engagement efforts to provide context for the current review. Additionally, it
provides an overview of the public comment effort initiated on August 20, 2021;
summarizes comments; and identifies issues for future consideration for the
federal coal program review process.
This comment summary report is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 2. Background—This chapter provides background information on
the BLM’s federal coal program and review efforts conducted to date. It focuses
on actions that have occurred since 2015.
Chapter 3. Public Involvement and Public Comment Process—This chapter
describes the comment process undertaken for the federal coal program review
effort.
Chapter 4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings—This chapter
provides summaries of the submissions received through the comment process
and issues identified during the 2021 public comment period.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
1-3
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
1-4
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Chapter 2.
Background
2.1
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION
In recent years and on average, approximately 42 percent of the nation’s annual
coal production has come from federal lands. Federal coal produced from the
Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming accounts for over 85 percent of
all federal coal production. Between 80 and 90 percent of the coal produced in
the United States is used for electricity generation.
However, in recent years there has been a consistent decline in coal-fired
electricity generation and, consequently, a decline in coal production. Coal-fired
electricity made up 50 percent of US generation in 2005; by 2015, it had
declined to 33 percent. Coal production fell from 1.13 billion tons to less than
0.9 billion tons during this same 10-year time period.1,2 In 2015, US coal
production experienced one of the steepest declines in history, and it has
continued to decline. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates
that the total US coal production in 2020 was about 534 million tons, which was
24 percent lower than in 2019. The EIA estimates that US total annual coal
imports reached a record high of about 36 million tons in 2007. In 2020, the
United States imported about 5 million tons of coal, which was equal to about 1
percent of US coal consumption in 2020.3
2.1.1
Federal Coal Program
The BLM is responsible for the leasing of federal coal and regulation of the
development of that coal on the mineral estate that is owned by the
federal government. This responsibility includes federal mineral rights on
federal lands and federal mineral rights located under surface lands with
nonfederal ownership. Other DOI bureaus, particularly the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) and the Office of Natural
1
US EIA. 2016. 2016 Annual Coal Report. November 3, 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/.
US EIA. 2012. Coal Rank and Minding Method, 1949-2011. September 2012. Internet website:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/data.php#production.
3
US EIA. 2021. Coal Data (July 20, 2021). Internet website: https:// www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/importsand-exports.php.
2
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
2-1
2. Background (Overview of Federal Coal Production)
Resources Revenue (ONRR), also take actions related to coal mining on federal
lands. The OSMRE and states that have obtained regulatory primacy under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) permit
coal mining and reclamation activities. They also monitor reclamation and
reclamation bonding actions. The ONRR collects and audits all payments
required under a federal lease, including bonus bids, royalties, and rental
payments, and distributes those funds, pursuant to statute, between the US
Treasury and the states where the coal resources are located (30 USC 191(a)).
The current BLM coal leasing program includes land use planning; the processing
of applications, such as applications for exploration licenses, modifications, and
lease sales; estimation of the value of proposed leases; lease sales; and postleasing actions, such as production verification, suspensions, logical mining units,
readjustments, relinquishments, lease and production inspection and
enforcement, royalty reductions, and bond review.
The federal government receives revenue from coal leasing in three ways: (1) a
bonus that is paid at the time the BLM issues a lease, (2) rental fees, and (3)
production royalties. The royalty rates are set by regulation at a fixed 8 percent
for underground mines and not less than 12.5 percent for surface mines. For
coal leases outside Alaska, the US Treasury pays approximately 50 percent of
receipts to the state where the leased lands are located (30 USC 191(a)). For
leases and mineral deposits in Alaska, the US Treasury pays 90 percent of the
receipts to the state (30 USC 191(a)).4 Federal coal development provides coalproducing states like Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Colorado with significant
income and other economic benefits.
The BLM’s planning process for resource management plans, supported by
environmental analyses under NEPA, identifies areas that are potentially
available to be considered for coal leasing. The planning process considers,
among other things, the impacts of a ‘‘reasonably foreseeable development
scenario,’’ but it does not directly authorize any coal leasing or determine which
coal will be leased.
The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, which amended Section 2
of the MLA, requires that, with limited exceptions, federal lands available for
coal leasing be sold by competitive bid, with the BLM receiving FMV for the
lease. While multiple bids are not required, all successful bids must equal or
exceed the estimated pre-sale FMV for the lease, as calculated by the BLM.
Competitive leasing is not required for: (1) preference right lease applications
for owners of pre-Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act prospecting permits,
and (2) modifications of existing leases, where Congress has authorized the
4
Payments to the states are ‘‘reduced by 2 percent for any administrative or other costs incurred by the United
States,’’ and ‘‘the amount of such reduction shall be deposited to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury’’ (30 USC
191(b)).
2-2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
2. Background (Overview of Federal Coal Production)
Secretary to allow up to 960 acres (increased from 160 acres by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005) of contiguous lands for noncompetitive leasing by modifying
an existing lease.
The BLM issued coal leasing regulations in 1979 that provided for two separate
competitive coal leasing processes: (1) regional leasing, where the BLM selects
tracts within a region for competitive sale; and (2) leasing by application (LBA),
where an industry applicant nominates a particular tract of coal for competitive
sale.
Regional coal leasing requires the BLM to select potential coal leasing tracts
based on land use planning, expected coal demand, and potential environmental
and economic impacts.5 This process includes the use of a federal and state
advisory board known as a regional coal team6 to provide input on leasing
decisions. The regional leasing system has not been used since 1990, and
currently all BLM coal leasing relies on applications.
LBA begins with an application to lease a tract of coal identified by the
applicant.7 The BLM reviews the application for completeness to ensure it
conforms to existing land use plans and to ensure it contains sufficient geologic
data to determine the coal’s FMV. The BLM then prepares an analysis under
NEPA (either an environmental assessment [EA] or an environmental impact
statement [EIS]) and seeks public comment on the proposed lease sale. Through
this process, the BLM evaluates alternative tract configurations to maximize
competitiveness and value, and to avoid bypassing federal coal. The BLM also
consults with other appropriate federal and state agencies and Tribal
governments. In situations where the BLM does not administer the surface, the
BLM determines whether the surface manager consents to leasing.
Preparations for the actual lease sale begin with the BLM formulating, after
obtaining public comment, a pre-sale estimate of the coal’s FMV. This estimate is
confidential and is used to evaluate the bids for the lease ‘‘bonus’’ received
during the sale. Sealed bids are accepted prior to the date of the sale and are
publicly announced during the sale. The winning bid is the highest bid that meets
or exceeds the coal tract’s pre-sale estimated FMV from an applicant that meets
all eligibility requirements and has paid the appropriate fees and payments.
There are two separate bonding requirements for federal coal leases. The BLM
requires a bond adequate to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions
of the lease. This bond must cover a portion of potential liabilities associated
5
43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3420
The BLM regulations require a regional coal team to be established for each coal production region, comprised of
representatives from the BLM and the governors of each state in the region. The regional coal teams are to guide
the coal planning process for each coal production region, serve as the forum for BLM and state consultation, and
make recommendations on coal leasing levels (43 CFR 3400.4).
7
See 43 CFR 3425.
6
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
2-3
2. Background (Overview of Federal Coal Production)
with the bonus bid, rental fees, and royalties. In addition, under SMCRA, the
OSMRE or the state with regulatory primacy requires sufficient bonding to
cover anticipated reclamation costs.
A federal coal lease has an initial term of 20 years, but it may be terminated
after 10 years if the coal resources are not diligently developed (30 USC 207).
Existing leases that have met their diligence requirements may be continued for
additional 10-year terms following the initial 20-year term.
2.1.2
Previous Comprehensive Reviews
The DOI has previously conducted two separate, comprehensive reviews of the
federal coal program. In the late 1960s, there were serious concerns about
speculation in the coal leasing program. A BLM study discovered a sharp
increase in the total federal acreage under leases and a consistent decline in coal
production. In response, the DOI undertook the development of a planning
system to determine the size, timing, and location of future coal leases, and the
preparation of a PEIS for the entire federal coal leasing program.
Beginning in February 1973, the DOI instituted a complete moratorium on the
issuance of new coal prospecting permits, and a moratorium with limited
exceptions on the issuance of new federal coal leases. New leases were issued
only to maintain existing mines or to supply reserves for production, where
‘‘near future’’ meant that development and production were to commence
within 3 and 5 years, respectively. These moratoriums were scaled back over
time; however, it was not completely lifted until 1981, after the PEIS had been
completed, a new leasing system had been adopted through regulation, and
litigation was resolved.
In 1982, concerns about the federal coal program arose again. This time, the
concerns related to allegations that the government did not receive FMV from a
large lease sale in the Powder River Basin under the new procedures adopted as
part of the programmatic review in the 1970s. Among other reports on the
issue, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in May
1983 concluding that the DOI had received roughly $100 million less than it
should have for the sale. In response, in July 1983, Congress directed the
Secretary to appoint members to a commission, known as the Linowes
Commission, to investigate FMV policies for federal coal leasing. Congress also,
in the 1984 Appropriations Act, directed the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) to study whether the DOI’s coal leasing program was compatible with
the nationally mandated environmental protection goals.
As part of the 1984 Appropriations Act, Congress imposed a moratorium on
the sale or lease of coal on public lands, subject to certain exceptions, starting in
1983 and ending 90 days after publication of the Linowes Commission’s report.
In February 1984, the Linowes Commission published the Report of the
Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing. In May 1984,
the OTA also released a report (Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal
2-4
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
2. Background (Overview of Federal Coal Production)
Leasing Program). The principal message of these reports was that the DOI
should (1) temper its pace of coal leasing, (2) improve and better document its
procedures for receiving FMV, and (3) take care to balance competing resource
uses in making lease decisions.
Secretary William P. Clark extended the suspension of coal leasing (with
exceptions for emergency leasing and for processing preference right lease
applications, among others) while the DOI completed its comprehensive review
of the program. This review included proposed modifications to be made by the
DOI in response to the reports from the Linowes Commission and OTA.
Secretary Clark announced on August 30, 1984, that the DOI would prepare an
EIS supplement to the 1979 PEIS for the federal coal management program. The
DOI issued the record of decision for the PEIS supplement in January 1986, in
the form of a secretarial issue document. That document recommended
continuation of the leasing program with modifications. In conjunction with
those modifications, Secretary Donald Hodel lifted the coal leasing moratorium
in 1987.
2.2
FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM REVIEW PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EFFORTS FROM MARCH
2015 TO JANUARY 2021
On March 17, 2015, former Secretary Jewell called for a review of the Federal
coal program and options for modernizing it. Following this call for review, the
BLM conducted five listening sessions to solicit information on the federal coal
program from members of the public. These listening sessions offered the public
the opportunity to comment on how the BLM can best carry out its
responsibility to ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return for leasing the coal
resources managed by the BLM on their behalf.
Following the listening sessions, Secretary Jewell issued Secretarial Order 3338,
“Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize
the Federal Coal Program.” This secretarial order directed the BLM to pause
coal leasing and conduct a comprehensive review of the federal coal program.
Following the release of this order, the BLM initiated the NEPA process and
published a Notice of Intent to prepare a PEIS. On March 30, 2016, in
accordance with NEPA, the BLM published a Notice of Intent in the Federal
Register to prepare the PEIS to review the federal coal program and to conduct
public scoping meetings.8
The Notice of Intent provided background on the federal coal program, a
preliminary set of issues that were expected to be addressed in the PEIS, and
potential modifications to the federal coal program suggested by stakeholders
during the listening sessions that could be considered in the PEIS.
8
BLM. 2016. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Review the Federal
Coal Program and to Conduct Public Scoping Meetings. Federal Register 81(61): 17720. March 30, 2016. Internet
website: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-30/pdf/2016-07138.pdf.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
2-5
2. Background (Federal Coal Program Review Public Involvement Efforts from March 2015 to January 2021)
During scoping, the BLM received a total of 214,866 submissions. In addition to
accepting written comments via email and mail, during the 2016 scoping effort,
the BLM held six public meetings across the United States during which people
could voice their comments. A comment analysis was conducted for all
submissions, and a scoping report was prepared to summarize the comments
and issues identified during scoping efforts. The 2017 final scoping report is
available on the BLM’s ePlanning website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanningui/project/65353/570. The BLM also initiated government-to-government
consultation with federally recognized tribes and sent letters to 212 tribes. The
BLM also notified cooperating agencies of the intent to prepare a PEIS. As
described in Chapter 1, the federal coal review was put on hold by Secretarial
Order 3348, which rescinded Secretarial Order 3338, thereby canceling the
preparation of the PEIS and terminating the leasing pause.
2.3
2021 FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM REVIEW PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EFFORT
On August 20, 2021, the BLM published a public notice in the Federal Register
announcing its intent to review the federal coal leasing program and soliciting
comments from the public. This notice included a 30-day public comment
period, which was later extended by an additional 15 days through publication of
a second notice in the Federal Register on September 20, 2021. The two Notices
of Intent for the 2021 comment period can be found in Appendix A.
The original Notice of Intent published August 20, 2021, served to inform the
public of the BLM’s intent to review the federal coal program and solicit
comments from the public. In particular, the Notice of Intent posed whether the
current regulatory framework should be changed to provide better mechanisms
to decide which coal resources should be made available and how the leasing
process should work, including when and where to lease. The BLM sought
comments on the following topics:
•
Fair return
•
Climate impacts
•
Socioeconomic considerations
•
Exports
•
Energy needs
•
Other potential impacts on public health and the environment
The BLM also solicited input on the following:
2-6
•
Potential new leasing models or potential reforms to the previous
or existing regional leasing and LBA models
•
Other approaches to increase competition in the leasing process
•
Data or analyses that justify a specific change to the royalty rate
•
Potential approaches to improve the pre-sale estimate of FMV
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
2. Background (2021 Federal Coal Program Review Public Involvement Effort)
•
Whether, and how, to account in the leasing process for the extent
to which reclamation responsibilities have been met
•
Potential approaches to design a budget for the amount of federal
coal and acreage to be leased over a given period
•
How to account for export potential in the leasing process
The BLM did not hold any public meetings for this public comment period.
Rather, it received written comments via email or hard-copy mail during the
comment period. The BLM also received expert reports and analyses.
As of October 5, 2021, the end of the comment period, the BLM received
77,081 comment letters. Most of these were form letters submitted via email. A
summary of this public comment process and findings are included in Chapter
4 of this report.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
2-7
2. Background
This page intentionally left blank.
2-8
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Chapter 3.
Public Involvement and Public Comment
Process
3.1
INTRODUCTION
Public involvement entails “the opportunity for participation by affected citizens
in rulemaking, decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands,
including public meetings or hearings... or advisory mechanisms, or other such
procedures as may be necessary to provide public comment in a particular
instance” (FLPMA, Section 103(d), 43 USC 1702(d)).
Although current public outreach efforts are being conducted proactively and
not as part of the NEPA process, national and BLM guidance on public
involvement as it relates to NEPA are helpful for structuring the review and
analysis of submissions received in response to the Notice of Intent to conduct
a review of the federal coal program.
3.2
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE AND PUBLIC COMMENT
The formal public comment period began on August 20, 2021, with the
publication of a Notice of Intent9 in the Federal Register. A second Federal
Register notice was published on September 20, 2021. This notice extended the
public comment period by 15 days to provide the public additional time to
submit comments. The public comment period ended on October 5, 2021 (see
Section 2.3.1 for additional information on the Notices of Intent; the notices
are also included as Appendix A).
The August 20 Notice of Intent requested comments from the public specifically
related to whether the current regulatory framework should be changed to
provide better mechanisms to decide which coal resources should be made
available and how the leasing process should work, including when and where to
9
A Notice of Intent, an official legal notice published in the Federal Register, announces that a federal agency is
beginning a process. The Notice of Intent often includes information about the public comment process.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
3-1
3. Public Involvement and Public Comment Process (Federal Register Notice and Public Comment)
lease. The BLM also welcomed suggestions for other potential approaches to
the federal coal program, including approaches that may differ from those
articulated in the Notice of Intent. Commenters were encouraged to be as
specific as possible in identifying the types of changes to the program that the
BLM should consider, including changes to regulations, guidance, and
management practices. The BLM also solicited comments from federally
recognized tribes due to the nationwide focus of the federal coal program and
the potential for impacts on resources and values of Tribal communities.
Following the end of the comment period, the BLM organized and analyzed all
comments received, and then summarized issues raised for further
consideration (see Chapter 4). These issues help define the scope of future
actions taken to review the federal coal program.
3.3
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The United States has a unique legal relationship with American Indian Tribal
governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties,
executive orders (such as Executive Order 13175), federal statutes, federal
policy, and Tribal requirements. These establish the interaction that must take
place between federal and Tribal governments. An important basis for this
relationship is the trust responsibility of the United States to protect Tribal
sovereignty, self-determination, Tribal lands, Tribal assets and resources, and
treaty and other federally recognized and reserved rights. Additionally, Tribal
consultation is required by the National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC
300101 et seq.). Tribal consultation is undertaken by the BLM to identify the
cultural values, religious beliefs, traditional practices, and legal rights of Native
American people, which could be affected by the BLM’s actions on federal lands.
Given the national focus of the federal coal program and the potential for
impacts on Tribal resources and values across the United States, the BLM sent
letters to all federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations inviting
them to engage in government-to-government consultation with the BLM
regarding its review of the federal coal program. The BLM sent Tribal
consultation invitation letters on October 4, 2021, to 348 Native American
tribes and 228 Alaska Native corporations. The BLM is involved in ongoing
government-to-government consultation with Tribes.
3-2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Chapter 4.
Summary of Public Comment Process and
Findings
4.1
COMMENT ANALYSIS PROCESS
All written submissions postmarked or received on or before October 5, 2021,
are documented in this comment summary report. Late submissions received
after the close of the comment period, but before publication of this report, are
also noted. Any other comments received throughout the federal coal program
review process will be considered, as appropriate.
Written comments were collected via the following methods:
•
Project email account at
BLM_HQ_320_CoalProgramReview@blm.gov
•
US Postal Service:
National Coal Program Review
In care of Thomas Huebner
BLM Wyoming State Office
5353 Yellowstone Rd.
Cheyenne, WY 82009
The most common format used for submissions was email. A list of
commenters who provided unique submissions is provided in Appendix B, List
of Commenters.
The BLM screened each written submission to determine whether it was a form
letter or a unique submission. Form letters are typically created by an
organization and then circulated to individuals for submittal to the BLM. Unique
submissions are those with distinct, unique text and not part of a form letter.
Where individual submitters added unique comments to a form letter, those
unique comments were extracted and treated the same as comments from
unique letter submissions.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-1
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Analysis Process)
All unique submissions, and one master copy of each form letter, were assigned
a submission tracking identifier and commenter information. The BLM entered
the submission text into a comment analysis database. Then, the BLM reviewed
the text of each unique submission to determine whether it contained
substantive comments. The BLM considered all comments received through the
comment process that provided input on the BLM’s coal program as
substantive; these comments are summarized in this report. These include
general comments directed at the efficacy and continuation of the coal program
as well as those that addressed specific parts of the program, as requested in
the Notice of Intent.
Details on unique submissions are included in Section 4.2, below. Information
from these comments, including key issues, data, and other information from
the public, was queried to prepare this comment summary report. Information
on form letters is included in Section 4.3, Form Letter Summary.
A copy of all unique submissions and a representative copy of each form
letter were made available for public review on the project website, at https://
eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016861/510.
4.2
SUMMARY OF UNIQUE SUBMISSIONS
The BLM received 533 total submissions containing 1,220 unique comments
during the comment period. Two additional unique submissions were received
after the close of the comment period and are included in this report. Table
4-1 and Figure 4-1, below, show the submission methods for the unique
submissions. Of the 533 unique submissions, most were comments offered via
email (99 percent of the total submissions), followed by comments submitted by
hard-copy mail (1 percent of the total submissions). The four submissions by
hard-copy mail were also submitted via email and are included in both counts.
Any additional comments received after the close of the comment period will
still be considered by the BLM during its review, though they are not included in
this report.
Table 4-1
Submissions by Methods of Submittal*
Submission Method
Email
Mail
Total submissions
Count
529
4
533
Percentage of Total
99
1
100
* Includes unique submissions only; does not include form letter submissions where no unique
substantive text was added.
4-2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Summary of Unique Submissions)
Number of Submissions
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
E-mail
Mail
Submission Method
Figure 4-1. Count of Submissions by Methods of Submittal
Figure 4-2 and Table 4-2, below, show the affiliation for each submitter. Most
submissions (95 percent) were provided by individuals, followed by
organizations (nonprofit and citizens’ groups; 2 percent). Letters received via
mail or email were considered to represent an organization, government, or
other group when commenters signed them using official titles from these
groups. Appendix B, List of Commenters, includes the organization affiliation,
if provided by commenters.
Table 4-2
Submissions by Affiliation*
Affiliation
Elected official
Federal government
Individual
Local government
Organization (nonprofit or citizens’
groups)
Business/Commercial
State government
Trade group
Tribal government
Total submissions
Count
1
0
508
2
11
Percentage of Total
<1
0
95
<1
2
6
2
3
0
533
1
<1
2
0
100
* Includes unique submissions only
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-3
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Summary of Unique Submissions)
Number of Submissions
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Affiliation
Figure 4-2. Submissions by Affiliation
Table 4-3 and Figure 4-3, below, show the location of commenters by state
for unique submissions; 82 commenters (15 percent) did not provide state
location information. Most of these commenters submitted their comments via
email and, therefore, did not have location information associated with their
entry. Of the commenters who did provide location information, most were
from California (17 percent), followed by Montana and Washington (5 percent
each).
Table 4-3
Commenters by Geographic Area*
Location
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
4-4
Number of
Commenters
2
1
10
89
17
3
11
6
1
3
10
5
3
2
4
10
Percentage of Total
Commenters
<1
<1
2
17
3
1
2
1
<1
1
2
1
1
<1
1
2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Summary of Unique Submissions)
Location
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington DC
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
No state information provided
Total commenters
Number of
Commenters
9
11
10
7
28
12
2
2
9
8
7
22
12
1
21
16
3
5
3
6
14
4
6
5
4
29
4
3
15
82
533
Percentage of Total
Commenters
2
2
2
1
5
2
<1
<1
2
2
1
4
2
<1
4
3
1
1
<1
1
3
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
3
15
100
* Includes unique submissions only. Some submissions had more than one commenter.
Not all form letter submissions are included in Table 4-3. Percentage may not add up to
100 due to rounding errors.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-5
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Summary of Unique Submissions)
Figure 4-3. Commenters by Geographic Area
4.3
FORM LETTER SUMMARY
In addition to unique submissions, several organizations organized form letter
campaigns. In total, the BLM received 76,910 form letter submissions from nine
form letter campaigns; details of the form letter submissions are shown in
Table 4-4, below.
The BLM entered a representative example of each form letter into the
comment analysis database. Substantive comments were categorized as
described for unique submissions. Letters that represented slight variations of
the form letter without significant additional information were treated as form
letters. When additional substantive comments were added to the form letter,
these letters were entered into the comment-tracking database as a form letter
with added text. The additional substantive comments were categorized
according to issue topic categories, as described for unique submissions.
Table 4-4
Form Letter Submissions*
Initiating Organization
Earthjustice
Friends of the Earth
4-6
Number of Submissions
22,788
34,903
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Form Letter Summary)
Initiating Organization
(Federal Coal Leasing Review 86
Federal Register 46873 Public
Comment)
Number of Submissions
18,526
Sierra Club
295
(Protect our land and water! Pause
coal leasing)
41
(Reform the Federal Coal Program to
Protect Climate, Land, Water,
and Taxpayers)
168
350.org
179
(Permanently cease coal mining from
public lands)
5
(Don’t continue subsidies for the coal
industry)
5
Total submissions
76,910
* The BLM identified the initiating organizations for all but five of the form letter campaigns. For letter
campaigns where no organization was identified, a description of the subject line or main letter content is
included in the table. Additional form letters received after the close of the comment period are not
included in these counts.
4.4
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
The BLM classified all substantive comments under an identified issue category
(note: some comments were categorized into more than one issue category).
The BLM also tagged comments if they contained references, data, or a policy
option for consideration. In total, 26 comments contained a reference or data,
and 54 contained a policy option.
The BLM identified 14 issue categories relevant to the reform of the federal coal
program. Issue categories were developed based on topics identified in the Notice of
Intent and traditional BLM resource topics. Table 4-5, below, lists the issue
categories.
Table 4-5 and Figure 4-4, below, show the number and percentage of
comments received by issue category. The BLM categorized 1,220 comments in
total. The largest number of comments (15 percent) was assigned to the general
comment on coal category. Other significant categories included fair
return/bonds bids, rents, royalties (12 percent), climate change (9 percent),
general federal review process (8 percent), socioeconomics (6 percent), and
coal leasing process (5 percent). Section 4.6, Comment Summaries, provides
more detailed descriptions of the comments received for each issue category.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-7
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Summary of Comments)
Table 4-5
Comments by Issue Category*
Issue Category
1. General federal review process
1.1 Comment period extension request
1.2 Add to mailing list
1.3 Requests for public meetings
1.4 Other laws
1.5 Policy options presented
1.6 Data/Report/Study included
2. Air quality
3. Climate change
4. Carbon/greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
4.1 Accounting for GHG emissions
4.2 Social cost of carbon
4.3 Carbon capture
4.4 National carbon reduction goals
5. Coal program topics
5.1 General comments on coal
5.2 Coal land use planning decisions
5.3 Specific coal lease application
5.4 Coal leasing process
5.5 Coal bonding
5.6 Fair return/bonus bids, rents, and royalties
5.7 Pre-sale FMV
5.8 Coal exports
5.9 Coal reclamation
5.10 Coal mitigation
5.11 Coal transportation
6. Environmental justice
7. Public health and safety
8. Socioeconomics
9. Tribal interests and concerns
10. Surface owner and surface management agency
interests
11. Visual resources
12. Water resources
13. Biological resources
14. Renewable energy
Total unique comments
Number of
Comments
103
7
2
3
18
54
26
4
106
8
39
23
3
54
Percentage of
Issue Comments
8
1
<1
<1
2
4
2
<1
9
1
3
2
<1
4
183
11
15
56
3
145
19
39
37
2
12
25
54
72
13
15
1
1
5
<1
12
2
3
3
<1
1
2
4
6
1
4
1
19
10
50
1,220
<1
<1
2
1
4
100
* Some comments were coded in more than one category. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
errors.
4-8
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Summary of Comments)
180
Number of Comments
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Issue Category*
*Only the top issue categories are shown
Figure 4-4. Comments by Issue Category
4.5
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED PER THE NOTICE OF INTENT
As noted in Section 2.3.1, the Notice of Intent identified issues for
consideration by the BLM. A cross-walk10 of issue codes and issue topics
identified in the Notice of Intent is included in Table 4-6. Some comment
issues fell within more than one Notice of Intent issue topic.
Table 4-6
Issue Cross-Walk
Notice of Intent Issue
Fair return
Climate impacts
10
Comment Issue Category
4.2. Social cost of carbon, 5.4. Coal leasing process, 5.6. Fair
return/coal revenues, 5.7. Pre-sale FMV
3. Climate change, 4.1. Accounting for GHG emissions, 4.2.
Social cost of carbon, 4.3. Carbon capture, 4.4. National carbon
reduction goals
Table showing the relationship between two other tables
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-9
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Issues to be Addressed per the Notice of Intent)
Notice of Intent Issue
Other impacts
Comment Issue Category
2. Air quality, 5.11. Coal transportation, 7. Public health and
safety, 9. Tribal interests and Native American Religious
Concerns, 10. Surface owner and surface management agency
concerns, 11. Visual resources, 12. Water resources, 13.
Biological resources, 15. Other resource impacts
4.2. Social cost of carbon, 6. Environmental justice, 8.
Socioeconomics
5.8 Coal exports
5.1. General comments on coal, 5.3. Coal leasing process, 14.
Renewable energy
Socioeconomic
considerations
Exports
Energy needs
4.6
COMMENT SUMMARIES
The following sections include a summary of the comments received. They are
organized by comment type and issue category. A complete list of comments
can be found in Appendix C, Comments by Issue Category.
4.6.1
Data and References
The BLM received 26 comments that included data for consideration or
citations to references for review. In addition, many commenters attached
reference materials, white papers, or other data to their submissions for review.
References provided by commenters are detailed in Appendix C and generally
include requests to incorporate:
•
The Climate Test Tool being developed by the Natural Resources
Defense Council
•
References related to coal valuation, markets, reserves, speculative
leasing, and exports (the economics of the coal program)
•
Specific publications on climate change, the cost of carbon, GHG
and methane emissions, etc.
•
Publications on impacts on specific resources as a result of mining in
general and coal specifically
The BLM has considered this information in the development of this comment
summary report and will conduct an in-depth review of this information as part
of its federal coal program review, as relevant.
4.6.2
4-10
Policy Options and Recommendations
There were 54 comments suggesting options for updating or revising federal
coal leasing and permitting policies. Many commenters provided specific steps or
actions, or both, that should occur as part of the review of the federal coal
program. The comments included alternatives to consider, suggested analyses,
use of existing authorities to refine/end the coal program, and criteria for
consideration of leasing.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
Commenters suggested options for ensuring a fair return to taxpayers from
federal coal leasing. Examples of these options included updating the process
and factors for the BLM’s determinations of FMV, increasing or decreasing the
royalty rate, updating the process and factors for setting bonus bid amounts,
and changing the BLM’s leasing process to increase competition.
Additional comments expressed concern regarding climate change, particularly
GHG emissions and carbon emissions and sequestration. These comments
suggested analyses of impacts should be included as part of the coal review
process. Comments also suggested options for updating the federal coal
program to help achieve US carbon emission reduction goals. Options suggested
to meet this objective included quantifying GHG emissions and the social cost of
carbon, limiting the amount of federal coal leased according to a carbon budget,
using federal revenues to incentivize clean energy technologies, using a climate
test tool/process to determine impacts on climate from various decisions, and
requiring mitigation of climate impacts. Some commenters advocated for an
analysis of the impacts of exporting federal coal as well as potential impacts
from the transport of coal via rail and truck.
Other commenters suggested options for improving protection and
management of public lands in the coal program, such as updating the coal
unsuitability criteria, increasing mitigation requirements, strengthening bonding
requirements, and increasing reclamation requirements. Some commenters
suggested that the BLM end the coal leasing program altogether, while others
provided specific examples of potential changes to the leasing process and
program overall.
4.6.3
Issue 1 General Federal Review Process
The BLM received 103 comments related to the federal review process in
general. Commenters expressed concern over the purpose of and need for the
BLM’s review of the federal coal program. Some stated that the rationale for
program review is unfounded, current regulations are adequate, and the BLM
has denied reasons for review in the past. Other commenters stated that a PEIS
is appropriate to assess potential impacts and that the program is due for
reform. Some commenters requested a moratorium on coal leasing until the
review is complete.
Commenters noted the following concerns and recommendations for the
general review process:
•
December 2021
The BLM should consider the socioeconomic impacts on coal
communities and the industry in general, and engage with Alaska,
Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Colorado governments to consider
the potential environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural impacts on
coal-dependent communities.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-11
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
The BLM’s regulatory framework should be revised to include
future uses of coal, such as (1) the production of critical minerals,
including rare earth elements, for coal, overburden, and coal
byproducts; and (2) carbon capture and storage, and carbon
capture, utilization, and storage under federal lands or through the
federal mineral estate(s).
•
The BLM would violate 30 USC 201(a)(3)(C) if it unjustifiably
freezes or pauses new leasing, which would create undue harm for
the industry. The BLM should follow the recommendations from the
2017 Utah Governor’s Office of Energy Development and
implement a cost-benefit analysis.
•
The BLM must adhere to all applicable federal laws, such as the
MLA, and let Congress determine the national energy policy.
•
The BLM’s current regulatory framework is sufficient and satisfies
the needs of all required parties.
Commenters had some recommendations and concerns about the use of a PEIS
as an analysis method. A commenter stated the BLM cannot rely on a PEIS
process because sites can be subject to stricter on-site considerations. In
addition, commenters requested that a PEIS consider reasonable agency review
time frames for coal leasing.
Also, commenters recommended that the PEIS assess the impact of federal coal
leasing on GHG emissions and ensure they are in line with emission reduction
goals. Some commenters requested that the BLM institute a climate test and
analyze the potential for stranded assets and abandoned mines, and their
impacts on communities. A commenter requested that the BLM disavow
“perfect substitution,” which obscures GHG emissions from coal leases.
Furthermore, court cases confirm the BLM’s ability to include GHG emissions in
coal leases.
Commenters noted the following specific concerns:
•
Evaluation of the coal program at a landscape level is redundant
because federally mined coal already includes a NEPA analysis at
multiple stages.
•
In recently completed reviews, the Office of Inspector General of
the DOI and the GAO had only modest recommendations to
improve the coal management program, and there were not enough
recommendations to suggest a PEIS.
Commenters made several recommendations for framing the purpose and need,
as well as the objective, of a PEIS, if completed. Their concerns and
recommendations to the purpose and need, and objective are highlighted below:
4-12
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Minimize the extent to which federal coal contributes to emissions
that drive climate change and mitigate GHG emissions.
•
Maximize the value of coal under DOI regulations (43 CFR
46.420(a)(1), 43 USC 1701(a)(8), 30 USC 201, and 43 USC
1701(a)(9)).
•
Analyze upstream and downstream emissions from coal.
•
Identify and present a detailed analysis of the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts.
•
Provide a fair return to taxpayers.
•
Use an interagency management approach to ensure compliance
with all federal laws.
•
Develop public interest criteria to better delineate which coal leases
are not in the public interest.
Commenters made several suggestions for potential alternatives that a PEIS may
consider. Commenters requested that the BLM consider a range of reasonable
alternatives, including alternatives that reduce GHG emissions while adhering to
42 USC 4332(2)(C)(iii), 40 CFR 1502.14, and 40 CFR 1502.14(a). Commenters
also stated that under 40 CFR 1502.14(d), the BLM must consider a no-action
alternative that makes no changes to the current leasing program. Furthermore,
commenters suggested that the BLM should analyze market substitution effects
on coal, oil, and gas technologies and disclose the differences in emissions by
alternative.
Commenters also voiced a concern that interim actions undertaken by the DOI
might prejudice an ultimate decision. Additional immediate measures for
transparency were recommended. In addition, the commenters requested that
the BLM pause consideration of any pending or new royalty rate reduction
requests or approval of any coal lease or mining plan that would lead to
underground mining activities requiring degasification systems, until completion
of the coal program review. Commenters noted the following:
December 2021
•
The BLM has the authority to issue a coal leasing moratorium from
Secretarial Order 2952 and court cases.
•
The BLM should compile an inventory of all existing and future coal
leases.
•
There has been a significant lapse in previous coal records of
decision and updated climate science; the BLM must acknowledge
this in the leasing process.
•
The BLM should pause any decisions on royalty relief reduction
applications and rates until the review is complete.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-13
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
The BLM should cancel all leases illegally approved under the
previous administration that were invalidated by federal courts.
Commenters had the following suggestions when conducting the federal coal
program review:
•
The BLM should ensure a sufficient direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts analysis that analyzes the physical, chemical, radiological,
biological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, and social effects.
•
The BLM should adhere to its statutory mandate (43 USC
1701(a)(8) and 40 CFR 1502.14) when conducting a NEPA process.
•
The BLM should rectify all federal coal production areas as “coal
production regions” for better regulatory control.
•
The BLM should coordinate with states in the withdrawal of public
federal lands.
•
The analysis should include a discussion of oil and gas development
and state and private coal development.
•
The BLM should fully review the lease modification process and,
among other reforms, require full EISs on all proposed leases to
ensure proposals are in the public interest. The BLM must be
mindful that even for land management agencies, the agency retains
full discretion to avoid leasing if it is not in the public interest.
•
The analysis should consider recently finalized regulations and
decisions, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Power Plan, and land
use plan amendments for greater sage-grouse protection, and their
impacts on coal mining.
•
The analysis should incorporate the social cost of carbon and social
cost of methane into the royalty rate for existing federal coal leases
as they come up for 10-year renewals (readjustments).11
•
The BLM should review, incorporate lessons learned, and
incorporate recommendations in the 2017 scoping report.
•
The BLM should ban the mining, transportation, and burning of coal
as well as any products associated with coal.
•
The process should allow public participation opportunities under
Section 1202(i) of the SMCRA.
•
The BLM should use the Federal Register, local news, and radio
announcements during the public participation process.
11
Coal leases are readjusted, not renewed. Commenters sometimes used the term “renewal” to reference the
readjustment process; therefore, the term is retained verbatim when used in a comment.
4-14
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
The analysis should disclose agency staff, contractors, and the
timeline of the review.
•
The BLM should prepare comprehensive geographic information
system data and maps of coal resources and other key data; also,
the BLM should make this information available for public review.
•
The BLM should design a PEIS that could be tiered to and help
facilitate a more streamlined leasing process; the PEIS should include
specific guidelines on the NEPA process for obtaining a lease.
•
The BLM should prepare a reasonably foreseeable development
scenario.
•
The analysis should quantify all coal impacts.
•
The BLM should involve the OSMRE and other relevant state and
federal agencies to create a comprehensive review that reviews the
relationship between the federal coal program and the development
of coal resources in other regions. The process should account for
socioeconomic impacts from reduced leasing and mining in coaldependent states.
Issue 1.1 and 1.2 Comment Period Extension Request and Mailing List
The BLM received 7 comments requesting that the BLM extend the comment
period to allow commenters more time to submit written comments and 2
requests to be added to the mailing list.
Issue 1.3 Requests for Public Meetings
The BLM received 3 comments requesting public meetings. Commenters
requested robust and accessible public and Tribal participation processes that
include online and in-person options. One commenter suggested that the DOI
assemble a stakeholder group that would advise the federal coal leasing
program. Another commenter requested that the DOI provide translation
services, interpretation, refreshments, childcare, and ample time for all
participants to comment at in-person meetings.
Issue 1.4 Other Laws
The BLM received 18 comments related to other applicable federal laws.
Comments generally focused on specific federal laws, such as the FLMPA, MLA,
SMCRA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Many noted the need for compliance with or BLM responsibilities associated
with these laws.
Commenters were concerned that despite requirements under FLPMA and
other BLM guidance that require a FMV to be obtained for federal coal, the
BLM’s historical practices of single bidding and failure to consider the full social
costs of mining and burning coal have ultimately not yielded a fair return for
federal coal.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-15
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
Commenters made several suggestions to reinstate or revise laws relating to
mineral leasing. Commenters requested that the BLM reinstate the expired
Instruction Memorandum No. 2017-034. One commenter suggested revising
interstate commerce laws that allow states to override environmental
regulations in other states. One commenter encouraged the BLM to move
forward with the Revision of Existing Regulations Pertaining to Fossil Fuel
Leases and Leasing (43 CFR 3100 and 3400). One commenter was concerned
that in general, the laws governing the sale of federally owned coal were written
prior to our understanding of the climate effects of burning coal.
Commenters reminded the BLM that all coal leases (current and future) must
fully comply with SMCRA, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, the BLM must consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. One commenter recommended that the BLM should prohibit or limit
leasing to companies that have violated the terms of their leasing permits and
those that have not met their reclamation or bonding requirements.
Commenters stated that the BLM has the authority to—and should—pause and
eventually end coal leasing under the MLA. Commenters had many suggested
revisions to the implementation of the MLA. These included improving the
efficacy of mitigation measures for adverse environmental, social, and public
health impacts attributable to coal, and clarifying that federal lease-related
royalties are intended to mitigate negative impacts related to coal. Another
commenter was concerned that the negative climate impacts resulting from
federal coal lease sales was not in alignment with the MLA’s requirement to
“safeguard... the public welfare.”
One commenter suggested that the BLM’s sale of federal coal for mining and
burning infringed upon the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
4.6.4
Issue 2 Air Quality
The BLM received 4 comments that related to air quality. Most comments
expressed concerns related to impacts on air quality from the federal coal
program.
Commenters stated concern for the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
that coal mining, burning, and transport can have on air quality, including an
increase of pollutants in the air. Pollutants of concern included particulate
matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, particulate matter with a diameter
of 2.5 microns or less, ozone, and nitrogen oxides released during the
transportation and burning of coal. Commenters suggested that increases in
pollutants, dusts, and other hazardous materials contribute to haze and affect
visibility.
Commenters requested that coal processes comply with air quality standards
set in the Clean Air Act as well as local, state, and federal standards.
4-16
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
Commenters requested that the BLM include a discussion and modeling of local
and regional air quality conditions for the different leasing scenarios under each
proposed alternative.
Commenters also requested an analysis of air quality related values and the role
they have in the air quality permitting process for federal coal leases.
4.6.5
Issue 3 Climate Change
The BLM received 106 comments related to climate change. Commenters
expressed concern about the contribution that coal mining and coal use have on
climate change and stated that most coal must stay un-mined if we are to avoid
the worst effects of climate change. Commenters stated that burning coal
extracted from public lands represents a significant contribution to GHG
emissions and climate change.
Commenters also expressed concerns about specific direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts related to climate change, including the following:
•
More intense and severe weather events
•
More frequent and intense wildfires
•
Further air quality impacts
•
Impacts on human health
•
Impacts on carbon sequestration
•
Impacts on other uses of public lands
•
Rising sea levels
•
Reduced water storage of snowpacks
•
Heat waves
Commenters stated concern that more coal has already been leased than is
possible to burn without exceeding carbon budgets to meet climate objectives.
Commenters suggested that the BLM should evaluate all fossil fuels and their
relation to climate change; this evaluation should take GHG emissions into
consideration. Commenters suggested implementation of mitigation strategies
to offset the climate impacts produced by the federal coal program. They stated
that a transition from coal to renewable energies will also help to mitigate
climate impacts and aid in emissions goals. Furthermore, commenters suggested
that the damage caused from climate change should play a large role in
determining the viability and economics of future coal leases. Commenters
voiced concerns over continuing to use coal long term and its harm to
taxpayers and the climate.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-17
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
4.6.6
Issue 4 Carbon/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The BLM received 8 comments related generally to carbon and GHG emissions.
Comments generally focused on how to account for and analyze GHG
emissions and the social cost of carbon, how to incorporate carbon capture,
and the need for the BLM to account for and meet national carbon reduction
goals.
Commenters also expressed concern that the transportation, extraction, and
combustion of coal are contributing to GHG emissions. Commenters are
concerned about the release of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane,
particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and organic mercury compounds from the
various coal processes.
Issue 4.1 Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal
The BLM received 39 comments related to GHG emissions. Commenters
stated that all GHG emissions should be accounted for, including CO2, nitrogen
oxides, black carbon, methane, and carbon monoxide.
Commenters requested that the BLM assess the ecological, economic, and
social impacts of GHG emissions and analyze their associated significance in the
same manner as other resource analysis. Commenters also requested that the
BLM analyze the impacts of GHG emissions in addition to any quantitative
assessment that looks at the volume of emissions.
Commenters stated that reducing coal consumption is one of the easier
methods to reduce GHG emissions, noting that it is the highest-emitting fossil
fuel. Commenters referenced that coal GHG emissions are responsible for a
large portion of GHG emissions on public lands.
Commenters requested that the BLM use reliable measurements and
verification, as well as automated reporting, to account for GHG emissions in
the coal life cycle.
To adequately account for GHG emissions, commenters requested that the
BLM apply the 1978 Council on Environmental Quality regulation, as amended
in 1986 and 2005, and the current body of NEPA case law for legal justification.
Commenters requested implementation of rules to account for GHG emissions
through fees and carbon taxes for lease holders. One commenter suggested the
BLM consider implementing a rule allowing for a fee to cover the downstream
GHG emissions from burning coal. Another method suggested was
implementing a climate change impacts fee on coal extracted from federal lands.
Furthermore, some commenters recommend that the BLM pursue a twotonged approach strategy: impose higher royalty rates and add a new carbon
emission fee.
4-18
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
Commenters noted that states within the United States have a substantial
interest in ensuring the federal coal program does not undermine existing
efforts to respond to climate change. Commenters noted that state efforts
would be undermined by continuing to lease, mine, and burn federal coal; the
commenters cited California’s GHG emission reduction goals.
Commenters requested that the BLM analyze and disclose the cumulative
impacts of GHG emissions, for the following reasons:
•
To address impacts on climate change resulting from GHG
emissions and consider how the BLM decisions under the federal
coal program would cumulatively impact climate change.
•
To allow the public and decision-makers to adequately compare
alternatives. Commenters listed examples of litigation efforts that
further highlight the need for considering cumulative impacts.
•
To assess cumulative long-term impairment to the atmosphere.
Commenters requested that the BLM account for cumulative
impacts through a programmatic approach that looks at GHG
emissions resulting from BLM policies and practices since at least
1965. They suggested using and updating work done by the US
Geological Survey to account for GHG emissions from federal lands
from 2005 to 2014.
Commenters had various suggestions for the quantitative assessment of GHG
emissions, including:
December 2021
•
The BLM should refrain from using methods in which the emissions
associated with the BLM’s actions are compared with a state,
national, or global inventory. Commenters stated that using a solely
quantitative approach to the GHG emissions analysis does not
account for the incremental impacts; they cited court cases where
these approaches were found to be inadequate.
•
The quantitative analysis should account for coal extracted on
federal lands that is exported to other countries. The BLM should
perform an extraction-based emissions accounting in which
emissions from burning fossil fuels are attributed to the country
where they are extracted.
•
An inflation indexed amount of $53 to $500 per ton of emitted CO2
equivalent emissions should be used, plus a percentage of revenue
beyond this amount.
•
As one means of analyzing the magnitude of the proposal’s climate
impact, commenters suggested the BLM use carbon budgets to
assess and compare impacts of program alternatives and consider
the federal coal program as a percentage of the remaining US
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-19
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
carbon budget. One commenter suggested using global carbon
budgeting as a method for analyzing the significance of GHG
emissions.
Commenters stated that the federal coal program review should analyze GHG
emissions and associated impacts from all stages of coal mining and usage. They
noted the following:
•
Any cumulative analysis should consider that the lease is responsible
for GHG emissions during not only mine operations but also as a
result of processing, transport, storage, combustion, and coal ash,
wherever they occur.
•
Commenters suggested GHG emissions be measured in a way that
accounts for emissions produced by the destruction of trees and
other plants that carry out photosynthesis.
•
The BLM should analyze impacts on GHG emissions at the
leasehold stage; these commenters highlighted supporting case law.
•
GHG emissions should be considered for renewals of existing
leases.
•
The effect of leasing decisions on coal combustion downstream
should be considered. Also, the BLM should include an analysis of
the interaction of federal coal leasing with other law and market
constraints.
•
Some commenters expressed concern on using inflated and
nebulous values for climate change externalities and questioned
whether the BLM has the legal and statutory authority to account
for such impacts. Some commenters stated that the BLM will be
violating lessees’ contracts and property rights if climate change
accounting is added to existing leases.
Issue 4.2 Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, etc.
There were 23 comments related to the application of the social cost of carbon.
Commenters stated that the social cost of GHGs, including carbon and
methane, should be evaluated when reforming the federal coal program.
Commenters also noted that there are several recent court decisions
supporting the use of the social cost of GHG. They suggested the following:
4-20
•
The social costs of GHG should be built into coal royalties to
reflect the true cost of climate change.
•
Social costs should be used to quantify climate impacts of the coal
proposal as well as the alternatives.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
The social cost of GHG should be used in comparison with the
economic benefits from coal production to provide an additional
perspective on impacts.
•
The social cost of GHG is the best available scientific and economic
basis for evaluating the impacts of coal leases, and using the social
cost of GHG would be consistent with federal regulations that
require the use of current, credible scientific evidence.
Several commenters stated that accounting for the social cost of coal would
lead to increased coal cost. Some felt this increase would benefit the
environment.
Commenters also provided specific direction for including the social cost of
GHG (such as including it as a fee and separating it from the royalties),
recommended models for the social cost of GHG analysis (such as methods for
calculating the percent increase to royalties to account for the cost of GHG),
and suggested alternative measures of quantifying the carbon cost and other
externalities. One alternative method for incorporating the costs of coal
production is the climate test that is currently being developed. Commenters
noted that there are differences in methodologies and how the results should
be interpreted between the climate test and GHG’s social cost. Because of
these differences, some commenters said that increasing fees, accounting for
GHG emissions in royalties, and implementing a climate test should be used in
evaluating coal leasing.
Some commenters expressed that the social cost of carbon falls short in
accounting for all damages associated with coal production, and additional costs
of coal leasing should be used to inform royalty increases or fees.
Other commenters stated opposition to imposing a social cost of carbon for the
following reasons:
December 2021
•
The social cost of carbon estimates are technically unsound. The
cost estimates have varied historically, and some of these estimates
were not peer-reviewed and did not follow Office of Management
and Budget guidelines around discount rates.
•
The social cost of carbon has not undergone notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
•
There is no corresponding social benefit of carbon that includes all
employment and economic benefits to compare with the social
costs.
•
The social cost of carbon does not consider the fossil fuel
producers that will mitigate their GHG emissions through
mechanisms such as carbon capture and sequestration.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-21
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
The social cost of carbon was designed to measure global impacts of
carbon, so it would not be effective in evaluating project-level
decisions.
Issue 4.3 Carbon Capture
The BLM received 3 comments related to carbon capture. Some commenters
expressed support for the continuation of the federal coal program with the
implementation of a carbon capture use and storage program. They stated that
the use of a carbon capture system would help coal remain a viable energy
source and offset some of the environmental impacts and pollutants.
Issue 4.4 National Carbon Reduction Goals
The BLM received 54 comments related to national (and international) carbon
reduction goals. In general, these comments expressed concern related to how
the BLM would align the federal coal program with international and national
GHG reduction goals and agreements, and executive and secretarial orders.
Commenters expressed concern regarding how the federal coal program will
align with the Biden administration’s GHG reduction goals reflected in the Paris
Agreement and the Clean Power Plan. Specifically, commenters focused on
whether continued levels of US coal production were consistent with the Paris
Agreement and the commitment to stay under 2 degrees Celsius of warming,
and they questioned whether coal exports undermine the commitment to end
reliance on coal by 2020. Furthermore, some commenters focused on whether
the continued leasing of coal undermines climate goals set at the 2021 United
Nations Climate Change Conference.
Commenters stated that GHG emissions from public lands represent 10 to 25
percent of US GHG emissions and further coal leasing on public lands is
incompatible with President Biden’s climate goals. Commenters also requested
that the BLM acknowledge that continued federal coal leasing undermines the
Biden administration’s clean energy and climate goals. Moreover, commenters
stated that the BLM must stop issuing coal leases on federal lands to reduce
emissions and align with President Biden’s climate goals.
A commenter recommended that the BLM adhere to Secretarial Orders 3226
and 3289, and Executive Orders 13990 and 14008 when analyzing new leases to
ensure the BLM follows the US climate reduction goals. Furthermore,
commenters suggested that the BLM strengthen the executive orders
mentioned above to reduce carbon emissions and to halt coal leasing.
Commenters recommended that the BLM track and reduce GHG emissions on
public lands to be compatible with the Biden administration’s climate goals.
Furthermore, commenters argued that creating a more robust emissions
tracking system will help the BLM create a resilient policy.
Commenters recommended that the BLM should recognize the scientifically
defensible, economically viable, and technically feasible target of reducing total
4-22
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
US emissions by close to 100 percent by 2050, while simultaneously enhancing
sequestration capacity of sinks to drawdown historical cumulative CO2
emissions, placing the US on an emissions trajectory consistent with returning
atmospheric CO2 to below 350 parts per million by 2100. Furthermore,
commenters expressed doubt that further coal leasing is compatible with the
2030 climate goal of emissions being 50–52 percent below 2005 levels.
Commenters also cited studies suggesting that new federal coal leasing at any
significant level is inconsistent with climate goals. To help meet climate
commitments, commenters suggested creating a carbon budget to help meet
emissions reduction goals and implementing a carbon adder for upstream
emissions. Commenters also stated that not combusting coal is critical to
meeting climate goals and that the BLM should finalize the coal mine methane
rulemaking, because of the potent impact methane has on climate change.
A commenter stated that the use of metallurgical coal for steelmaking is
consistent with the 2050 temperature goals under the Paris Agreement. Other
commenters noted that the continued leasing of coal does not go against the
Biden administration’s climate goals when compared with oil and gas leasing on
federal lands.
4.6.7
Issue 5 Coal Issue Topics
Issue 5.1 General Comment on Coal
The BLM received 183 comments generally related to coal. General comments
on coal largely fell under two main categories: commenters who requested a
complete cessation of new leases, a reduction in coal mining, or increased
regulation of coal mining on federal lands and those who favored limited
modifications to the coal program, continued coal mining, or expansion of coal
mining on federal lands.
Commenters requesting a cessation or reduction in coal mining provided the
following rationales and opinions:
December 2021
•
The federal coal program has not been modified in many years and
is due for a reform.
•
There is reduced demand for coal due to market and policy
conditions, and mining on federal lands needs to be phased out.
Some commenters emphasized the need for a clear wind-down
approach and support for coal communities.
•
The environmental impacts of coal outweigh the beneficial uses.
•
Coal mining contributes to climate change and GHG emissions.
•
Coal’s environmental impacts, particularly around air quality and
public health and safety, are significant in both upstream and
downstream parts of the industry.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-23
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Taxpayers should not subsidize an industry that is already
uneconomic and does not provide a fair return.
•
One commenter noted that federal coal is no longer necessary to
meet US energy needs but that federal support is needed to
transform the market.
Commenters who favored maintaining or expanding federal coal mining
provided the following rationales and opinions:
•
Coal is a low-cost energy source and is necessary to provide
reliable and affordable electricity.
•
Coal continues to be an important baseline energy source in the US,
and demand is not likely to decrease significantly in the near term.
•
Energy security is increasingly important in light of cybersecurity,
weather, and grid/infrastructure concerns. Coal serves as an
important source of electricity during events that impact other
sources, such as natural gas and renewable; therefore, coal is
necessary for energy security and independence.
•
Investments should be made in clean coal technology over
alternative energy sources.
•
Decreasing coal supplies from federal lands will not decrease
reliance on coal overall, and companies will shift to nonfederal and
international suppliers.
•
Coal mines are not as strictly regulated in other countries;
exporting coal extraction to other countries would lead to worse
environmental degradation and harm, when compared with US coal
producers.
•
Coal continues to provide strong revenue flows for certain states;
reducing coal leasing would significantly impact some state finances.
•
Some US sources of coal are low sulfur; therefore, they are
consistent with emission control requirements under the Clean Air
Act.
Some commenters in support of continuation of the federal coal program
provided specific information on the importance of federal coal in their state,
including statistics on coal extracted, the importance of that coal to US energy
security, and economic implications.
Issue 5.2 Coal Land Use Planning Decisions
The BLM received 11 comments related to coal land use planning decisions.
Commenters stated that, when making coal land use planning decisions, the
BLM should consider other land uses on public lands and lands with
environmentally sensitive or special habitat value. Commenters requested that
4-24
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
the BLM review and revise unsuitability criteria, implement unsuitability
screening criteria at the land use planning level, and document the screening
process. Specific areas suggested as unsuitable for leasing were those where the
hydrological balance cannot be restored to pre-mining conditions and areas
where coal development should be avoided due to high conflicts with wildlife,
fisheries, water, air, and protected lands.
Commenters also requested more focus on national parks and the areas around
them when evaluating the leasing program. They stated it was important to
consider the following: (1) impacts on natural, cultural, and historic resources;
(2) visitor use and enjoyment, now and in the future; (3) cumulative risks of the
program; (4) indirect and direct effects on air quality, including visibility; (5)
water quality and groundwater resources; (6) impacts on historic properties,
objects, traditional cultural properties, archaeological sites, and cultural
landscapes; and (7) protection of traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and
other traditional-use areas.
Some commenters believe the current regulatory guidance is sufficient.
Commenters stated that even though LBA may not be an easy process for
mining companies, the BLM has a right to price these leases as the BLM chooses.
This is because the BLM is the best equipped to identify the tracts of land to be
mined. Other commenters stated that the process has no consideration of the
money it takes to apply or the cost of not receiving a lease after applying and
having to reapply. Commenters also expressed concern with budgets limiting
the total amount of coal that could be leased; they stated that budgets should
only be used on a need-based approach and are unnecessary interventions.
Some commenters expressed concern over BLM changes to land suitability
classes; they stated that the BLM should not be able to change the eligibility of
land that can be used without congressional agreement. Commenters felt the
BLM has not given enough consideration to coal mining companies. The BLM is
decertifying areas that are important to the success of these companies.
Commenters also had concerns about the effects on energy prices. They felt
there should be a minimum number of leases put into place to avoid this
concern.
Issue 5.3 Specific Coal Lease Applications
The BLM received 15 comments specific to existing coal lease applications.
Commenters stated concern over the environmental impacts of leasing for
specific coal lease applications, including at Alton Mine, Greens Hollow Coal
tract (SUFCO Mine), and Skyline Mine. Commenters also expressed concern
over the environmental impacts of the Buffalo and Miles City resource
management plans.
Commenters also encouraged the BLM to pause any specific action to pending
LBAs, such as the West Antelope III lease application, while the coal program
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-25
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
review is occurring. A commenter requested that the BLM continue to process
the LBA for CM Energy LP and its affiliate, Freedom Energy LP. This commenter
noted that the Freedom Energy LBA contains metallurgical coal, and additionally
requested that the BLM consider metallurgical coal as distinct from thermal
coal. A commenter requested that the BLM audit all royalty rate reductions
given to Wolverine Fuels LLC and other companies to ensure they have not
been illegally appropriated, starting with the 2020 Performance Audit of the
Permanent Community Impact Fund and the 2021 Oil Slick report.
A commenter requested that no more money be used for carbon capture at the
City Water, Light, and Power coal plant in Springfield, Illinois. Instead, the
commenter suggesting redirecting funds toward ash cleanup and water
treatment and purification.
Issue 5.4 Coal Leasing Process
The BLM received 56 comments on the coal leasing process. Most of these
focused on changing the process itself to be more streamlined or to better
address environmental impacts, or they suggested that the BLM should consider
cessation of the leasing process altogether.
Many commenters voiced their concerns for the current leasing process. Some
stated that the leasing process takes too long and should be streamlined to
remove redundancy and unnecessary barriers to development. Other
commenters suggested specific changes to the leasing process to limit
environmental impacts and to ensure a fair and transparent leasing process.
Some commenters noted that coal leasing should only occur if it is determined
to be in the public interest. Other commenters recommended abolishing the
leasing process altogether.
Commenters recommending changes to the leasing process suggested the
following:
4-26
•
Discontinue the LBA approach because it does not encourage
competitive bids or FMV.
•
Examine leasing at the coal reserve level and reinstate coalproducing regions in which regional planning accounts for market
conditions and environmental impacts. Increase competition among
coal companies for federal coal leases.
•
Strengthen unsuitability criteria to protect sensitive or special areas
from coal development and to ensure prioritization of the public
interest in the leasing process.
•
Cap new lease terms to 1 year.
•
Examine the BLM’s internal cost of maintaining the coal leasing
program, including secondary and tertiary costs. Model the federal
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
coal leasing process using the regional planning process outlined in
Secretarial Order 3330 and the 2014 report titled A Strategy for
Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department
of the Interior. Model the transparent process used by the state of
Montana to lease its Otter Creek coal tracts.
•
Consider increasing (but not lowering) rental and royalty fees over
time to adjust for inflation and new conditions over time.
•
Include annual coal production limits in coal leasing contracts.
•
Halt coal lease auctions that do not have more than one active
bidder.
•
Prohibit lease modifications.
Comments related to streamlining the coal leasing process included:
•
Evaluate ways to streamline, including reducing the federal coal
royalty rates; streamlining environmental review at the leasing stage
to avoid delaying the payment of lease bonus bids, surface rentals,
and production royalties; and eliminating redundancies in the
environmental analysis and review of MLA mining plans and SMCRA
permits.
•
Tier cumulative analyses of mine plan EISs to increase efficiency in
project-scale leasing.
•
Reinstate time limitations on environmental analyses and page limits
on the associated documents.
Other commenters said that the current leasing system is sufficient and stated
the BLM should do the following in reviewing the federal coal program:
December 2021
•
Evaluate and confirm that BLM identification of coal tracts for
leasing and the LBA process have similar requirements.
•
Evaluate the BLM Wyoming State Office coal leasing program as a
potential model for the overall coal leasing program.
•
Evaluate the usefulness of greenfields. The large capital investment
required to construct a new mine facility and to acquire a LBA large
enough to justify the infrastructure investment make greenfield
projects (i.e., projects where the land is restored to conditions
existing before mining) uneconomical.
•
Retain the LBA system since coal operators apply for new leases at
roughly their depletion rate, thereby bidding or leasing only when
needed.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-27
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Acknowledge that single bidding mainly results from the high cost
and financial risk to participate in coal leasing as opposed to being a
deficiency of the program.
•
Acknowledge that a mine’s specific status and needs determine the
appropriate timing and size of coal leasing.
•
Consult its lease records regarding diligent development and
speculation to ensure proper remedies were applied. The BLM’s
review should ultimately acknowledge that 43 CFR 3483 requires
and quantifies diligent lease development, which effectively prevents
speculation in the federal coal leasing process.
•
Acknowledge that it can adjust the lease nomination to ensure
adequate competition.
•
Acknowledge that the LBA process and leases with one bid are fair,
because the government sets a minimum price.
•
Ensure that rules governing the federal coal leasing process do not
discourage competition or coal production.
Issue 5.5 Coal Bonding
The BLM received 3 comments on coal bonding. Comments focused on
outstanding self-bonding and the self-bonding process, conflicts with existing
regulations, and specific changes needed to coal bonding. Some commenters
recommended eliminating self-bonding altogether.
Commenters expressed concern over the amount of outstanding self-bonded
reclamation liability and the self-bonding process in relation to federal coal
leasing. They stated that it does not protect taxpayers and allows many
companies to avoid reclamation.
Other commenters stated that changes to the self-bonding and reclamation
regulations conflict with the SMCRA. Another commenter suggested that the
BLM does not have the authority to interfere with the states’ ability to regulate
surface coal mining and reclamation operations or to apply its discretionary
authority over the bonding of such operations. In addition, one commenter
stated that the leasing moratorium will affect the bonding of reclamation liability
by reducing companies’ revenue. Some commenters also expressed concerns
that new regulations could create confusion on self-bonding and what
companies should pay for.
Comments recommending specific changes to coal bonding generally fell into
two categories: changes to bonding requirements and consequences for
companies to ensure reclamation requirements are met. Specific changes to
bonding requirements included:
4-28
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Charge a set amount for cost recovery, based on the type of mine
and application at the time of leasing.
•
Require coal companies to put down a large deposit at the time of
leasing.
•
Impose full-cost bonding.
•
Raise bond amounts to cover externalities associated with coal
mining. Require companies to purchase insurance to cover
reclamation costs.
•
Work with the OSMRE to strengthen self-bonding regulations.
•
Allow states to make their own decisions on self-bonding programs.
Comments related to limitations and consequences for mining companies
included:
•
Hold companies liable for failure to meet reclamation requirements.
•
Do not permit new leases for companies until their mines have
been reclaimed.
•
Account for prior reclamation status when considering new leases
and consider the mine’s current bonding status and the amount and
type of reclamation needed during the leasing process.
Issue 5.6 Fair Return/Bonus Bids, Rents, and Royalties
The BLM received 145 comments on fair return, bonus bids, rents, and
royalties. Commenters expressed concern over the current royalty rates and
return to taxpayers. Many commenters stated that royalty rates should be
raised because coal companies are not paying a fair return to taxpayers, and
they are exploiting loopholes to undervalue coal. Many commenters noted that
coal companies should not be allowed to self-evaluate coal funds; this is because
self-evaluation allows companies to use existing loopholes and artificially modify
the price of coal. Instead, commenters recommended that the BLM evaluate
coal; they argued that this is allowed under the MLA. Commenters noted that
current rates have been in place for 30 years, and it is time for a review.
Commenters also requested that royalty rate reduction requests should be
paused during the review process.
Commenters also noted that the BLM, as well as the Secretary, have the
authority to revise royalty rates, including other fees and conditions of ongoing
leases. Some commenters recommended that the BLM consider the
environmental impacts of climate change (per guidance in 30 USC 201(a)(3)(C)
and 30 USC 207(a)). Commenters also recommended that the BLM not grant
any new royalty reductions and scrutinize all future royalty rate reductions to
ensure a fair return to the public. Many commenters voiced concern that coal
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-29
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
operators pay a much lower royalty rate after deductions and subsidies; they
argued that lower rates distort coal markets.
Commenters also supported specific changes to royalty rates, including the
following:
•
Increase transparency and public input when determining market
values and in the LBA process.
•
Increase the royalty rate fees from 8 to 12 percent of revenues.
•
Implement higher royalty rates for underground coal mines while
also increasing surface coal mine royalty rates.
•
Along with a royalty rate, add a fee to underground and surface coal
mines to accurately account for the environmental damage caused
by coal and its emissions.
Commenters submitted recommendations for how to determine royalty rates:
4-30
•
Add an adjusted revenue-neutral royalty schedule for abandoning a
bonus bid for maintenance tracks.
•
Use royalty rates for coal that match rates for offshore oil and gas,
which is 18.75 percent.
•
Assess royalties on the net delivery price of coal.
•
Consider GHG emissions, including incorporating the social costs of
CO2 and GHG emissions in royalty rates and considering carbon
and methane emissions (under the BLM’s authority under 43 CFR
3451.1(c)(1)-(2)) to account for climate externalities when
determining royalty rates.
•
Incorporate global externalities into the price of coal and royalty
rates.
•
Ensure the royalty rate reduction encourages the ultimate recovery
of coal and is in the interest of conserving natural resources.
•
Impose a cap on transportation deductions, or remove deductions
for transportation and coal washing.
•
Include restoration costs.
•
Base royalties on profits and not on the price of coal when mined.
•
Develop a comprehensive, coal-specific costs test analysis tool that
would quantify and monetize the full range of damages caused by
coal and the true avoided cost value of renewables when used to
replace coal.
•
Evaluate if coal oversupplying is leading to reduced royalties.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Account for the public health and pollution costs from downstream
and upstream emissions from coal.
•
Determine royalties by the sum of FMV plus all currently
externalized social and environmental costs.
•
Use Secretarial Order 3399 and Executive Order 13990 when
adjusting royalties for external costs.
•
Factor in life cycle and external costs.
•
End coal producers’ ability to self-assess coal assets.
•
Ban companies from selling coal to subsidiaries to depress rates
(captive transactions).
A commenter suggested the BLM is violating the MLA because royalty rate
reductions distort the coal market and harm consumers. Other commenters
stated that there is no rationale to support raising royalty rates and argued
royalty rates should be decreased. Multiple commenters noted that coal
royalties bring in billions in federal revenue and fund various government
programs. Some commenters stated that the BLM should reduce royalty rates
so coal remains economically viable.
Commenters’ concerns and recommendations over raising royalty rates were
for the following reasons:
December 2021
•
Many companies currently pay a significant share of revenues in the
form of royalties, taxes, and fees. In some cases, these can range
from 30 to 40 percent of costs. Rental payments and royalties
provided to the public are successful and secure a fair return, and
they offer billions in revenue and wages.
•
The BLM’s response to a 2011 petition from nongovernmental
organizations further illustrates why LBA is valid and competitive for
determining the FMV and royalty rates for coal.
•
The coal market is declining, and companies are already facing
economic pressure.
•
The BLM should consider more market-sensitive approaches when
addressing royalty evaluations, such as revenue generated from
decreased royalties and bonus payments on actual production
rather than the coal reserve amount.
•
The BLM should continue to maintain its discretion to reduce
royalty rates because during times of economic depressions, higher
rates can harm operators and consumers.
•
There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that increasing
federal coal royalty rates will increase federal coal revenues.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-31
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
The BLM does not have the authority to raise royalty rates under
the MLA and FLPMA; the BLM must go to Congress for any rate
changes, or it will violate the law (30 USC 207 (a)).
•
Coal companies already pay fair rates that benefit many local
communities in a struggling economy.
•
Higher royalty rates will harm coal-dependent communities and lead
to further economic hardship.
•
Coal exports are not a valid basis for reevaluating valuation
regulations or royalty rates.
•
Coal royalty rates are already higher on public land when compared
with private land; the BLM should not amend the process. Rates
should be reduced to levels similar to those on private lands.
Higher rates will render many federal coal operations uneconomical
and decrease competition, shift emphasis to the use of private coal
and thereby reduce royalties collected, decrease production and
return, or increase the cost of electricity due to companies
transferring increased costs to consumers.
•
The ONRR and the BLM do not have the authority to consider or
add climate change in royalty calculations; this would violate the
DOI’s mandate under the MLA (30 USC 181 et seq., as amended)
and violate the FMV of coal that is required under the MLA (USC
201(a)).
•
Including the cost of climate change in royalty valuations would
violate a lessee’s contractual and property rights.
Commenters requested that the BLM consult with the Office of Management
and Budget throughout the process, which is what the BLM is required to do
for projects with over $100 million in pacts under the Office of Management
and Budget’s Circular No. A-4, Guidelines for the Conduct of Regulatory
Analysis.
Commenters also noted that developing coal on public lands can be 30 to 65
percent more expensive; also, this development has additional regulations that
should be reviewed. The BLM should encourage a process for an anonymous
submittal of royalty rates to compare with private lands.
Commenters stressed the importance of considering all components of return
when evaluating fair return numbers. One commenter stated that wind and
solar subsidies should be considered with determining coal rates, and another
suggested conducting a full cost-benefit analysis.
Other comments recommended that the BLM reinstate the Royalty Policy
Committee and that the DOI eliminate the current FMV criteria and replace it
4-32
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
with a new partnership model between government agencies and private
industry.
Issue 5.7 Pre-sale Fair Market Value Estimate
The BLM received 19 comments regarding pre-sale FMV estimates.
Commenters expressed that the BLM should amend its leasing process to
provide more transparency in the FMV determination process. Commenters
referenced multiple studies and the GAO report that stated the FMV process
has not had an adequate fair return for taxpayers.
Commenters expressed that any pre-sale FMV estimation should use the social
cost of carbon and the value of natural capital to determine appropriate
valuations that ensure taxpayers are not harmed.
Commenters also supported specific changes to FMV, including the following:
December 2021
•
Study and implement a social cost of carbon and apply it to the FMV
valuation process. Consider the impacts of climate change and
environmental externalities in the FMV process.
•
Include the environmental externalities such as water, air quality,
and GHG emissions caused by coal mining in the FMV analysis.
•
Follow recommendations from the GAO to increase oversight of
BLM state offices in appraising the value of coal leases.
•
Reduce instances where the BLM accepts bids below the pre-sale
estimate of FMV.
•
Make fair return a threshold criterion for when and whether to
offer new leases and accept bids.
•
Ensure the pre-sale FMV allows for extraction costs so that the final
cost for the generation of electricity is reasonable and affordable.
•
Calculate FMV with the goal of ultimately finding a qualified lessee
for the coal tract.
•
Establish a minimum bid for each coal region that considers regional
economic, geologic, and engineering variables and assesses the
projected income from each individual lease that would be offered
based on unique variables.
•
Eliminate the “comparable sales” valuation approach, which justifies
future undervaluation based off historically underpriced sales.
•
Raise the minimum bid to at least $1 per ton.
•
Create an inter-lease bidding process in which the BLM makes
multiple sites available for bidding simultaneously, and then
subsequently decides which bids to accept based on site location
and the amounts bid.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-33
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Incorporate an option value into the bid amounts (that is, the
informational value of delay associated with federal leasing).
•
Evaluate bidding reforms that can help ensure FMV for taxpayers.
•
Increase bid rates to account for inflation, other externalities, and
market failures not reflected in the price for coal but that should
factor into the BLM’s assessment of FMV.
Commenters suggested the BLM fails to obtain FMV for coal leases or
otherwise collect coal leasing income commensurate with the value of the coal
and its myriad externality costs. Leases with a single bidder, market
manipulations, unreasonable deductions, royalty and rent reductions, and other
factors have led to hundreds of millions, or more, in lost income.
A commenter expressed doubts that the FMV is deficient; this is because FMV
was not challenged for three decades, and values are held confidentially by the
BLM.
Other comments about the FMV process included:
4-34
•
The BLM should abide by the MLA to ensure responsible
development of resources; the BLM should not artificially inflate the
FMV.
•
There is doubt and resistance to using the social cost of carbon and
GHG emissions to determine the FMV or increase the cost of
leases.
•
The BLM should analyze the standard to include the economic
benefits of coal jobs and revenue as well as reliable, low-cost
electricity to the US and the world.
•
There is concern about using climate change as a value in the FMV
process; this is because it would violate the MLA and inflate the
market price of the lease. The BLM should consult the expertise of
the BLM Wyoming State Office staff in studying all the factors
relevant to a FMV determination.
•
Applying a contingency of 10 percent to the expected mining costs
would help estimate the future cost of mining coal resources.
Furthermore, applying a 1 percent contingency would more
accurately reflect the capital expenditures in the analysis.
•
The BLM should grant the operators the value of their existing plant
and equipment as an investment in the case where the additional
reserves are mined as part of the process to determine FMV.
•
For economic analysis purposes, a discount rate of 15 to 20 percent
would better reflect the return necessary for a mining company to
successfully operate on federal coal lands. Increasing the discount
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
rate in this analysis would help to ensure healthy mining operations
and thus the greatest income to the BLM and the maximization of
recovered reserves on the BLM’s coal lands.
Issue 5.8 Coal Exports
The BLM received 39 comments related to coal exports. Comments included
support for and opposition to the export of US coal, analyzing impacts
associated with the transport of coal, and including a thorough analysis of coal
exports in general.
Commenters stated support for federal coal exports for the following reasons:
•
The BLM would benefit from exporting coal, which would allow for
a greater return.
•
Exports would help other countries meet their energy needs.
•
Exports provide significant revenue and jobs in Montana and
Wyoming.
•
Countries would find other coal sources that are likely lower quality
if they were not supplied with US coal.
Commenters stated that since the US has more stringent environmental
standards than other countries, exporting coal ultimately results in less
environmental impacts than the alternative. Another commenter suggested that
the BLM implement a tax on coal exported and use the revenue for climate
mitigation plans.
Many commenters noted that coal exports have never comprised a significant
share of coal production. Also, the costs associated with exporting coal
internationally are high (in some cases six times the mining costs).
Commenters requested that the BLM not charge federal royalties on the total
cost of exporting coal, noting that charging royalties on exports would violate
the Export Clause to the US Constitution.
One commenter suggested that exporting coal from the Powder River Basin
may be particularly beneficial; the commenter noted the lower methane
emissions cited in a 2016 study—Life Cycle Analysis of Coal Exports from the
Powder River Basin—by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. One
commenter suggested that the government should assist coal producers in
accessing international markets.
Other commenters stated opposition for coal exports for the following reasons:
•
December 2021
Burning coal for domestic use, as opposed to exporting it for
foreign use, is cleaner and more efficient.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-35
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Coal exports will discourage other countries from investing in
renewable energy sources.
•
Exporting federally subsidized coal artificially drives down the price
of coal in the global market.
•
The US should not mine public lands to supply other countries with
coal.
•
Coal exports have significant costs and impacts on local traffic,
infrastructure, and communities. Commenters cited the 2014 GAO
report, Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy
Would Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion
Impacts.
•
The BLM’s objective is only to sell federal coal to aid in meeting the
nation’s energy needs.
•
The MLA did not intend for federal coal to be exported.
•
Burning coal overseas will still impact domestic air quality and
undermine climate policy.
Commenters suggested that impacts related to coal transportation must be
evaluated when considering exports. One commenter was particularly
concerned about impacts related to coal transportation at a proposed terminals
in Oakland and Richmond, California. Another commenter suggested that the
BLM collaborate with agencies such as the Surface Transportation Board to
discourage the permitting, construction, or renovation of coal export-related
infrastructure.
Commenters also stated that the federal coal program review must fully analyze
and assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts of coal exports that may occur as
a result of future coal management. Commenters requested that the review
consider the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of exporting federal
coal, including loading and unloading, constructing or maintaining facilities, port
operations, other shipping impacts, and processing and combusting exported
coal.
Issue 5.9 Coal Reclamation
The BLM received 37 comments related to coal reclamation activities.
Commenters stated concern over the coal mine reclamation process and
indicated that many mines on federal lands have still not been reclaimed; mining
companies get by with no reclamation due to self-bonding. Commenters
requested more transparency and public involvement for reclamation efforts.
One commenter suggested that the BLM should subject lease tract design to
public comment to ensure reclamation timeliness and success.
Commenters also expressed concern about the environmental impacts that the
coal mining processes have on wildlife habitat, water resources, vegetation, and
4-36
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
air quality. They stated that inadequate reclamation efforts will lead to adverse
impacts on these resources.
Commenters also suggested the following:
•
There should be no new leasing until existing mines are reclaimed
and comply with environmental standards.
•
Coal companies should be held responsible for reclamation
responsibilities.
•
Reclamation planning should begin at the time of the lease.
•
Coal companies should be required to provide adequate funds for
reclamation.
•
Reclamation standards should be revised.
•
If new leasing continues, cleanup, restoration, and related health
costs should be included in the new leases.
One commenter requested that the BLM work closely with the OSMRE and
include yearly oversight reports that evaluate the effectiveness of a state
program achieving reclamation success.
Commenters also stated that the BLM should ensure the bonding is accurate to
cover reclamation costs, but the BLM should not have responsibility in
regulating any reclamation efforts. Reclamation requirements currently set by
the SMCRA are being regulated and have been successful so far.
Issue 5.10 Coal Mitigation
The BLM received 2 comments related to coal mitigation; many of these
comments supported coal mitigation analyses and practices. Commenters stated
support for identifying and analyzing mitigation strategies, specifically suggesting
that a new mitigation protocol be developed for offsetting GHG emissions
through a form of compensatory mitigation. This should be required by lessees
as a condition of extraction.
Issue 5.11 Coal Transportation/ROW
There were 12 comments related to coal transport. Comments focused on
concerns related to coal transportation, including impacts of coal transport on
resources and climate change issues.
Commenters expressed concern for the impacts that transportation of coal can
have on air quality, water resources, biological resources, visual resources,
public health, noise, quality of life, and traffic in local communities. Commenters
specifically stated concern for coal dust from trains and long traffic jams at train
crossings. Commenters expressed concerns about air quality from the diesel
engines used in trains to transport coal. Commenters specifically cited fugitive
coal dust released during the transportation and storage phases of coal use; they
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-37
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
believe this fugitive coal dust should be thoroughly studied and reported.
Furthermore, commenters suggested that the externalities associated with the
transportation of coal harm public health and cause death.
One commenter requested that climate impacts from each phase of the supply
chain be studied separately to form a clear comparison with other energy
technologies.
Commenters requested that the review provide a detailed analysis and
assessment of how federal coal is transported from mines to the source of
consumption and provide the public with information and analysis on what the
impacts of this transport are likely to be. Furthermore, commenters expressed
concern over the carbon emissions that are generated through the
transportation cycle, and how the BLM accounts for those emissions.
Some commenters expressed doubt on including carbon emissions from the rail
industry in evaluating coal’s GHG emissions. Transportation would also have to
be included in the valuation.
4.6.8
Issue 6 Environmental Justice
The BLM received 25 comments related to environmental justice. Commenters
stated that environmental justice communities face disproportionate exposure
to climate change and its associated impacts. Citing Council on Environmental
Quality guidance and various studies, they stated that the BLM should analyze
and disclose the impacts of GHG emissions from the federal coal program on
vulnerable populations.
Commenters stated that environmental justice communities have limited access
to health care. Therefore, adverse health impacts associated with coal-fired
power plants often go unaddressed.
Commenters stated that impacts associated with all phases of federal coal
leasing, including mining, transport, warehousing, and export, should be analyzed
in the context of environmental justice.
Some commenters stated that low-income populations would be
disproportionately affected by the loss of economic activity supported by coal
development. Commenters stated that the BLM should consider implementing
policies to assist environmental justice communities that are currently reliant on
coal revenue and jobs in any transition away from fossil fuels. Specifically,
commenters’ recommended policies include:
•
4-38
Job training opportunities, incentivizing economic development in
prioritized communities, restoring degraded lands, remediating
orphaned fossil fuel sites, and furnishing direct funds to assist
communities that have relied on fossil fuel revenue for essential
services.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
•
Measures that consider impacts on workers, unions, and
communities that are consistent with Executive Order 14008.
•
Measures that provide health care for workers and local
communities experiencing health impacts associated with coal
development.
•
Ensuring mining companies are responsible for remediation.
Commenters stated that all new leases, permits, and approvals for coal on
federal lands should be halted for various reasons tied to environmental justice,
including:
•
Halting the program would protect the fundamental constitutional
rights of children within environmental justice communities.
•
Continuing the federal coal program would inflict deliberate harm
and climate change impacts on environmental justice communities.
•
Low-income populations, the elderly, children, and communities of
color would be disproportionately subjected to adverse
environmental, health, and economic impacts from coal mining,
downstream activities, and climate change effects.
Commenters suggested various methods for addressing environmental justice
issues, including:
December 2021
•
The BLM should issue a statement with actionable items on the
relationship between public lands and colonization.
•
Historical knowledge should be incorporated into land management
practices both in the form of Indigenous conservation practices and
federal land management strategies that respect landscapes, objects,
and plant and animal life held sacred by Indigenous peoples.
•
The BLM should honor the perspectives of environmental justice
leaders and communities by providing guidance and support to the
communities to realize the protections of NEPA.
•
The BLM should engage Black, Indigenous, and people of color
leaders and organizations as decision-makers and involve local
communities.
•
The BLM should listen to the stories of communities and individuals
who are already experiencing acute impacts from the climate crisis
through adverse health impacts from environmental racism,
pollution, visible changes to landscapes and weather patterns, and
climate migration.
•
The BLM should incorporate the stakeholder engagement
recommendations in President Obama’s Presidential Memorandum
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-39
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
on Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks,
National Forests, and Other Public Lands and Waters.
4.6.9
Issue 7 Public Health and Safety
The BLM received 54 comments related to public health and safety.
Commenters stated that coal miners suffer health impacts due to exposure of
coal dust; these impacts include respiratory diseases, such as asthma; an
increased risk of cancer; and disability. In addition, commenters cited concern
for the impacts on public health and safety for those who live or work near coal
extraction sites. This is because the communities in these areas experience
exposures to toxic pollutants, such as selenium, benzene, mercury, lead,
cadmium, and arsenic, in the air, water, and consumed fish. One commenter
also mentioned that coal-seam fires in and around mines are increasing in
intensity, frequency, and duration. These have caused health and safety concerns
and need to be addressed in the federal review process.
Commenters noted that additional, more widespread impacts on human health
occur from coal-fired power plant emissions and air pollutants and from health
effects related to warming temperatures and climate change. These impacts
include the increased risk of respiratory and lung diseases, heart disease, kidney
disease, cancer, neurological disorders, heat-related illnesses, and vector-borne
diseases (due to more favorable habitat conditions for fleas, ticks, and
mosquitos). Some commenters also noted that there are increased health risks
for children and pregnant women, such as developmental disorders,
reproductive issues, and birth defects. One commenter mentioned that the
number of annual deaths from air pollution, largely due to fossil fuels’
production, has increased and now exceeds deaths due to obesity, high-sodium
diets, alcohol, or road accidents.
Commenters stated that these health and safety impacts have led to huge
financial costs, including increased health care costs, government and security
budgets, public welfare losses, and property losses. Commenters suggested that
coal companies should be held accountable for these external costs and poor
health effects related to coal. Some commenters suggested that these costs
associated with public health impacts should be included in royalties.
Furthermore, some commenters noted that these human health impacts affect
communities that are located far from coal extraction sites; this is due to dust
from coal trains or from being located near coal ash disposal sites. Commenters
urged the BLM to disclose and address these health issues and ensure the
analyses include impacts across a broad area to capture all of coal’s health and
safety impacts.
Conversely, other commenters stated that coal producers are already subject
to strict public health regulations, which sufficiently protect human health.
4-40
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
4.6.10 Issue 8 Socioeconomics
The BLM received 72 comments related to socioeconomics and an analysis of
impacts. Many commenters noted the positive economic impacts that coal
mining and the federal coal program have had on their communities by providing
employment (in the coal industry as well as outside the coal industry in sectors
such as transportation and construction), income, health benefits and pensions,
national security, and tax and royalty revenue to the government. Some
commenters stated that coal mining provides low-cost, reliable energy, which is
especially important in assisting the US economy’s recovery after the pandemic
and to balance rising natural gas prices. Commenters mentioned that the coal
industry provides wages that are higher than average wages across all industries
in states with coal production. Commenters also discussed the public projects
and services funded by coal revenues, such as education systems, businesses, the
construction of roads and highways, and social programs.
Commenters stated that continued coal leasing is crucial to support the
economy and that the decline in the coal industry and resulting bankruptcies of
coal companies have led to socioeconomic impacts, including the following:
•
Direct loss of jobs and income in the coal mining industry.
•
Increased electricity prices, due to higher costs of less-reliable
alternative energy sources.
•
Loss of revenue to federal, state, and local governments.
Some commenters also noted that declining coal production would result in
disproportionate economic impacts on rural communities. One commenter
noted that rural communities tend to have less industry diversity due to their
remote locations, so the loss of coal jobs would have a devastating impact on
these communities. This is because there would not be many alternatives for
replacing the lost jobs in other industries. Another commenter requested that
the BLM conserve and store coal because it is a strategic resource and will
increase in value in the future, bringing more revenue for the government.
In contrast, other commenters stated that coal production has negative impacts
on regional economies. Some commenters suggested that coal mining increases
health care costs and decreases workforce productivity due to illnesses
associated with climate change. One commenter noted that the loss of homes
and property damages due to climate change have impacts on the economy and
government spending. Another commenter stated that economies that rely on
the coal industry tend to have slower job growth, lower real earnings, decreases
in population, and slower economic recovery after downturns.
One commenter stated that while declining coal production leads to reduced
employment in the coal sector, the economy-wide employment does not
experience the same impact. Other commenters stated that the profits
generated from coal mining benefit a select few, who are opposed to a majority
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-41
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
of people. Some commenters suggested that transitioning to renewable energy
sources now would result in cheaper electricity rates and decreased costs from
environmental and health impacts in the long term. The increase in jobs from
the renewable energy sector would make up for the loss in coal-related jobs.
Many commenters also recommended creating a program to help coal miners
transition to other jobs, replace lost tax revenue, and ensure a just transition of
coal-dependent communities to a renewable energy future. Some commenters
suggested setting up a fund from the royalties received to assist with the
transition and to compensate coal miners and communities for closing local coal
mines.
Some commenters discussed specific methodologies for analyzing the
socioeconomics of the federal coal program, such as conducting an economic
cost and benefit analysis of coal or expanding the climate test to include
economic impacts. One commenter noted that the BLM should ensure the
region of influence in the analysis is not too broad that it would not show the
impacts on coal mining communities. Another commenter noted the NEPA
requirement for the BLM to include all pertinent information in its analysis or to
state why the information was not included, explain the relevance of the
information to projected impacts, and describe the existing science surrounding
the information.
4.6.11 Issue 9 Tribal Interests and Native American Concerns
The BLM received 13 comments regarding Tribal interests and Native American
concerns. In general, comments expressed concern about coal mining impacts
on Tribal interests and resources and the economic well-being of Tribal nations.
Commenters expressed concern for the impacts that coal mining has on Tribal
interests and requested that the BLM engage with Tribal nations that are
recognized and those that are not recognized by the US as sovereign nations. In
these engagement efforts, the BLM should provide tribes with enough
information to make decisions. Also, the BLM should consult with tribes in a
government-to-government format on the following topics:
•
Economic costs and benefits of the federal coal program.
•
Coal mining impacts on climate change and the environment, which
disproportionately affect tribes and Tribal lands.
•
Impacts of coal mining on religious or cultural sites as well as other
traditional-use areas.
•
The right of tribes to give or withhold consent on federal projects
that affect Tribal lands.
Other commenters expressed concern for the impacts that changes in coal
regulation would have on the economic well-being of Tribal nations. One
4-42
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
commenter mentioned that many homes in the Navajo Nation have not had
electricity since the Navajo Generating Station closed, even though the Navajo
Nation has been exporting its energy surplus. The commenter mentioned that
as more coal plants close, the issue of electricity inequality will become even
greater.
One commenter expressed concern over the limited sovereign immunity of the
Navajo Transitional Energy Company, which is owned by the Navajo Nation.
This concern is because the limited sovereign immunity limits federal regulation
and enforcement of the coal plants that the company owns. The commenter
stated that the BLM should deny any lease permit applications from the Navajo
Transitional Energy Company unless the company waives all sovereign immunity.
4.6.12 Issue 10 Surface Owner and Surface Management Agency Interests
There were 4 comments related to surface owner and surface management
agency interests. Commenters stated that the review of the federal coal
program should incorporate protections for surface owners, including
addressing the uncertainty of future mining beneath private land, consideration
of surface landowners in split-estate transactions, protecting surface owner
consent, and analyzing subsidence problems on previously leased lands.
Commenters suggested that protecting surface owner consent would advance
the BLM’s multiple-use mandate; protect biological, cultural, and recreational
resources; and uphold Secretarial Orders 3398 and 3399.
One commenter recommended that the BLM reinstate Instruction
Memorandum No. 2017-034 on Information and Consent Considerations when
a Qualified Exchange Proponent Selects Federal Coal in a Split Estate Tract for
Exchange.
4.6.13 Issue 11 Visual Resources
The BLM received 1 comment related to visual resources. The commenter
expressed concern for the impact that coal mining has on visual resources and
viewsheds, particularly within National Park Service land or water and local
communities.
4.6.14 Issue 12 Water Resources
The BLM received 19 comments related to water resources; many of these
comments expressed concern for and the need for a thorough analysis of
impacts on water resources.
Commenters stated concern for water resource impacts, including the
following:
•
December 2021
Contamination of surface and underground water sources and
related concerns about contaminated domestic water supplies and
impacts on natural resources such as soils, wildlife, and vegetation.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-43
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
Commenters expressed concern for water contamination and
impacts on aquatic species.
•
Depletion of groundwater sources and impacts on other land uses.
Commenters noted concern with both dewatering for mining
purposes as well as the amount of water used during mining for
dust control, extraction, and processing. Commenters noted the
correlation between water usage in coal mining and dewatering of
water sources that are also relied on to provide drinking water,
livestock, and other uses.
•
Specific concerns related to coal dust and residual ash and their
impact on water quality issues, which are noted in other
environmental analyses and reports.
Many commenters requested a thorough analysis of the impacts on water,
including water quality, depletion, and restoration, that could result from federal
coal leasing. Commenters also requested identification of potential mitigation
measures for those impacts.
4.6.15 Issue 13 Biological Resources
The BLM received 10 comments related to biological resources. Commenters
stated concern for biological resource impacts, including the following:
•
Habitat fragmentation and migration corridors, particularly greater
sage-grouse habitat and brushlands.
•
Disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitats and susceptibility of
mined areas to invasive species.
•
Exhaust from equipment and transport vehicles.
•
Impacts from dangerous metals and compounds, such as selenium,
copper, salinity, and bicarbonate, on surface water and aquatic
wildlife.
•
Construction and transportation impacts on wildlife, including direct
mortality and invasive species.
•
Mountaintop removal and its associated impacts on wildlife habitats
and declining wildlife populations.
Commenters requested that the BLM’s review analyze cumulative impacts on
wildlife and their habitats. Commenters requested the BLM review wildlife
population trends in coal mining regions and discuss impacts on populations and
habitat resulting from coal leasing and mining.
4.6.16 Issue 14 Renewable Energy
The BLM received 50 comments related to renewable energy. Commenters
voiced support for investing in renewable energy programs over coal mining
operations. This is because of the decreased environmental impact and efforts
4-44
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings (Comment Summaries)
to mitigate climate change. Many suggested transitioning to wind and solar,
although biomass, hydroelectric, nuclear, and geothermal were also listed as
types of renewable energies that commenters were promoting. Other
commenters suggested focusing on the need to use more public lands for
renewable energy development and staying in compliance with the US climate
policies.
One commenter suggested implementing programs to help coal miners
transition to renewable energy jobs. Furthermore, one commenter suggested
that the federal government should create a decentralized electric grid that uses
renewable energy and provides financial incentives for individual property
owners to generate and price renewable energy for personal, commercial, and
industrial consumption.
Commenters also stated that energy produced through coal provides baseline
power and is more reliable when compared with the fluctuations of renewable
energy. Commenters stressed that coal is a consistent, low-cost source of
energy that cannot be replaced.
One commenter requested that the federal coal program identify and pursue all
available legal mechanisms to end coal leasing.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
4-45
4. Summary of Public Comment Process and Findings
This page intentionally left blank.
4-46
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Appendix A
Notices of Intent
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Notices
the access point of the Laughlin race
area and surrounding areas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenna Giddens, Outdoor Recreation
Planner, 702–515–5156, or jgiddens@
blm.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to
contact the above individual during
normal business hours. The FRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
to leave a message or question with the
above individual. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Las
Vegas Field Office announces the
temporary closures of certain public
lands under its administration. This
action is being taken to help ensure
public safety during the official
permitted running of the 2021 UTV
Legends Championship, 2021 Laughlin
Desert Classic, and 2021 SNORE
Laughlin Off-Highway Vehicle Races.
The public lands affected by this closure
are described as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada
T. 32 S., R. 66 E.,
Sec. 8, lots 2 thru 33;
Sec. 9;
Sec. 10, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, and S1⁄2;
Sec. 11, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, and S1⁄2;
Sec. 14;
Sec. 15, E1⁄2;
Sec. 16, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, and N1⁄2SE1⁄4;
Sec. 17, lots 1 thru 8, lots 21 thru 25, and
lots 30 thru 44.
The area described contains 4521.97 acres,
according to the official plats of the surveys
of the said lands on file with the BLM.
The temporary closures will be posted
to roads leading into the public lands to
notify the public of the closures for
these events. The closures area includes
State Route 163 to the north, T. 32 S.,
R. 66 E sections 8 and 17 to the west;
private and State land in T. 32 S., R. 6
6E sections 20, 21, 22, and 23; and is
bracketed by Bruce Woodbury Drive to
the south and southwest and Thomas
Edison Drive to the east. Under the
authority of Section 303(a) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 733(a)), 43 CFR
8360.0–7 and 43 CFR 8364.1), the BLM
will enforce the following rules in the
area described above:
The entire area as listed in the legal
description above is closed to all
vehicles and personnel except law
enforcement, emergency vehicles, event
personnel, event participants and
spectators. Access routes leading to the
closed area are closed to vehicles. No
vehicle stopping or parking in the
closed area except for designated
parking areas will be permitted. Event
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
participants and spectators are required
to remain within designated areas only.
The following restrictions will be in
effect for the duration of the closure to
ensure public safety of participants and
spectators. Unless otherwise authorized,
the following activities within the
closure area are prohibited:
• Camping;
• Possession and/or consuming any
alcoholic beverage unless the person has
reached the age of 21 years;
• Discharging or use of firearms, other
weapons;
• Possession and/or discharging of
fireworks;
• Allowing any pet or other animal in
one’s care to be unrestrained at any
time. Animals must be on a leash or
other restraint no longer than 3 feet;
• Operation of any vehicle which is
not legally registered for street and
highway operation (e.g., All Terrain
Vehicles (ATV), motorcycles, Utility
Terrain Vehicles (UTV), golf carts, and
any off-highway vehicle (OHV),
including operation of such a vehicle in
spectator viewing areas);
• Parking any vehicle in violation of
posted restrictions, or in such a manner
as to obstruct or impede normal or
emergency traffic movement or the
parking of other vehicles, create a safety
hazard, or endanger any person,
property, or feature. Vehicles so parked
are subject to citation, removal, and
impoundment at the owner’s expense;
• Operating a vehicle through, around
or beyond a restrictive sign,
recognizable barricade, fence, or traffic
control barrier or device;
• Failing to maintain control of a
vehicle to avoid danger to persons,
property, or wildlife; and
• Operating a motor vehicle without
due care or at a speed greater than 25
mph.
Signs and maps directing the public
to designated spectator areas will be
provided by the event sponsor.
Exceptions: Temporary closure
restrictions do not apply to activities
conducted under contract with the
BLM, agency personnel monitoring the
event, or activities conducted under an
approved plan of operation. Authorized
users must have in their possession a
written permit or contract from the
BLM, signed by the authorized officer.
Enforcement: Any person who
violates this temporary closure may be
tried before a United States Magistrate
and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
3571, imprisoned no more than 12
months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43
CFR 8360.0–7, or both. In accordance
with 43 CFR 8365.1–7, State or local
officials may also impose penalties for
violations of Nevada law.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46873
(Authority: 43 CFR 8360.0–7 and 8364.1)
Shonna Dooman,
Field Manager—Las Vegas Field Office.
[FR Doc. 2021–17897 Filed 8–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[21X.LLHQ320000.L13200000.PP0000]
Notice of Intent To Conduct a Review
of the Federal Coal Leasing Program
and To Seek Public Comment
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Headquarters
Office seeks public comment on the
Federal coal program in advance of the
BLM’s intended review of that program.
The Department of the Interior (DOI)
also intends to conduct government-togovernment consultation with affected
Indian tribes about the Federal coal
leasing program and to consider the
potential environmental, social, and
cultural impacts of the coal program on
indigenous communities and their lands
during this review.
This notice solicits public comments
for consideration in establishing the
scope and content of the BLM’s review
of the Federal coal leasing program.
DATES: The BLM invites interested
agencies, States, American Indian tribes,
local governments, industry,
organizations, and members of the
public to submit comments or
suggestions to assist in identifying
significant issues that the BLM should
consider in its review of the Federal
coal program.
The BLM will consider all written
comments received or postmarked
during the public comment period
which will close on September 20, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments by the following methods:
• Email: BLM_HQ_320_
CoalProgramReview@blm.gov. This is
the preferred method of commenting.
• Mail, personal, or messenger
delivery: National Coal Program Review,
In care of: Thomas Huebner, BLM
Wyoming State Office, 5353
Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, WY 82009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lindsey Curnutt, Chief, Division of
Solid Minerals, email: lcurnutt@
blm.gov, telephone: 480–708–7339.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
46874
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Notices
8339 to contact Ms. Curnutt. This
service is available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, to leave a message or
question. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 15, 2016, Secretary of the
Interior S.M.R. Jewell issued Order No.
3338 (Jewell Order), directing the BLM
to conduct a broad, programmatic
review of its Federal coal program
through preparation of a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq. The Jewell Order was issued in
response to a range of concerns
regarding the Federal coal program,
including, in particular, concerns as to
whether American taxpayers are
receiving a fair return from the
development of these publicly owned
resources; concerns about fluctuating
market conditions and attendant
consequences for coal-dependent
communities; and concerns about
whether the leasing and production of
large quantities of coal under the
Federal coal program is consistent with
the Nation’s goals to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to mitigate climate
change. The Jewell Order directed a
pause on the issuance of new Federal
leases for thermal (steam) coal, subject
to certain enumerated exclusions, until
completion of the PEIS.
On March 29, 2017, former Secretary
Zinke issued Secretary’s Order No. 3348
(Zinke Order) entitled, ‘‘Concerning the
Federal Coal Moratorium.’’ The Zinke
Order rescinded the Jewell Order, lifted
the coal leasing pause, and halted
preparation of the PEIS. On April 16,
2021, Secretary Haaland issued
Secretary’s Order 3398, which rescinded
the Zinke Order (Haaland Order). While
the Haaland Order did not reinstitute
the Jewell Order, it directed the
Department to ‘‘review and revise as
necessary all policies and instructions
that implemented’’ the revoked
Secretary’s Orders. This Federal
Register Notice is intended to further
the goals of the Haaland Order by
beginning a new review of the Federal
coal leasing program. The BLM has not
approved a new coal lease sale since the
Biden Administration took office.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Background
A. Overview of Federal Coal Program
Under the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920 (MLA), as amended, 30 U.S.C. 181
et seq., and the Mineral Leasing Act for
Acquired Lands of 1947 (MLAAL), as
amended, 30 U.S.C. 351 et seq., the BLM
is responsible for the leasing of Federal
coal and regulation of the development
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
of that coal on the approximately 700
million acres of mineral estate that is
owned by the Federal Government. This
responsibility includes Federal mineral
rights on Federal lands and Federal
mineral rights located under surface
lands with non-Federal ownership.
Other Departmental bureaus,
particularly the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
and the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue (ONRR), also take actions
related to coal mining on Federal lands.
The OSMRE, and States that have
obtained regulatory primacy under the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA),
permit coal mining and reclamation
activities, and monitor reclamation and
reclamation bonding actions. The ONRR
collects and audits all payments
required under a Federal lease,
including bonus bids, royalties, and
rental payments, and distributes those
funds, pursuant to statute, between the
U.S. Treasury and the States where the
coal resources are located, 30 U.S.C.
191(a).
2. Federal Coal Program
In recent years and on average,
approximately 42 percent of the
Nation’s annual coal production came
from Federal lands. Federal coal
produced from the Powder River Basin
in Montana and Wyoming accounts for
over 85 percent of all Federal coal
production.
As of Fiscal Year 2020, the BLM
administered 287 coal leases, covering
437,039 acres in 11 States, with an
estimated 7 billion tons of recoverable
Federal coal. Over the last decade
(2011–2020), the BLM sold 17 coal
leases and managed leases that
produced approximately 3.7 billion tons
of coal and resulted in $9.2 billion in
revenue collections by the United
States.
The U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) estimates total
U.S. coal production in 2020 was about
534 million short tons (MMst), 24
percent lower than in 2019.1 EIA
estimates that U.S. total annual coal
imports reached a record high of about
36 million short tons in 2007. In 2020,
the United States imported about 5
MMst of coal, which was equal to about
1 percent of U.S. coal consumption in
2020.2
The current BLM coal leasing program
includes land use planning, the
processing of applications (e.g.,
applications for exploration licenses
and lease sales), estimation of the value
of proposed leases, lease sales, and postleasing actions (e.g., production
verification, lease and production
inspection and enforcement, royalty
reductions, and bond review).
The Federal Government receives
revenue from coal leasing in three ways:
(1) A bonus that is paid at the time the
BLM issues a lease; (2) Rental fees; and
(3) Production royalties. The royalty
rates are set by regulation at a fixed 8
percent for underground mines and not
less than 12.5 percent for surface mines.
For coal leases outside of Alaska,
Treasury pays approximately 50 percent
of receipts to the State where the leased
lands are located, 30 U.S.C. 191(a). For
leases and mineral deposits in Alaska,
Treasury pays 90 percent of the receipts
to the State, 30 U.S.C. 191(a).3 Federal
coal development provides coal
producing states like Wyoming,
Montana, Utah, and Colorado with
significant income and other economic
benefits.
The BLM’s planning process for
Resource Management Plans, supported
by environmental analysis under NEPA,
identifies areas that are potentially
available to be considered for coal
leasing. The planning process considers,
among other things, the impacts of a
‘‘reasonably foreseeable development
scenario,’’ but it does not directly
authorize any coal leasing or determine
which coal will be leased.
The Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA),
which amended Section 2 of the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, requires
that, with limited exceptions, Federal
lands available for coal leasing be sold
by competitive bid, with the BLM
receiving fair market value for the lease.
While multiple bids are not required, all
successful bids must equal or exceed the
estimated pre-sale fair market value for
the lease, as calculated by the BLM.
Competitive leasing is not required for:
(1) Preference right lease applications
for owners of pre-FCLAA prospecting
permits; and (2) Modifications of
existing leases, where Congress has
authorized the Secretary to allow up to
960 acres (increased from 160 acres by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005) of
1 U.S. EIA, Coal Data (August 4, 2021) (https://
www.eia.gov/coal/data/browser/).
2 U.S. EIA, Coal Data (July 20, 2021) (https://
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-andexports.php).
3 Payments to the States are ‘‘reduced by 2
percent for any administrative or other costs
incurred by the United States,’’ and ‘‘the amount of
such reduction shall be deposited to miscellaneous
receipts of the Treasury.’’ 30 U.S.C. 191(b).
1. Federal Coal Leasing and Production
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Notices
contiguous lands for noncompetitive
leasing by modifying an existing lease.
The BLM issued coal leasing
regulations in 1979 that provided for
two separate competitive coal leasing
processes: (1) Regional leasing, where
the BLM selects tracts within a region
for competitive sale; and (2) Leasing by
application, where an industry
applicant nominates a particular tract of
coal for competitive sale.
Regional coal leasing requires the
BLM to select potential coal leasing
tracts based on land use planning,
expected coal demand, and potential
environmental and economic impacts.4
This process includes use of a Federal/
State advisory board known as a
Regional Coal Team 5 to provide input
on leasing decisions. The regional
leasing system has not been used since
1990, and currently all BLM coal leasing
relies on applications.6 Leasing by
application begins with an application
to lease a tract of coal identified by the
applicant.7 The BLM reviews the
application for completeness to ensure
that it conforms to existing land use
plans and to ensure that it contains
sufficient geologic data to determine the
fair market value of the coal. The agency
then prepares an analysis under NEPA
(either an Environmental Assessment or
an EIS) and seeks public comment on
the proposed lease sale. Through this
process, the BLM evaluates alternative
tract configurations to maximize
competitiveness and value, and to avoid
bypassing Federal coal. The BLM also
consults with other appropriate Federal
and State agencies and Tribal
governments, and the BLM determines
whether the surface manager consents to
leasing in situations where the surface
is not administered by the BLM.
Preparations for the actual lease sale
begin with the BLM formulating, after
obtaining public comment, a pre-sale
estimate of the fair market value of the
coal. This estimate is confidential and is
used to evaluate the bids for the lease
‘‘bonus’’ received during the sale.
Sealed bids are accepted prior to the
date of the sale and are publicly
4 43
CFR part 3420.
BLM regulations require a Regional Coal
Team to be established for each coal production
region, comprised of representatives from the BLM
and the Governors of each State in the region. The
Regional Coal Teams are to guide the coal planning
process for each coal production region, serve as the
forum for BLM and State consultation, and make
recommendations on coal leasing levels. 43 CFR
3400.4.
6 While the Powder River Basin (PRB) coal
production region was decertified in 1992, the PRB
regional coal team is still in place and meets
periodically to review regional activity and make
recommendations on coal leasing in the region.
7 See 43 CFR subpart 3425.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
5 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
announced during the sale. The winning
bid is the highest bid that meets or
exceeds the coal tract’s presale
estimated fair market value from an
applicant that meets all eligibility
requirements and has paid the
appropriate fees and payments.
There are two separate bonding
requirements for Federal coal leases.
The BLM requires a bond adequate to
ensure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the lease that must cover
a portion of potential liabilities
associated with the bonus bid, rental
fees, and royalties. In addition, under
SMCRA, the OSMRE or the State with
regulatory primacy requires sufficient
bonding to cover anticipated
reclamation costs.
A Federal coal lease has an initial
term of 20 years, but it may be
terminated after 10 years if the coal
resources are not diligently developed,
30 U.S.C. 207. Existing leases that have
met their diligence requirements may be
renewed for additional 10-year terms
following the initial 20-year term.
3. Previous Comprehensive Reviews
The Department has previously
conducted two separate, comprehensive
reviews of the Federal coal program. In
the late 1960s, there were serious
concerns about speculation in the coal
leasing program. A BLM study
discovered a sharp increase in the total
Federal acreage under lease and a
consistent decline in coal production. In
response, the Department undertook the
development of a planning system to
determine the size, timing, and location
of future coal leases, and the
preparation of a PEIS for the entire
Federal coal leasing program. Beginning
in February 1973, the Department
instituted a complete moratorium on the
issuance of new coal prospecting
permits, and a moratorium with limited
exceptions on the issuance of new
Federal coal leases: New leases were
issued only to maintain existing mines
or to supply reserves for production,
where ‘‘near future’’ meant that
development and production were to
commence within 3 and 5 years,
respectively. The moratorium was
scaled back over time, but was not
completely lifted until 1981, after the
PEIS had been completed, a new leasing
system had been adopted through
regulation, and litigation was resolved.
In 1982, concerns about the Federal
coal program arose again, this time
related to allegations that the
Government did not receive fair market
value from a large lease sale in the
Powder River Basin under the new
procedures adopted as part of the
programmatic review in the 1970s.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46875
Among other reports on the issue, the
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report in May 1983
concluding that the Department had
received roughly $100 million less than
it should have for the sale. In response,
in July 1983, Congress directed the
Secretary to appoint members to a
commission, known as the Linowes
Commission, to investigate fair market
value policies for Federal coal leasing.
Congress also, in the 1984
Appropriations Act, directed the Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) to
study whether the Department’s coal
leasing program was compatible with
the nationally mandated environmental
protection goals.
As part of the 1984 Appropriations
Bill, Congress imposed a moratorium on
the sale or lease of coal on public lands,
subject to certain exceptions, starting in
1983 and ending 90 days after
publication of the Linowes
Commission’s report. The Linowes
Commission published the Report of the
Commission on Fair Market Value
Policy for Federal Coal Leasing in
February 1984. The OTA report,
Environmental Protection in the Federal
Coal Leasing Program, was released in
May 1984. The principal message of
these reports was that the Department
should: (1) Temper its pace of coal
leasing; (2) improve and better
document its procedures for receiving
fair market value; and (3) take care to
balance competing resource uses in
making lease decisions.
Secretary of the Interior William P.
Clark extended the suspension of coal
leasing (with exceptions for emergency
leasing and processing preference right
lease applications, among others) while
the Department completed its
comprehensive review of the program.
This review included proposed
modifications to be made by the
Department in response to the Linowes
Commission and OTA reports. Secretary
Clark announced on August 30, 1984,
that the Department would prepare an
EIS supplement to the 1979
Programmatic EIS for the Federal coal
management program. The Department
issued the Record of Decision for the
Programmatic EIS supplement in
January 1986, in the form of a
Secretarial Issue Document. That
document recommended continuation
of the leasing program with
modifications. In conjunction with
those modifications, Secretary of the
Interior Donald Hodel lifted the coal
leasing moratorium in 1987.
On March 17, 2015, Secretary S.M.R.
Jewell called for ‘‘an honest and open
conversation about modernizing the
Federal coal program.’’ As described
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
46876
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Notices
above, the last time the Federal coal
program underwent comprehensive
review was in the mid-1980s, and
market conditions, infrastructure
development, scientific understanding,
and national priorities have changed
considerably since that time. The
Secretary’s call also responded to
continued concerns from numerous
stakeholders about the Federal coal
program, including concerns raised by
the GAO,8 the Department’s Office of
Inspector General (OIG),9 members of
Congress, interested stakeholders, and
the public. The concerns raised by the
GAO and OIG were centered on whether
taxpayers receive a fair return from the
sale of federal coal. Others raised
concerns that the current Federal
leasing structure lacks transparency and
competition and is therefore not
ensuring that the American taxpayer
receives a fair return from Federal coal
resources, while also raising questions
regarding current market conditions for
the coal industry and related
implications for Federal resources.
Stakeholders also questioned whether
the leasing program results in oversupply of a commodity that has
significant environmental and health
impacts, including impacts on global
climate change.
In response to the Secretary’s call for
a conversation to address these
concerns, the BLM held five listening
sessions regarding the Federal coal
program in the summer of 2015.
Sessions were held in Washington, DC;
Billings, Montana; Gillette, Wyoming;
Denver, Colorado; and Farmington, New
Mexico. The Department heard from 289
individuals during the sessions and
received more than 92,000 written
comments before the comment period
closed on September 17, 2015. The oral
and written comments reflected several
recurring themes:
• Concern about global climate
change and the impact of coal
production and use.
• Concern about the loss of jobs and
local revenues if coal production is
reduced.
• Support for increased transparency
and public participation in leasing and
royalty decisions and concern that the
structure of the leasing program does
not provide for adequate competition or
a fair return to the taxpayer for the use
of Federal resources.
8 GAO, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance
Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal
Exports, and Provide More Public Information, GAO
14–140 (Dec. 2013).
9 OIG, Coal Management Program, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Report No.: CR–EV–
BLM–0001–2012 (June 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
• Support for increasing coal royalty
rates because: (1) Taxpayers are not
receiving a fair return, in part because
the royalty rate should match that for
offshore oil and gas leases; and (2) the
royalty rate should account for the
environmental costs of coal production.
• Support for maintaining or lowering
coal royalty rates because: (1) The coal
industry already pays more than its fair
share and existing Federal rates are too
high given current market conditions;
(2) raising rates will lower production
and revenues; and (3) raising rates will
cost jobs and harm communities.
• Support for streamlining the current
leasing process, so that the Federal coal
program is administered in a way that
better promotes economic stability and
jobs, especially in coal communities
which are already suffering from
depressed economic conditions.
After conducting these listening
sessions, Secretary Jewell determined
that three areas of the program received
the most attention from the public:
Concerns that American taxpayers were
not receiving a fair return on public coal
resources, that the program conflicted
with national climate policy and goals,
and that the structure of the program
needed review considering current
market conditions. To address the issues
raised during these sessions, on January
15, 2016, Secretary Jewell issued
Secretary’s Order 3338, directing the
BLM to conduct a broad, programmatic
review of the Federal coal program
through the preparation of a
discretionary Programmatic EIS under
NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. A Notice
of Intent for the Programmatic EIS was
published in March 2016, and a scoping
report was published on January 11,
2017.
On March 29, 2017, former Secretary
Zinke issued Secretary’s Order No. 3348
(Zinke Order) entitled, ‘‘Concerning the
Federal Coal Moratorium.’’ The Zinke
Order rescinded the Jewell Order, lifted
the coal leasing pause, and halted the
preparation of the Programmatic EIS.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order 13990,
‘‘Executive Order on Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis.’’ On April 16, 2021, Secretary
Deb Haaland issued Secretary’s Order
3398, which rescinded the Zinke Order.
The Department’s programmatic review
of the Federal coal program furthers the
goals of the Haaland Order.
In announcing this review and
soliciting comments, the Department
notes that the regional leasing program
authorized in the 1979 regulations has
not worked as envisioned and, instead,
the BLM has conducted leasing only in
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
response to industry applications. Given
previous concerns about the lack of
competition in the lease-by-application
system, as well as consideration of the
Biden Administration’s environmental
goals, the BLM is beginning a new
review of the Federal coal leasing
program and seeks comments on
whether the current regulatory
framework should be changed to
provide better mechanisms to decide
which coal resources should be made
available and how the leasing process
should work, including when and
where to lease. The BLM is also seeking
comments on the following topics:
a. Fair Return
The BLM is seeking comments on
whether the bonus bids, rents, and
royalties received under the Federal
coal program are successfully securing a
fair return to the American public for
Federal coal, and, if not, what
adjustments could be made to provide
such compensation.
b. Climate Impacts
The BLM seeks comments on how
best to measure and assess the climate
impacts of continued Federal coal
production, transportation, and
combustion.
c. Other Impacts
The BLM seeks comments on other
potential impacts on public health and
the environment, such as the effects of
coal production on: The quantity and
quality of water resources, including
aquifer drawdown and impacts on
streams and alluvial valley floors; air
quality and the associated effects on
health and visibility; wildlife, including
endangered species; and other land uses
such as grazing and recreation.
d. Socio-Economic Considerations
The BLM seeks comments on whether
the current Federal coal leasing program
adequately accounts for externalities
related to Federal coal production,
including environmental and social
impacts.
e. Exports
The BLM seeks comments addressing
whether and, if so, how leasing
decisions should consider actual and/or
projected exports of domestic coal
collectively or from any given tract and
potential mechanisms that could be
used to appropriately evaluate export
potential.
f. Energy Needs
Finally, the BLM seeks comments on
how Federal coal supports fulfilling the
energy needs of the United States.
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Notices
The BLM also welcomes suggestions
for other potential approaches to the
Federal coal program including
approaches that may differ from those
articulated below. We encourage
commenters to be as specific as possible
in identifying the types of changes to
the program that the BLM should
consider, including changes to
regulations, guidance, and management
practices.
BLM also solicits input on the
following:
1. Potential new leasing models, or
potential reforms to the previous or
existing leasing models of regional
leasing and lease by application;
2. Other approaches to increase
competition in the leasing process;
3. Data or analyses that justify a
specific change to the royalty rate;
4. Potential approaches to improve
the pre-sale estimate of fair market
value;
5. Whether, and how, to account in
the leasing process for the extent to
which reclamation responsibilities have
been met;
6. Potential approaches to design a
‘‘budget’’ for the amount of Federal coal
and/or acreage to be leased over a given
period; and
7. How to account for export potential
in the leasing process.
In submitting written comments,
individuals should be aware that their
entire comment—including personal
identifying information (including
address, phone number, and email
address)—may be made publicly
available at any time. While the
commenter can request in the comment
that the commenter’s personal
identifying information be withheld
from public review, this cannot be
guaranteed. All comments from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
available for public inspection in their
entirety.
The DOI will consult with Indian
tribes on a government-to-government
basis in accordance with Executive
Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal
concerns, including impacts on Indian
trust assets and potential impacts to
cultural resources, will be given due
consideration. Federal, State, and local
agencies, along with Tribes and other
stakeholders that may be interested in or
affected by the Federal coal program, are
invited to participate in the review.
Following closure of the comment
period, the BLM will prepare a
comment summary report, make the
report available to the public, and will
detail the scope and form of its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Aug 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
programmatic review. The BLM’s goal is
to announce additional steps for the
programmatic review by November
2021.
(Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., 30 U.S.C.
181 et seq., 30 U.S.C. 351 et. seq.)
Nada Wolff Culver,
Deputy Director, Programs and Policy, Bureau
of Land Management.
[FR Doc. 2021–17827 Filed 8–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
[OMB Control Number 1010–0072; Docket
ID: BOEM–2017–0016]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Commercial Prospecting,
Noncommercial Geological and
Geophysical Exploration, and
Scientific Research for Minerals Other
Than Oil, Gas, and Sulfur on the Outer
Continental Shelf
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) proposes to renew an
information collection request (ICR).
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
September 20, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent to
the Office of Management and Budget’s
Desk Officer for the Department of the
Interior within 30 days of publication of
this notice at www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/PRAMain. Find this information
collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under
Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or
by using the search function. Please
provide a copy of your comments to the
BOEM Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Anna Atkinson, Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia
20166; or by email to anna.atkinson@
boem.gov. Please reference Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control
Number 1010–0072 in the subject line of
your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Atkinson by email at
anna.atkinson@boem.gov or by
telephone at 703–787–1025.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, BOEM provides
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46877
the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
new, proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps
BOEM assess the impact of the
information collection requirements and
minimize the public’s reporting burden.
It also helps the public understand
BOEM’s information collection
requirements.
Title of Collection: Commercial
Prospecting, Noncommercial Geological
and Geophysical Exploration, and
Scientific Research for Minerals Other
Than Oil, Gas, and Sulfur on the Outer
Continental Shelf.
Abstract: This ICR covers the
information collection requirements in
30 CFR part 580, ‘‘Prospecting for
Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and
Sulphur 1 on the Outer Continental
Shelf [OCS],’’ which concern
commercial prospecting and scientific
research. This request also includes
information collection requirements
related to authorizations of
noncommercial geological and
geophysical (G&G) exploration issued
pursuant to section 11 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCS
Lands Act), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1340
et seq., and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
The OCS Lands Act authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
prescribe rules and regulations to
administer leasing of mineral resources
on the OCS. Section 8 of the OCS Lands
Act authorizes the Secretary ‘‘to grant to
the qualified persons offering the
highest cash bonuses on a basis of
competitive bidding leases of any
mineral other than oil, gas, and sulphur
in any area of the [O]uter Continental
Shelf not then under lease for such
mineral upon such royalty, rental, and
other terms and conditions as the
Secretary may prescribe at the time of
offering the area for lease.’’ 43 U.S.C.
1337(k)(1). Additionally, the Secretary
may noncompetitively negotiate
agreements for the use of OCS sand,
gravel, and shell resources for use in
shore protection, beach restoration, or
coastal wetlands restoration projects
undertaken by a Federal, State, or local
government agency, or for use in a
construction project funded in whole or
in part by or authorized by the Federal
Government. 43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2).
Section 11 of the OCS Lands Act
states that ‘‘any person authorized by
the Secretary may conduct geological
and geophysical explorations in the
[O]uter Continental Shelf, which do not
1 BOEM acknowledges that the generally and
scientifically accepted spelling for this compound
is sulfur. Throughout this notice, BOEM uses the
spelling consistent with its current regulations.
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
52174
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 179 / Monday, September 20, 2021 / Notices
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under Review—Open for
Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function. Please provide a copy
of your comments to Ms. Kimberly
Belone, Indian Highway Safety Program
Coordinator, 1001 Indian School Road
NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104; or by
email to Kimberly.belone@bia.gov.
Please reference OMB Control Number
1076–0190 in the subject line of your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact L.G. Robertson, Indian
Highway Program Director, 1001 Indian
School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM
87104 by email at Lawrence.robertson@
bia.gov, or by telephone at 505–563–
3780. Individuals who are hearing or
speech impaired may call the Federal
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 for
TTY assistance. You may also view the
ICR at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the
general public and other Federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on new, proposed, revised,
and continuing collections of
information. This helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. It also helps the
public understand our information
collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
A Federal Register notice with a 60day public comment period soliciting
comments on this collection of
information was published on May 13,
2021 (86 FR 26231). No comments were
received.
We are again soliciting comments on
the proposed ICR that is described
below. We are especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is the collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
BIA; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the BIA enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the BIA minimize the burden of
this collection on the respondents,
including through the use of
information technology.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Sep 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Abstract: This information is
collected from Tribal entities
concerning population, land base,
highway miles and statistical data
concerning vehicle fatalities, crashes,
traffic enforcement actions and
proposed financial data. This data
collected is a requirement for the BIA
Indian Highway Safety Program (IHSP)
to fulfil the data obligations of 23 CFR
1300.11 and will be used for review and
consideration by the IHSP Selection
Committee for consideration of grant
awards.
Proposed Revisions to This Information
Collection
Travel & Training Form: New form for
registration and travel expense
reimbursements based on actual travel
costs, not to exceed the Federal travel
regulations.
Child Passenger Safety Seat Grant
Application: Minor revisions to format,
content, and instructions.
Law Enforcement Grant Application:
Minor revisions to format, content, and
instructions.
Title of Collection: Indian Highway
Safety Grants.
OMB Control Number: 1076–0190.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Tribal
governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 485 per year, on average.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 2,256 per year, on average.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: For applications, 4 hours, on
average; for monthly reports, 3–11
hours, on average; and for annual
reports, 5–9 hours, on average.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 15,316 on average.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: Annually for
grant applications and annual reports;
monthly for reports.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: None.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Elizabeth K. Appel,
Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and
Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021–20257 Filed 9–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[21X.LLHQ320000.L13200000.PP0000]
Extension of Public Comment Period
for the Notice of Intent To Conduct a
Review of the Federal Coal Leasing
Program and To Seek Public Comment
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public
comment period.
AGENCY:
On August 20, 2021, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
published a Notice of Intent to Conduct
a Review of the Federal Coal Leasing
Program in the Federal Register and
requested public comments. This notice
extends the public comment period for
15 days to allow for further public
comment and consideration to occur.
DATES: The BLM will consider written
comments received or postmarked on or
before October 5, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments by the following methods:
• Email: BLM_HQ_320_
CoalProgramReview@blm.gov. This is
the preferred method of commenting.
• Mail, personal, or messenger
delivery: National Coal Program Review,
In care of: Thomas Huebner, BLM
Wyoming State Office, 5353
Yellowstone Rd, Cheyenne, WY 82009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lindsey Curnutt, Chief, Division of
Solid Minerals, email: lcurnutt@
blm.gov, telephone: 480–708–7339.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–
8339 to contact Ms. Curnutt. This
service is available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, to leave a message or
question. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM
published a notice on August 20, 2021
(86 FR 46873), inviting comments on
the scope of the BLM’s review of the
Federal coal leasing program. The initial
comment period ends September 20,
2021. For additional details on the
original notice, please visit the Federal
Register’s website: https://
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 179 / Monday, September 20, 2021 / Notices
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-202108-20/pdf/2021-17827.pdf.
The BLM has received requests for an
extension of the public comment period
and has decided to extend the comment
period by 15 days to provide the public
with additional time to provide
comments.
The BLM invites interested agencies,
States, American Indian tribes, local
governments, industry, organizations,
and members of the public to submit
comments or suggestions to assist in
identifying significant issues that the
BLM should consider in its review of
the Federal coal program.
The Department of the Interior also
intends to conduct government-togovernment consultation with affected
Indian tribes about the Federal coal
leasing program and to consider the
potential environmental, social, and
cultural impacts of the coal program on
indigenous communities and their lands
during this review.
(Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., 30 U.S.C.
181 et seq., 30 U.S.C. 351 et. seq.)
Nada Wolff Culver,
Deputy Director, Policy and Programs, Bureau
of Land Management.
[FR Doc. 2021–20283 Filed 9–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLORV00000.L10200000.XZ0000.
LXSSH1060000.212.HAG 21–0300]
Notice of Public Meetings for the John
Day-Snake Resource Advisory
Council, Oregon
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management’s (BLM) John DaySnake Resource Advisory Council (RAC)
will meet as follows.
DATES: The John Day-Snake RAC will
meet Thursday, October 21, 2021, from
8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time, and
will then host a field tour in the
afternoon to the Restoration Fuels
Torrefaction Plant until 5:30 p.m. The
RAC will reconvene Friday, October 22,
2021, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. A public
comment period will be offered each
day and the meetings and field tour are
open to the public in their entirety.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Sep 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
The meetings will be held at
the Malheur National Forest
Supervisor’s Office, 431 Patterson
Bridge Rd., John Day, OR 97845. The
October 21 field tour includes a visit to
the Restoration Fuels Torrefaction Plant
located at 60339 US–26, John Day, OR
97845. A virtual meeting may substitute
for an in-person meeting depending on
local health restrictions in place at the
time of the meeting. Additional meeting
details and a final agenda will be
published on the RAC web page at least
10 days in advance of the meetings at
https://www.blm.gov/get-involved/
resource-advisory-council/near-you/
oregon-washington/john-day-rac.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larisa Bogardus, Public Affairs Officer,
3100 H St., Baker City, OR 97814;
telephone: 541–219–6863; email:
lbogardus@blm.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1 (800) 877–8339 to
contact Larisa. The FRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15member John Day-Snake RAC was
chartered by and its members were
appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior. Its diverse perspectives are
represented in commodity,
conservation, and general interests. It
provides advice to the BLM and, as
needed, U.S. Forest Service resource
managers regarding management plans
and proposed resource actions on public
land in the John Day-Snake area.
Agenda items for October 21 include
a presentation from the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife on
mule-deer habitat and upcoming salmon
runs; a motorized and non-motorized
trail access discussion; a wild horse and
burro update; and a fire season
overview. The afternoon field tour is to
the Restoration Fuels thermal treatment
facility where the RAC will learn about
methods that utilize tree thinnings and
low-value wood materials from
stewardship projects in national forests
and private-land treatments to produce
environmentally friendly fuel for
energy. Attending public participants
must provide their own transportation
and personal amenities for the duration
of the field tour. Participants must
register to attend the field tour at least
14 days in advance using the contact
contained in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice. Agenda items for the October 22
meeting include a review of recreation
fee proposals for the BLM Prineville
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52175
District; a Blue Mountain Forest Plan
update; and agency updates. Depending
on the number of people wishing to
address the RAC and the time available,
the amount of time for oral public
comments may be limited. The public
may send written comments to the RAC
in response to material presented.
Comments can be mailed to the BLM
Vale District; Attn. Darrel W. Monger;
100 Oregon St.; Vale, OR 97918. The
Designated Federal Officer will attend
the meetings, take minutes, and publish
detailed meeting minutes on the RAC
web page (see the ADDRESSES section
earlier).
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comments, please be aware that your
entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee we will be able to do
so.
(Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4–2)
Darrel W. Monger,
Vale District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2021–20290 Filed 9–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–AKR–CAKR–DENA–GAAR–LACL–
WRST–32369; PPAKAKROR4,
PPMPRLE1Y.LS0000]
Request for Nominations for the
National Park Service Alaska Region
Subsistence Resource Commission
Program
AGENCY:
ACTION:
National Park Service, Interior.
Request for nominations.
The National Park Service
(NPS) is seeking nominations for
individuals willing to represent
subsistence users on the following
Subsistence Resource Commissions
(SRC): The Cape Krusenstern National
Monument SRC, the Denali National
Park SRC, the Gates of the Arctic
National Park SRC, the Lake Clark
National Park SRC, and the Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park SRC.
SUMMARY:
Nominations must be
postmarked by December 20, 2021.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\20SEN1.SGM
20SEN1
Appendix B
List of Commenters
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B.
List of Commenters
Table B-1. Commenters by Affiliation
Type
Organization
State
Governments
Local
Governments
Business/
Commercial
Trade Groups
December 2021
Affiliation
American Lung Association
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis
Institute for Policy Integrity at New York
University School of Law
National Parks Conservation Association
Northern Plains Resource Council
No Coal in Oakland
Our Children's Trust
People, Public Lands, and Climate Collaborative
Powder River Basin Resource Council
Sierra Club Environmental Law Program
Taxpayers for Common Sense
California Department of Justice et al.
Governor of Wyoming
Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office
Campbell County Board of Commissioners
Wyoming Coalition of Local Governments
Essential Information, Inc.
Navajo Transitional Energy Company
Peabody Energy
Public Revenues Consulting
CM Energy, LP; Freedom Energy, LP
Wolverine Fuels, LLC
Colorado Mining Association
National Mining Association
Wyoming Mining Association
Commenter Name
Katherine Pruitt
Vivienne Heston
Max Sarinsky
Matthew Kirby
Bronya Lechtman
Ann Harvey
Julia Olson
Mallory Huggins
Shannon Anderson
Nathaniel Shoaff
Mia Huang
Rob Bonta
Mark Gordon
Redge Johnson
Robert Maul
Eric South
Margot Bass
Matthew Adams
Scott Jarboe
Dan Bucks
Denise Dragoo
Carson Pollastro
Stan Dempsey, Jr
Katie Sweeney
Travis Deti
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
B-1
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
B-2
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Anonymous
Anonymous
A Brennan
Adam Scott
Adele England
Adina Hirschmann
Al Shoats
Alan Benford
Alexa Fay
Amrita Burdick
Amy Sherwood
Amy Allen
Amy Meyer
Angelique Andrae
Anita Buffer
Ann Charland
Ann Edgar
Anna Stone
Anna Minore
Anne McClain
Anne Markey Jones
Annski Williams
Anon Deeanna
Anon Anon
April De Stefano
Apsara Desai
Arlene Hansen
Art Hanson
Arthur Chingros
Barbara Burnett
Barbara Pikus
Barbara Anders
Barbara Leighton
Barbara Cain
Becky Grey
Benedict Wright
Beryl Brownstein
Beverly Richards-Smith
Brad Snyder
Brenda Parada
Brenda Frey
Brett O' Sullivan
Brett Robert
Brian Fikes
Bruce Dunwell
Bud Barta
C. Sharyn Magee
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
December 2021
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Carl B. Lechner
Carloz Lopez
Carol Alley
Carol Gloor
Carol McDonald
Carole Ehrhardt
Carolyn Wolf
Carolyn Atkin
Carolyn Johnson
Carolynn Kohout
CarsonPollastro
Catharine Way
Catherine Carter
Catherine Rich
Cecilia Apodaca
Celia Warren
Charlene Woodcock
Charles Beer
Charles Bagley
Charles Schmalz
Charles Alexander
Charles Levitan
Charlotte Taylor
Charlotte Fremaux
Cheryl McGovern
Chris Ketner
Chris Nicolosi
Chris Lomaka
Chris Ashmore
Christine Deveny
Christine Berardo
Christopher Mello
Christopher Lish
Christopher Hamilton
Cindy Weber
Clarice Bales
Claudette Hennessy
Clifford Ballard
Colleen Cabot
Colleen Lenihan
Corless Smith
Cory BlackEagle
D.L. Blank
Daniel Epperson
Daniel Szetela
Daniel Conford
Daniel D. Heagerty
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
B-3
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
B-4
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Dante Renzoni
Darcy Bluhm
Dave Potter
Dave Baldwin
David Molaris
David Sacerdote
David McEwen
David Morris
David Gassman
David Hamilton
David Robison
David Rohrlich
David Bezanson
David Valle
Dawn Lauryn
Dean Alper
Dean Borgeson
Dean Sigler
Deb Shelby
Debi Dunson
Deborah Milkowski
Debra Dunson
Dena Allen
Dennis Knight
DiniDi Natale
Donald Weber
Donna Bubb
Donna McKee
Donna Seabloom
Donna Raceles
Dorothy Wolf
Dorothy Maurer
Dorothy Hall
Doug Bogen
Dr. Alexa Forrester
Dr. Cheryl Reichert
E Heard
Ed Brunsvold
Edith Ruiz
Edward Boyer
Eileen Coffee
Elaine Aron
Elaine Weibel
Elaine Weir
Elaine Monnier
Eldwin Vanalstyne
Elena Engel
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
December 2021
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Elizabeth Madden
Elizabeth Root
Ellen Beans
Ellie Sigrist
Emily Benner
Erika Koenigsaecker
Ethel MacDonald
Evan Fuller
Evan Elias
Evelyn Griffin
Everett Gollomp
Falguni Mehta
Felicito Guerrero
Fran Post
Frances Alet
Frances Rains
Fred Bialy
Gail Weininger
Gail Allen
Gary Frasure-Wieselman
Gay Kramer-Dodd
Gay and David Santerre
Georgia Tasker
Gina B. Hardin
Glen Rice
Glen Anderson
Glenda Adkinson
Glenn Andersen
Greg Lind
Gunta Alexander
Gwyneth Smith
Harlan Smith
Harold Hoem
Harry Battista
Heather Baines
Heather Cantino
Heidi Brooks
Holli Adams
Holly Buchanan
Ian Hall
Ildiko White
Isadora Avett
Jack Scholl
Jacki Shaw
Jacqueline Stroud
Jaime Giesen
James Boone
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
B-5
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
B-6
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
James Bachman
James Eichman
Jami Cooper
Jane March
Jane Paneitz
Jane Stallman
Janet Lyon
Janet McGarry
Janet Ryan
Janet Smarr
Janice Van Riper
Janice Stewart
Janis Hashe
Jarrad Davis
Jason Magidson
JC Caine
Jean Public
Jeanne Anderson
Jeff White
Jeffrey Melcher
Jen Rund
Jennifer Hina
Jeremy Portwood
Jeremy Ehrlich
Jerome Walker
Jesse Bahm
Jesse Reyes
Jewell Spalding
Jill Dahlman
Jim Steitz
Jim Edwards
Jo Ann Herr
Joan Ward
Joan Erlanger
Joanna Taylor
Joe Ward
Joelle Cooper
JoEllen Rudolph
John Wolverton
John Meyer
John Dillon
John Hermsdorfer
John Parks
John Commerford
John Savlove
John Browne
Joshua Werblin
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
December 2021
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Joshua Fields
Juanette Cremin
Judith Schriebman
Judith Canepa
Juli Kring
Julia McCormick
Julie Lovie
Julie Bernstein
K Rohrer
Kaaren borsting
Kae Bender
Karen Veditti
Karen Wilson
Karen Hodges
Karen Beck
Karen Van Atta
Kari Gunderson
Karl Twombly
Katherine Heffernan
Katherine Ziegler
Katherine Smith
Kathleen Gessaman
Kathleen Corr
Kathryn Matlock
Kathryn Duval
Kathy Heffernan
Kathy Kennedy
Kathy Dawson
Kathy Richards
Katie Grenier
Kaz Thea
Keith Frost
Kelly Doolittle
Kenneth Winter
Kenneth Gibson
Kerri Knudsen
Kevin Crupi
Kim Davitt
Kim Klein
Kristie Miller
Kristie Garcia
Kristin Dunlap
Kristin Meijer
Lani Hummel
Larnie Fox
Laurie Rubin
Laurie Harris
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
B-7
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
B-8
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Lawrence Rosin
Leda Beth Gray
Leigh Fredrickson
Leigh Emerson Smith
Lenore Guidoni
Leo Grierson
Leslie Leister
Linda Raynolds
Linda Ray
Linda Weiner
Linda Schneider
Linda Elkind
Lindy Moceus
Lisa Zure
Lisa Jackson
Lisa Burke
Liz Amsden
Liza Eng
Lori Donohue
Lou Baxter
Lou Orr
Luanne Clayton
Lucy Turner
Lynne Huskinson
MW in
M Schonfeld
Madeline Amalphy
Madrone Ruggiero
Malcolm MacPherson
Marcia Westkott
Margaret Bullitt-Jonas
Margaret Sobey
Margaret Burwell
Margaret Estes
Margaret Goodale
Maria Lisella
Maria C.von der Pahlen
Marilyn Gooch
Marilyn Brenneman
Marilyn Shertzer
Marilyn Endres
Marilyn Evans
Marion Rosa
Mark Payne
Mark Barone
Mark Canright
Mark Koppel
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
December 2021
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Mark Grossman
Mark Rosenblum
Martha Cottle
Martin MacKerel
Martine Divito
Mary Langenderfer
Mary Ames
Mary Bull
Mary Proteau
Mary Proteau
Mary Lou Fagan
Mary Lou Rosczyk
Maryann Golonka
Maryknoll Hufana
Matt Maguire
Meghan Jones
Melissa Carlson
Michael Sheppard
Michael Omole
Michael Enk
Michael Friel
Michael Klein
Michael Cohill
Michael Davies
Michael Hinshaw
Michael-Leonard Creditor
Michele Bailey
Mike Mesford
Mike Rummerfield
Miriam Warwick
Mitchell Lucas
Monica Hargraves
Nadine Godwin
Nancy Cochran
Nancy Arbuckle
Nancy Dawson
Norah McIntire
Norma Campbell
Norman Verworn
Olivia Campbell
Pamela Albert
Paolo Rui
Pat Vescio
Patricia Stevenson
Patricia Seffens
Patricia Reynolds
Patricia Simmons
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
B-9
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
B-10
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Patricia Elka
Paul Edwards
Paula Morrow
Pearl McLaughlin
Peggy Tribble
Peggy Detmers
Peggy Allaire
Peter Ayres
peterring-revotskie
Peter Hartline
Phyllis Chu
Pieter Bonin
Priscilla Dillon
Priya Gehm
Ray Welch
Rebecca Behar
Regi Teasley
Rich Fein
Richard Mearns
Rick Boston
Rita A
Rob Warren
Robby Robinson
Robert Raven
Robert Nace
Robert Hoekstra
Robert Walker
Robert A. Mertz
Roberta Brunelle
Robin Carey
Robin Vosburg
Robyn Lauster
Rodney Whisenhunt
Ron Meissner
Ronnie Herrin
Royal Chamberlain
Roz Downin
Russell Vreeland
Ruth Agius
Ruth Sheets
Ryan Lincoln
Sabine Albers
Sabrina Hardenbergh
Sam Reed
Sam Dawson
Samantha Boyce
Sandy Dillon
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
December 2021
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Sara Via
Sarah Richardson
Sarah Bennett
Sarah EllenDurand
Scott Jarobe
Scott Nelson
Scott Ruffing
Scott Bovard
Scott Friedman
Sharon Burke
Sharon Fuller
Sharon Baker
Shawn Troxell
Sherrie Raymond
Sheryan Epperly Chester
Sheryl Roller
Shinann Earnshaw
Shirlee Jack
Sigrid Asmus
Stan Dempsey, Jr.
Stanley Holmes
Steve Ditore
Steve Gilbert
Steve Goodwin
Steven Iversen
Sue Malek
Sue Westin
Sue Chartock
Surabhi Konkar
Susan Roth
Susan Green
Susan McMurtrie
Susan Rynas
Susan Dobbelaere
Susan Haywood
Susan and Peter Risser
Susannah Gelbart
Susanne Weil
Suzanne Watson
Sylvia DRIOULE
T Jeffries
Taj Lalwani
Tanya Salof
Tara Wheeler
Theresa Melof
Thomas Smith
Thomas Cassidy
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
B-11
B. List of Commenters
Type
Individual
(cont’d)
B-12
Affiliation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Commenter Name
Tim Skufca
Tim White
Tim Cross
Timothy Bardell
Tom Hausam
Toni Logan
Tony Greiner
Trenton Sexton
Tyler Wilcox
Val Snyder
Valerie Cochran
Vicki Becker
Vincent Hoagland
Virginia Metcalf
Vladimir Sokolov
Walter Bishop
Ward Mccartney
Wayne Vitale
Whitney Matson
William Bruml
William Ashman
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
Appendix C
Comments by Issue Category
This page intentionally left blank.
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Alper
Dean
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
2 Alper & McCulloch
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
The BLM should expand its Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement reports to address coal impacts.
29 Powder River Basin
3 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Beyond federal mine plans, we ask that OSMRE's broader oversight and enforcement activities be considered paramount to DOT's review of the federal coal
Resource Council
program, and in particular its review of the relationship between the federal coal program and development of coal resources in other regions. For instance, the
relative economic advantage of federal coal resources created by federal policies and subsidies has directly contributed to the downturn of the coal industry in
other parts of the nation, and has led to corresponding impacts such as bankruptcies, permit abandonments, and bond forfeitures. A comprehensive review is
needed, and OSMRE's authority to help create a managed wind down of the coal industry must be central to that review.
Anderson
Shannon
29 Powder River Basin
3 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
On behalf of the millions of members we represent in coal-impacted regions of the country, the undersigned organizations urge you to prioritize the role of the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement ("OSMRE") in the scope of your review.
Resource Council
In terms of timing, we believe it is imperative that BLM completes the review and moves forward with revising its regulations and other initiatives necessary to
carry out the decisions that will be made as soon as practicable. To that end, we urge that particularly with respect to any regulatory or other agency level
reforms, such as Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments, that will require notice and comment, BLM issues its proposed rules or reforms concurrent
with issuance of any NEPA documents.2 (footnote 2 We were pleased to see Revision of Existing Regulations Pertaining to Fossil Fuel Leases and Leasing Process
43 CFR Parts 3100 and 3400 identified as a priority rulemaking by DOI. We believe any rulemaking should occur concurrently with this broader review and any
NEPA documentation preparation to streamline the process and ensure timeliness of any rules. See:
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=1004-AE80 )
This approach is consistent with the process followed by BLM in
completing the Solar PEIS [Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement]. Within three months of completion of the Final Solar PEIS, BLM issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) incorporating final amendments to specific Resource Management Plans with solar energy resources. By proceeding in this manner, BLM can put
its revised regulatory framework for coal leasing into effect as expeditiously as possible.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
5 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
The Outdated, Existing Federal Coal Leasing Regulatory Scheme Under a set of laws and regulations issued decades ago, Congress directed BLM to manage public
lands to allow appropriate resource extraction while ensuring the protection of the environment, instructing the agency to manage resources "in a manner that
will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values . . . ." 43 U.S.C. §
1701(a)(8) (emphasis added). Through the "principles of multiple use and sustained yield," id. § 1712(a)-(c)(1), Congress instructed BLM to undertake "the
management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of
the American people," including, inter alia, "the use of some land for less than all of the resources," and taking into "account the long-term needs of future
generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural
scenic, scientific and historical values." Id. § 1702(c). BLM manages federal coal leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920, as amended by the 1976
Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act. 30 U.S.C. § 181, et seq. The statute directs the agency to authorize leasing of coal on federal lands at its "discretion," only
as the agency "finds appropriate and in the public interest," 30 U.S.C. § 201 (emphasis added), and directs that, "[p]rior to issuance of any coal lease, the Secretary
shall consider effects which mining of the proposed lease might have on an impacted community or area, including, but not limited to, impacts on the
environment, on agricultural and other economic activities, and on public services." Id. §201(a)(3)(C). Agency rules further mandate that, "[a]n application for a
lease shall be rejected in total or in part if the authorized officer determines that ... leasing of the lands covered by the application, for environmental or other
sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest" 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-8 (emphasis added). Similarly, BLM's Competitive Coal Leasing Handbook 3420-I
states that, "[t]he Adjudication Chief rejects an application for a lease in total or in part if BLM determines that the application is not consistent with applicable
regulations; issuance of the lease would compromise the regional leasing process; or leasing of the lands in the application, for environmental or other sufficient
reasons, would be contrary to the public interest." (emphasis added). BLM's mandate to apply discretion and act in the public interest is significant and must be the
guiding principle in its review of the federal coal program.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
10 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
The Lease Modification Loophole
In addition to LBAs, the other contemporary leasing mechanism by which private companies lease federal coal is through
Lease Modification Applications (LMAs), as governed under 30 U.S.C. § 203. LMAs were historically designed to allow for relatively minor modifications or
additions to existing coal leases (such as to include an outcropping at the edge of a minor) with less review and more expedited public process. However, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a meaningful loophole by significantly broadening the potential scope and size of LMAs, amending 30 U.S.C. § 203(c)(4)(A) to
amend the maximum size of an LMA from 160 acres up to 960 acres.
Given that this amendment subverted the intended role of LMAs, LMAs are now large
enough for them to function more like full coal leases by application. In the scope of the review, BLM should fully review the lease modification process and,
among other reforms, require full EISs on all proposed leases to ensure that all proposals are in the public interest. BLM must be mindful that even for LMAs, the
agency retains full discretion to avoid leasing if it is not in the public interest.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
December 2021
12 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
In doing this review, we encourage BLM to work with coal companies and its sister agency of OSMRE to develop mine closure plans that provide certainty and
predictability, as well as transition assistance, to workers and coal-impacted communities.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-1
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
29 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
A Comprehensive NEPA Review Is Necessary. A comprehensive programmatic NEPA document, such as a PEIS, is plainly appropriate at this critical juncture for
Resource Council
federal coal leasing. One pressing issue that must be addressed in the PEIS has never been the subject of a comprehensive examination under NEPA or any other
federal analytical tool: the impact of federal coal leasing on GHG emissions, and the changes necessary to ensure coal leasing does not conflict with GHG emission
reduction goals and climate and environmental justice initiatives. The many developments since the last PEIS update (in the 1980s) also call for the PEIS to
comprehensively address both the other environmental issues posed by federal coal leasing, and the coal leasing valuation issues that have come under recent
scrutiny. Moreover, in order to properly inform the federal decision-maker, it is vital that these matters all be considered together given that solutions to some
issues - such as GHG reductions - may be found in other areas, such as incorporating the social costs of greenhouse gases into coal lease pricing.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
30 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
A Pause on Agency Decisions Is Also Necessary Until Implementation of the New Leasing Framework. While the pace of leasing has certainly slowed since the
rush of 2011-12, several lease applications remain pending for hundreds of millions of tons of coal. Some of these lease applications have previously been the
subject of NEPA review, reaching the level of a Record of Decision (ROD). However, with the gap in time between the ROD and the present, BLM has
acknowledged the need for an updated NEPA review before these leases can be sold. Such an updated NEPA review could surely fit easily into the comprehensive
programmatic NEPA review discussed above, with that review potentially resulting in a new agency decision, or at least a modification of the previous ROD to
issue a lease and under what conditions. We encourage BLM to publicly talk about the need for new NEPA analysis and to ensure any agency decisions on
scheduling a lease sale for lease applications that have previously been approved are paused until such NEPA analysis is complete.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
33 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
34 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Finally, BLM has before it significant applications for royalty rate reductions. Approval of any royalty reduction will likely run counter to the overall programmatic
reform efforts that are being prioritized by the agency and that we advocate for herein. It only makes sense for BLM to pause any decisions on royalty relief
reduction applications until this programmatic review is complete.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
As set out in the Interior Department's NEPA regulations, the "need" for an action "may be described as the underlying problem or opportunity to which the
agency is responding with the action," while the "purpose" may "refer to the goal or objective that the bureau is trying to achieve, and should be stated to the
extent possible, in terms of desired outcomes." 43 C.F.R. § 46.420(a)(1). As further explained in BLM's NEPA Handbook: A carefully crafted purpose and need
statement can be an effective tool in controlling the scope of the analysis and thereby increasing efficiencies by eliminating unnecessary analysis and reducing
delays in the process. The purpose and need statement dictates the range of alternatives, because action alternatives are not "reasonable" if they do not respond
to the purpose and need for the action. The broader the purpose and need statement, the broader the range of alternatives that must be analyzed. The purpose
and need statement will provide a framework for issue identification and will form the basis for the eventual rationale for selection of an alternative. Generally, the
action alternatives will respond to the problem or opportunity described in the purpose and need statement, providing a basis for eventual selection of an
alternative in a decision. BLM NEPA Handbook at 6.2.1. Here, in framing the purpose and need for the agency's review and any companion NEPA analysis, BLM
must be guided by its statutory mandate to administer federal coal leasing in a manner that protects the Nation's "environmental, air and atmospheric, [and] water
resource[s]," 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8), takes into "account the long-term needs of future generations," and considers "the use of some land for less than all of the
resources" to accomplish these objectives. Id. § 1702(c). In addition, Congress directed that federal coal leasing should occur as the Secretary "finds appropriate
and in the public interest," and, where it does occur, must be "by competitive bidding." 30 U.S.C. § 201; 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(9) (requiring "fair market value for the
use of the public lands and their resources"). In light of these requirements, the need for BLM's review arises from the failure of the current federal coal leasing
framework to fulfill BLM's statutory mandates to protect the environment and provide a fair return to the American taxpayer. And the purpose of BLM's review is
to revise and update that framework in a manner that will (a) minimize the extent to which federal coal contributes to the emissions that drive climate change; (b)
ameliorate direct impacts to the environment where federal coal is mined; and (c) maximize the value of this federal resource.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
35 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
any corresponding NEPA analysis - must explore a reasonable range of alternatives that will achieve the following overarching objectives:
l Analyzing and
disclosing to the public the full lifecycle of GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing and their impacts on the climate, including upstream and
downstream emissions; l Reducing, mitigating, or eliminating the GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing to align with the Nation's GHG emission
reduction and climate goals; l Identifying and fully presenting a detailed analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse environmental impacts associated
with federal coal leasing and developing new regulations and policies to ensure these impacts are minimized, including ensuring proper reclamation; and l
Reforming the coal leasing price structure to advance GHG reduction and climate goals, ensure meaningful competition, and provide a transparent and fair return
to taxpayers.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
36 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
It is of course too early in the process to set out precisely which reforms will best accomplish these objectives. However, at this stage we anticipate that BLM will
need to include the following elements to achieve the agency's purpose and need: l An end to leasing by application and regional coal teams and development of a
national framework for when, where, and how much federal coal, if any, must be considered for leasing; l A revised lease payment framework that takes into
account GHG reduction and climate goals and provides a transparent and fair return to taxpayers, including a new approach to determining FMV and setting
rental and royalty fees; l A systematic examination of the full lifecycle GHG emissions caused by federal coal leasing; l Apply those emissions to the remaining
global carbon budget through carbon budgeting- which offers a cap on the remaining stock of GHGs that can be emitted while keeping global average temperature
rise below scientifically researched warming thresholds, beyond which climate change impacts may result in severe and irreparable harm; l An inter-agency
management approach to ensure compliance with all federal laws; l Limitations on leasing in areas with environmental conflicts or those that are suitable for
renewable energy development; l Limitations on who may obtain leases based on the extent of reserves and the company's demonstrated capacity to complete
appropriate reclamation; l New lease conditions and bonding requirements that will facilitate proper site reclamation; l Regulatory requirements for methane
capture; and l Development of public interest criteria to more clearly delineate circumstances in which federal coal leases are not in the public interest and
therefore should be rejected pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 201.
C-2
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
37 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
To encompass these issues, we recommend that the agency identify the following major federal action as the driver of consideration of the agency's review: The
Resource Council
proposed federal action is to provide a complete environmental analysis of, potential alternatives to, and mitigation measures associated with federal coal leasing
and subsequent mining as well as an informed basis for restructuring the regulatory and policy framework for federal coal leasing and mining with the objectives of
minimizing contributions to GHG emissions and their impacts on the climate and other environmental and social harms, while maximizing returns to the
American public.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
38 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
At the outset, we emphasize that BLM's programmatic review must analyze and disclose to the public and decisionmakers all relevant direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts, including physical, chemical, radiological and biological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, and social effects. Only through a
comprehensive analysis can BLM make an informed judgment about changes in the federal coal leasing regulatory framework.
Moreover, impacts must be
analyzed broadly and BLM should be guided by its statutory mandate to manage public lands and minerals "in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values . . ." 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (emphasis added). To
minimize and mitigate these impacts, BLM must also explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures. 40 C.F.R. §1502.14.
Because the alternatives we propose - and those that BLM is already considering - are closely tied to the impact area they are designed to address, we present a
set of tailored alternatives for each impact area in this section. In the following section we will offer several combined alternatives for BLM to consider in carrying
forward its review.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
59 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Importantly, by instituting a climate test process applicable at the programmatic review and RMP levels, BLM would be able to better determine the extent to
which climate mitigation measures may be necessary for ongoing coal activities on federal public lands. Further, because already-permitted production and the
rights to future production secured under valid existing leases may lead to significant additional GHG emissions, BLM should consider examining its regulations
applicable to "modification or waiver of lease terms and conditions," which presume the removal of protective measures-as opposed to the imposition of new
measures that may arise due to changed conditions or other factors requiring more stringent requirements.120 (footnote 120 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-4.)
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
61 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
BLM Must Consider a Range of Reasonable Alternatives, Including Those That Reduce GHG emissions
BLM should analyze a reasonable range of alternatives in
its review of the Federal coal program. Congress, through the NEPA process, requires agencies to "study, develop, and describe" reasonable alternatives to the
agency's proposed action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii), (2)(E). This alternative analysis forms the "heart" of the NEPA process. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. To fulfill this
mandate, federal agencies must "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (emphasis added). Agencies must
analyze and disclose the GHG emissions associated with each alternative, so they can meaningfully consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would decrease
the emissions resulting from their actions. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration failed to
analyze an alternative raised by an outside commentator in its environmental analysis that would have decreased emissions. Center for Biological Diversity v.
NHTSA, 538 F.3d. at 1217¬1219; see also WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 870 F.3d 1222, 1236 (10th Cir. 2017); Montana
Environmental Information Center v. OSMRE, 274 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1098 (D. Mont. 2017); Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d at 1375.
Notably, in Western
Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) v. BLM, the court invalidated EISs for the Buffalo and Miles City RMPs because BLM failed to consider a reasonable
alternative that reduced the amount of coal made available under the plans. 2018 WL 1475470 at *9. The court found that "BLM's failure to consider any
alternative that would decrease the amount of extractable coal available for leasing rendered inadequate the Buffalo EIS and Miles City EIS in violation of NEPA."
Id. at *9. The court explained, "BLM cannot acknowledge that climate change concerns defined, in part, the scope of the RMP revision while simultaneously
foreclosing consideration of alternatives that would reduce the amount of available coal based upon deference to an earlier coal screening that failed to consider
climate change." Id. at *17. Similarly, in Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., the court found that BLM failed to consider reasonable alternatives
by omitting any option that would meaningfully limit leasing and development within the planning area. 342 F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1167 (D. Colo. 2018).
In its 2016
Final Guidance, CEQ instructed: "[w]hen conducting the analysis, an agency should compare the anticipated levels of GHG emissions from each alternative including the no-action alternative - and mitigation actions to provide information to the public and enable the decision maker to make an informed choice."122
(footnote 122 CEQ Final Guidance, at 15.)
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
61 (continued) 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
It also instructed agencies to "consider reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce action-related GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration
in the same fashion as they consider alternatives and mitigation measures for any other environmental effects."123
(footnote 123 Id.)
Thus, BLM must disclose
the GHG emissions associated with each alternative so that decisionmakers and the public can meaningfully analyze and differentiate among alternatives, including
mitigation alternatives, to reduce GHG emissions and their implications for climate change.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
108 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
The "no-action" alternative
Any agency's NEPA analysis must consider a "no-action alternative," 40 C.F.R.§1502.14(d), whereby BLM would make no changes to
the coal leasing regulatory framework. In the review, the agency should detail each of the problems that would remain should the agency choose this approach,
including:
l The conflict between federal coal leasing and the Nation's GHG emission reduction and climate goals; l The direct environmental and social harms
caused by the mining of federal coal, and the failure of current reclamation standards to protect against those harms; l BLM's failure to obtain FMV for coal
resources or to otherwise obtain a full return for taxpayers; and l The conflicts between the current regulatory scheme and domestic energy security.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
109 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
111 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Immediately pause all decisions related to new lease applications, decisions on federal mine plan modifications, decisions on lease renewals, and decisions on
royalty relief reduction applications
Resource Council
Work with OSMRE to consider reforms to the federal coal program that account for the socio-economic impacts associated with reduced leasing and mining and
policy options that help to plan and manage the decline in an orderly, structured way that provides time, space, and opportunity for a just and equitable transition
of workers, communities, and coal-dependent state economies
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
December 2021
113 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Develop a new set of rules, guidance documents, and other management criteria by which leasing and mining of federal coal resources is judged by the public
interest mandates of federal law, including protection of land, water, air, wildlife, and global climate resources
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-3
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
3 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
Similarly, while there are numerous important programmatic decisions that must be considered and resolved in BLM's review, it must also be careful not to rely
Resource Council
on a PEIS process to resolve issues that should be the subject of further, site-specific consideration in any site-specific EIS or lease or mine level decision. For
instance, many direct impacts of mining necessitate agency review and public comment at the site-specific lease or mine level. While BLM's review should discuss
these impacts at a programmatic level, discussing them in terms of regional or national trends, the programmatic analysis should not replace the need for much
more detailed analysis and public participation opportunities at the leasing and permitting stages of the federal coal program as effects can be extremely site
specific.3
(footnote 3 We note Section 1202(i) of SMCRA identifies a purpose of the statute for public participation in standards, reclamation plans, and
programs, established by the Secretary, such as federal mine plans.)
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
28 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
The Need for Both a Comprehensive Review under NEPA and Pausing Decisions on New Leases and Lease Renewals Until A Revised Regulatory Framework Is In
Place
As explained above, since there is a need to concurrently issue rules, RMP amendments, and other policy documents, along with the results of this review,
there is likely a need to carry out a programmatic review under NEPA. We recommend a similar process to the previously initiated PEIS, which can be started
again or initiated using the previous scoping report issued by BLM. Additionally, since any reforms - and any NEPA review of such reforms - will take time, it is
appropriate to put in place a pause on agency actions related to any new leases, lease renewals, royalty relief applications, or other decisions where these reforms
come into play. This pause is necessary to preserve agency decision space and ensure that the agency - and in turn the American public - is not locked into any
decisions based on a flawed system.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
32 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Moreover, BLM must address the number of lease renewals that are scheduled over the course of the next few years. We encourage the agency to pause any
lease renewal decisions until the programmatic review is complete to ensure that any new regulations or agency decisions can be implemented at the time of lease
renewal.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
57 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Applying the climate test to Department of the Interior decisions on coal leasing
The climate test, or portions of it, are potentially applicable at every level of
BLM's decision-making concerning coal, from the programmatic review to any coal-related proposals or projects that may emerge upon completion.116
(footnote 116 We note that the potential economic and local disproportionate impacts modules referenced above would not be applicable to a programmatic
assessment of the Coal Program, because those analyses are performed on a regional or local level. The carbon emissions significance analysis, however, is applied
on a national scale. )
On a programmatic level, the climate test should be used to determine whether the various programmatic alternatives BLM will consider
for the coal program are consistent with climate goals, using estimates of the level and timing of extraction that will occur in each such alternative, coupled with
the other data inputs and assumptions employed in the test. While the specificity of the test's conclusions obviously vary with the specificity of available data, and
application of the carbon emissions significance test at the programmatic level may generate broader and less certain results, it is nonetheless essential that BLM
employ a data-driven method of this nature to determine the climate impact of any potential alternative path forward with the coal program.
To the extent BLM
decides to continue leasing and permitting following completion of the review, the climate test should be applied to all future decisions concerning coal and fossil
fuel approvals. We recommend that BLM adopt a policy of declining to authorize any coal leasing activity that is demonstrated to be inconsistent with a 1.5°
Celsius warming world via the test (or other relevant tool).117 (footnote 117 We note that in addition to the emissions test described in this comment, the
broader framework would also be designed to be applied at the project level. Data concerning the likely development activity should be available as part of a
reasonable range of NEPA alternatives (reasonably foreseeable development scenarios (RFDS)). Prototypical mine development data on GHG emissions and
operating economics within a planning area could be used to estimate economic viability - for example, whether-and if so, when-that asset may become vulnerable
to economic stranding as a result of changing energy market conditions while the country moves toward our climate goals. Similarly, a disproportionate impacts
analysis could be deployed by determining whether development activity in the various locations would threaten health of disproportionately impacted
communities, as defined by quantitative and qualitative decision metrics (or other indicators deemed appropriate), such that those areas should be closed to
leasing and development. )
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
57(continued) 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
Specifically, BLM should determine, based on the level of extraction estimated to occur pursuant to the lease, whether the lifecycle emissions from such
extraction will be consistent with climate goals of limited warming when considered in relation to the energy that will be supplies to such a world. We also urge
the agency to consider techniques to evaluate in a meaningful way whether the extraction sites developed on leased federal lands would be vulnerable to being
abandoned and whether any development anywhere would threaten an overly burdened and disproportionately impacted community.
In all cases, from a
program review to the leasing and permitting stages and to the extent legally permissible, BLM should exercise its discretion to decline to authorize any course of
action that is determined via the climate test to be inconsistent with climate goals and principles of equity and environmental justice. To the extent consistency
can be achieved through mitigation and project modification, those should be required as conditions of approval of an activity.
Anderson
Glen
173 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
You ABSOLUTELY MUST RESTORE the moratorium on coal leasing!!!!! HISTORY WILL DAMN YOU if you fail to restore the moratorium!!!!!
Barone
Mark
181 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Restore the coal leasing moratorium!
Bass
Margot
7 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Recertify all the federal coal production areas as "coal production regions," so that the Bureau of Land Management has better regulatory control over these
Becker
Vicki
184 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
We need to get off fossil fuels now!!
Bishop
Walter
188 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Leave the carbon in the ground.
Bogen
Doug
190 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
I have seen the damage that coal mining and burning does to our environment and public health first-hand, and government subsidies for it must be re-examined.
Boone
James
191 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Coal should not be subsidized --- it should be eliminated!
45 Essential Information, Inc.
lands.
C-4
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Boyce
Samantha
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
469 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
I urge you to immediately end new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines. This requires a full environmental review of the federal coal
program that identifies, and puts to use, all available legal mechanisms to bring the coal program to an orderly, timely end.
As the review proceeds, I urge your
department to work with other sectors of government to facilitate an equitable transition away from coal for coal-impacted and dependent communities.
3
Brennan
A
193 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Fossil fuels must remain in the ground!
Browne
John
472 N/A
104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
If there's ANY WAY at all to legally end the coal extraction from Federal lands, please pursue that goal right away!
Brownstein
Beryl
196 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Please stop leasing land for the digging of coal, That is doing the opposite of what needs to be done to save us, our children's, our grandchildren and THE
Brunelle
Roberta
473 N/A
104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Please, do not continue to lease our commonly owned public land to filthy coal which fouls our air and waters.
Buchanan
Holly
197 N/A
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
NO LEASING PUBLIC LAND FOR FOSSIL FUELS, WAYER, OR LOGGING!!!
Bucks
Dan
13 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Finally, the public simply has a right to know about the issues and decisions that affect them. Resource management decisions often have major impacts and
1
PLANET!!!
1
27 Public Revenues Consulting
typically involve choices among public values. The public should have access to such decisions as they are being made and not after the fact, when the impacts may
not be mitigated or their values preserved.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
16 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
This broad outline of public leasing process should be evaluated and refined through the PEIS. The development of a public coal planning and leasing process of this
type should include: · an evaluation of gaps in information sources, · the need for new analytical tools to support the process, · methods of coordinating the
process with other public agencies and levels of government, · procedures for effectively securing public participation in the process, and · consideration of
other tools and practices needed to enable the process to work effectively.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Interior should develop new public management systems for coal to replace the coal lease by application and royalty self-assessment systems.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
3 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Interior's development work on new management systems for coal should place a priority on (a) public control of public resources and (b) transparency and
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
4 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
12 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
public participation.
Interior should develop a transparent and participatory coal planning and leasing process that (a) integrates and reconciles energy supply, environmental, social
and long-term economic issues, (b) mitigates or reduces the public costs of coal production, and (c) secures a fair return for the public in lease payments.
So one principle that Interior should apply in designing new management systems is to insure public control of public resources. That means that Interior, not the
coal producers, should determine when, where and in what amounts coal leasing will occur. It also means that Interior, as the Mineral Leasing Act plainly
authorizes, should assess directly the value of coal for royalty purposes, like a property tax, instead of allowing producers to self-assess the values, like an income
tax.
Compounding the problem of public decisions being over-delegated to private interests is the fact that much of this decision-making is secret and hidden
from the public. So the public often knows only well after problems have occurred the price they paid for the shortcomings of these systems.
Throughout the
history of federal minerals management, secrecy has been the common factor contributing to various scandals, crises or chronic failures to fulfill the law. Secrecy
facilitated the Teapot Dome bribery scandal in the 1920s and the oil royalty in-kind debacle eight decades later. Secrecy, in the form of private recordkeeping of
production, enabled producers to steal oil from federal lands and Indian reservations in the decades following WWII. Keeping minimum coal lease bids secret,
combined with the alleged leaking of a minimum bid to some producer interests, contributed to the notorious 1982 sale of 1.6 billion tons of Powder River Basin
coal at a price the GAO determined was 60% below fair market value. To this day, secret minimum bids for coal leases continue to facilitate leasing at amounts
below market value. Secret royalty returns by coal producers hide from the public the royalty values and payments on the coal they own and enables persistent
underreporting.
Another principle Interior should apply in the design of new management systems is to maximize transparency and public participation-ending
the secrecy that plagues the current system. In general, Interior should allow access to information and secure public comment on pending decisions whenever
feasible. In particular, that means setting minimum bids and lease boundaries in public, taking comment on proposals for both before soliciting proposals from the
coal producers. It also means establishing the values of coal of different quality, heat content and distance for market for royalty purposes based on valid samples
of market price data (both public and private), with the resulting composite values posted publicly for producers to use in calculating royalty payments and for the
public to know what they are being paid.6
(Footnote 6 In this process, proprietary market price data is not released, as will be explained in greater detail later in
the report. However, the value that is derived from a sample of proprietary data points would be released because that value cannot, in the normal course, be
traced back to individual sales or producers. The value is a composite number that would be developed by Interior.)
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-5
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bucks
Dan
Organization
Letter # Name
27 Public Revenues Consulting
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
12(continued) 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
General Federal Review Process
Comment Text
Based on the maxim "sunshine is the best disinfectant," transparency and public participation obviously improves the integrity of and accountability for coal
decisions. Further, it enhances public understanding of those decisions. There are other benefits as well. The diverse issues Interior considers in coal decisionmaking involves complex information of diverse types, ranging from scientific and financial information to knowledge by citizens of a particular landscape or
impacts that are occurring. Interior cannot capture through its own resources all of the reasonably relevant information that bears on particular decisions. Open
processes that solicit ideas, information and expertise from the public can be of great aid to decision-making. The United States is an advanced capitalist society
overflowing with financial expertise and information, including expertise and information about coal. If Interior established minimum bids for leases through a
public process, it would garner the benefit of this expertise and knowledge in its decision-making.
That is what Montana did in 2009 and 2010 when it leased its
Otter Creek Coal tracts in the Powder River Basin. The state first secured an appraisal of the value of these tracts by a professional firm applying the BLM
valuation methodology. That appraisal produced an estimated lease bonus bid value of 5 to 7 cents per ton.7 (Footnote 7 All the values for Otter Creek coal are
low in comparison to values elsewhere because of the remote, environmentally sensitive nature of these tracts that also required building of a new railroad.)
The appraisal was released publicly. The Montana State Land Board took public comment on potential minimum bid values. Based on public input, the board was
convinced that the value could be substantially higher than recommended in the appraisal report. After public deliberations, the board posted a minimum bid price
of 25 cents per ton. No parties bid at that price. Again, in a public meeting, the board posted a new minimum bid price of 15 cents per ton-an amount later
accepted by a bidder. The result of the public process was that Montana received $85.8 million, instead of amounts in the range of $28.3 million to $40.1 million
based on the appraisal report. In others, by supplementing "inside" expert knowledge with "outside" information, Montana secured a bonus bid two to three times
what it would have received based on the "inside" knowledge alone.
Transparency and open participation would also connect Interior with the public they are
to serve. Coal decisions are made privately with interaction at key points with coal producers whose interest is to minimize payments for the coal itself or for
mitigating the external impacts of coal production. The current systems cut off Interior from the public that wants to help secure a fair return from coal and
properly mitigate the public costs of its production. These systems are illogical.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
12(continued) 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Privileged access is provided to parties whose interests often conflict with the public interest, while those who want to see the public interest served are kept out
of the loop at key stages of decision-making. Adopting open, public processes of decision-making will logically align decision-making with the goals and interests
that, under the law, ought be served.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
14 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
A new system of coal planning and leasing might well begin with a national analysis of energy supply and demand and the largest scale of external effects of coal use
and production, especially climate change. The analysis would be updated periodically such as every 5 to 7 years and would be subject to public comments as it is
conducted. It would be relevant to and used to support both the leasing and, as explained in the next section, the royalty system. For leasing purposes, this
analysis would seek to answer the question, "How much federal coal should be leased in the foreseeable future?" Answering that question would require
addressing subsidiary questions related to estimates of the range of coal needed to supply energy demand, methods of minimizing the harmful effects of coal
through substitution of other fuels or changes in technology for using coal, and other relevant issues. For adverse effects of coal production that cannot be
eliminated through other means, the analysis could produce estimates of changes in royalties to compensate society for the social costs of carbon.
Once
completed, the national analysis would yield a target level of coal to be leased broken down by coal production regions along with an accompanying target level of
alternative, renewable energy that might be developed on federal land. Because the level of future coal production is likely to be less than in the past, Interior
could also work with other federal agencies and state and local governments to develop strategies to assist coal dependent communities and workers in adjusting
to changing energy circumstances. The thread of activity related to coal communities and workers would also be carried through to the regional and community
level as a part of mitigating the socioeconomic impacts of the life cycle of federal coal production.
With the targets for both coal and alternative energy
production from federal lands, a public planning process could then proceed within each coal production region. The end results of the regional planning process
would be to prepare plans and boundaries for broad tracts for coal leasing, tracts of federal land for renewable energy development and mitigation strategies
associated with both. Particular attention could be paid to develop tracts for future coal leasing large enough to meet two criteria. The tracts should be large
enough to have the potential for attracting competitive bids to help attain a fair return for the public. They should also be of sufficient size to effectively evaluate
the environmental and socioeconomic effects of additional development and develop associated mitigation strategies to minimize costs and maximize benefits
associated with future development.
Buffer
Anita
474 N/A
104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
New coal leasing and mining WILL WORSEN the climate and EXTINCTION CRISES and INCREASE THE POLLUTION BURDEN on vulnerable communities.
Our public lands must not contribute to these emergencies.
IMMEDIATELY END new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines.
We
need a full environmental review of the federal coal program that identifies, and puts to use, all available legal mechanisms to bring the coal program to an
orderly, timely end.
1
Cohill
Michael
Deti
Travis
484 N/A
As the review proceeds, I urge your department to work with other sectors of government to facilitate an equitable transition away from
coal for coal-impacted and dependent communities.
104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
I strongly urge you to outlaw the mining, transportation, and burning of coal in the USA and ban the importation of all goods manufactured with coal.
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Unfortunately due to the politicization of the issue of coal generated electricity, WMA is concerned about a fair and impartial review. WMA believes this process
4
3 Wyoming Mining Association
to be an unnecessary expenditure of public funds and a diversion of public employee attention away from the real issues associated with guaranteeing the
American taxpayer a reasonable return on the public resource, and more importantly, keeping the resource available and viable into the future. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) has been charged with reviewing and fixing a program that is not broken, on the basis of misinformation and politics. It is our contention
that if the leasing process were truly understood, and if the facts associated with the cost and reliability of other sources of electrical energy were known, this
exercise would be unnecessary. To reiterate, our deep concern is that this exercise is being conducted with the intent to place the federal coal resource off
limits. Should BLM choose to continue to pursue its review, WMA offers the following comments with the hope that constructive and positive improvements
might be made, and that the agency avoid over-politicization of the program.
C-6
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Dillon
Priscilla
Organization
Letter # Name
62 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
4 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
Thank you for reviewing the process by which coal leases are allowed. Living in Wyoming, coal is a big deal. The revenue and employment opportunities have
been such a help. However, the rules regarding leases are outdated and poorly enforced.
Please carefully review the coal program so that it is fairly and
efficiently run.
Engel
Elena
116 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Morally, and economically, then there is no defense to continue with coal production on BLM lands, and I strongly recommend and request that you stop it. Do
not issue new leases, and re-negotiate the old leases so that they reflect the true cost of coal productions including all the externalities .
Enk
Michael
132 N/A
4 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Please reinstate the moratorium until your administration figures out how to make the program responsive to our climate crisis.
Fields
Joshua
155 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
I urge you to restore the coal leasing moratorium and live up to the Biden administration's promises on climate action.
Fox
Larnie
16 N/A
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Do more thorough Environmental Assessment and Impact statements.
Gooch
Marilyn
47 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
And, now, as this review gets underway, I urge that the BLM make that pause permanent.
Gooch
Marilyn
47 N/A
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Please make a plan for ending all existing leases at the earliest possible moment and, until leases can be concluded, ensure that mining companies are indeed paying
market value for the use of public lands - and that they pay a surcharge to account for the environmental damage caused when the coal is burned.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
16 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Leasing federal coal reserves is a detailed, time consuming and highly regulated process. Each proposed lease must be requested through BLM in a Lease by
Application (LBA) request. A mining company nominates proposed tracts for lease and the BLM completes detailed environmental assessments or environmental
impact statements. The BLM assesses proposals to determine the coal's market value, scope of the application and establishes sale parameters. Interested
companies with the ability to economically and viably mine the coal submit competitive bids. The lease is either awarded to the highest bidder or rejected if the
BLM deems the offer too low.
All this said, to truly be on par with the direction that technology and the global economy are headed, BLM's regulatory
framework should be revised to take into account future uses of coal to include, for example: (1) the production of critical minerals (CM), including rare earth
elements (REEs), for coal, overburden and/or coal byproducts; and (2) carbon capture & storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) under
federal lands or in/through federal mineral estate(s).
Gordon
Mark
Grey
Becky
Griffin
Holmes
23 Governor of Wyoming
15 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
BLM's current regulatory framework functions efficiently and fairly, takes into account the needs of all interested stakeholders, including U.S. taxpayers, and thus
160 N/A
5 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
The Department of Interior must fully analyze all environmental impacts from past, current, and potential future coal leasing on public lands as part of its review.
Evelyn
110 N/A
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Increase transparency of and public oversight around the federal program
Stanley
112 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
I support reinstatement of the 2016 Jewell Order (#3338) and urge you to suspend all coal leasing on federal lands pending completion of a comprehensive
does not need to be revised.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the federal coal program conducted through the NEPA process. The scope of the PEIS should be
planetary, using the best available scientific data and modeling to identify and assess global, national, and local impacts of the full range of potential U.S. government
policies regulating coal extraction.
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
9 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
citizens across the United States have a stake in the outcome of this federal coal lease program review and deserve well-advertised opportunities nationwide -near and far from coal fields-- to input ideas, opinions, and data that will inform the most widely advantageous proceedings and productive outcomes
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
18 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
11 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Clearly and broadly define "stakeholder" in public engagement efforts to ensure input from a wide range of perspectives.
12 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Establish a process to evaluate and publicly communicate decisions made about public lands, including the rationale for those decisions, and their implications for
14 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Ensure that scoping periods and other opportunities for engagement are announced outside the Federal Register, including in local news and radio
announcements.
Climate Collaborative
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
each stakeholder group.
Climate Collaborative
Audit the skill sets and expertise of career staff to ensure that, as staffing gaps from the prior Administration and the Bureau of Land Management move are
addressed, staff is carefully rebalanced with diverse voices (in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and other factors related to lived experience and identity)
and perspectives (in terms of areas of expertise).
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
16 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Define and clearly communicate the roles and decision-making power of stakeholders.
19 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Offer many different avenues for engagement, including through mail, email, web forums, phone, in person, video conferencing, etc.
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Climate Collaborative
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-7
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Johnson
Redge
Organization
Letter # Name
32 Public Lands Policy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
28 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
The federal coal leasing program has been in and out of reviews and changes for much of the last decade. These reviews have included pauses and moratoriums on
Coordinating Office
coal leasing on federal lands. This volatility and inconsistency create uncertainty in the industry and make participation difficult. Less participation results in less
competition in the bidding process, which is one of the major concerns of this administration. The federal coal leasing program should be reviewed without
unjustifiably freezing or pausing new leasing and causing undue harm and uncertainty to the industry. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, BLM is charged with
maximizing economic recovery for coal mined on federal lands.16 (Footnote: 16 30 U.S.C. §201(a)(3)(C).) Any moratorium or pause would violate this fiduciary
duty since the BLM does not demonstrate any reason it cannot review an ongoing program. The BLM itself calculates that the program has produced $12 billion
dollars of royalties, rents, bonuses, and other payments over the last decade. This flow of crucial revenues will be interrupted unnecessarily by any moratorium. If
the BLM intends to do a comprehensive review and analysis of the current program, it could take several years to accomplish that task. Refusing to issue lease
sales for several years will have negative economic effects on the states that derive economic benefit from the program and could potentially have negative effects
on the citizens of the country who receive power from coal-fired power plants.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
30 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Coordinating Office
Infrastructure projects and coal mining on and under federal lands require review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These reviews, depending
on their scale and classification, have historically taken several years, and are often lengthened by litigation. Required studies can be extremely expensive
depending on the scale and sensitivity of the project. Simplifying the required information for a NEPA review and improving transparency will help promote
accelerated review of leases that encourage environmentally responsible and economically feasible development.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
22 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Coordinating Office
The State requests that BLM similarly participate in government-to-government consultation with the affected states including Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Utah,
and Colorado to consider the potential environmental, social, and cultural impacts of the coal program on their communities and lands as well. The federal coal
leasing program has major impacts on the culture, environment, and economy in Utah, especially rural Utah.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
23 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Coordinating Office
The State supports the responsible development of renewable and nonrenewable energy resources on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest
Service as outlined in the State Resource Management Plan and all 29 County Resource Management Plans.1 (Footnote: 1 State of Utah Resource Management
Plan p.78 available at https://rmp.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/SRMP_Web.pdf ) Its policy is to engage with federal land management agencies on all federal
projects related to the development of renewable and nonrenewable energy resources on federal lands to promote the responsible development of these
resources.2 (Footnote: 2 Id.)
The State is opposed to any withdrawal of public federal lands from energy development unless such withdrawal has been fully
coordinated with the State.3 (Footnote: 3 Id.)
Additionally, the State has also adopted "energy zones" and particularly supports the development of renewable
and nonrenewable energy in those areas.4 (Footnote: 4 See Utah Code Annotated 63J-8-105.2, the San Juan County Energy Zone; 63J-8-105.5, the Uintah Basin
Energy Zone; and 63J-8-105.7, the Green River Energy Zone.)
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
29 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Coordinating Office
In 2017, the Utah Governor's Office of Energy Development (OED) published a report entitled Advancing Utah Coal: Technology, Policy, and a Path Forward.17
(Footnote: 17 https://energy.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/Advancing-Utahs-Coal.pdf ). This report provides a framework and recommendations for the
advancement of strategic coal technologies and a sustainable coal economy in Utah. Consistent with that report, the BLM should implement a cost benefit analysis
of all its environmental regulations within the coal leasing program. Numerous environmental regulations have been proposed or implemented to address goals
that range from improving water quality to decreasing global warming. Some mandates have advanced without thorough consideration of costs and benefits,
resulting in policies that drive higher costs and only marginal progress toward environmental goals. Assessing the full cost of current and proposed regulations and
mandates, including economic and security impacts, can provide better energy and environmental gains.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
32 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Coordinating Office
The programmatic review should consider reasonable agency review timeframes for coal leasing. Evaluation of new legislation or administrative rules in the
context of existing rules or legislation for the same issues can alleviate duplication of costs and provide for a more streamlined, timely, and certain regulatory
framework. Incompatible requirements across regulations can create confusion, long review periods, and loss of economic and environmental efficiencies.
Adequately assessing how statutory and regulatory rules and practices operate in context of one another can create better timeline certainty and cost efficiencies
for the coal industry.
Ketner
Chris
135 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
At the very least expand environmental assessment to include coals disastrous impact.
Langenderfer
Mary
68 N/A
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
After a summer of smoke, fires and unusual heat, I would humbly ask the BLM to review their coal leasing program.
Lechtman
Bronya
20 Northern Plains Resource
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
I urge you to conduct a comprehensive review of the federal coal leasing program, which has been putting the interests of coal company executives ahead of
12 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Council
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
taxpayers for far too long.
BLM must consider the cost to the coal industry and communities they operate in and serve, when making it impossible to develop coal resources without
incurring costs that will cripple the industry. The cumulative attacks against the coal and energy industry across various Federal agencies and departments must be
considered before moving forward with the PEIS, because in many cases the concerns raised in the NOI have already been addressed. These tiered actions not
only create redundant compliance issues, but will increase timing of lease issuance instead of simplifying the process.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
28 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Many of the reasons to develop a PEIS are solutions in search of problems. Most of the "issues" identified in the NOI are non-existent or overstated. To the
extent the Department moves forward with the PEIS, the Secretary must undertake the PEIS in a manner that respects and is consistent with both federal law and
primacy of Congress in setting national energy policy.
Based on BLM NEPA guidance, and the conflicts with resource and land management statute described
herein; BLM must eliminate all approaches from further detailed NEPA analysis that are inconsistent with the law or require Congressional action. To the extent
that is done, the PEIS provides an opportunity for greater clarity and consistency between the policies and practices established by Congress and administered by
the Executive. The completion of a PEIS would prove the American taxpayer is getting a more-than-fair return and hopefully eliminate the Administrative limbo
the Federal coal leasing program has been in since 2015.
C-8
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sheppard
Michael
Organization
Letter # Name
96 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
3 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
I urge you to immediately end new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines. This will require a full environmental review of the federal coal
program that identifies and puts to use all the available legal means to bring the coal production to a timely end. As the review of the federal coal program
proceeds, I urge your department to work with other sectors of the government to facilitate an equitable transition away from coal for coal-dependent
communities.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
12 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Law Program
I. BLM's 2017 Scoping Report and Preceding Public Process Provide a Solid Foundation for Coal Program Reforms. BLM has already engaged in substantial public
process and analyses that lay the groundwork for essential near-term reform of the federal coal program with the goal of phasing out federal coal-production
altogether. BLM's further review of the program should acknowledge and draw on that process and information gathered. Importantly, not only can this
administration pick up where the Obama administration left off, this administration must accelerate the pace of reform to meet the necessity of immediate
greenhouse gas emissions reductions to avert the worst-case climate-change scenario.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
14 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Law Program
The litigation is presently stayed until January 13, 2022, while BLM undertakes the present review. Before that time, BLM must decide whether to pursue and
defend the Trump-era coal-leasing policy or commence the necessary reforms to make such defense unnecessary.25
[Footnote 25 Interior Secretary Deborah
Haaland in April 2021 issued an order purporting to revoke the Zinke Order; however, the Interior Department clarified that it was not reinstating the
moratorium or discontinuing coal leasing. Secretarial Order 3398 (April 16, 2021), at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf.
Attached as Exhibit 13. Thus, the impacts of the Trump administration's 2017 decision to revoke the moratorium and continue leasing remain in effect and BLM
may continue to issue new leases.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
21 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Law Program
There is not just explicit authority, but also historical precedent, for the Secretary to impose a coal leasing moratorium as an exercise of discretion over public
property. Beginning in the early 1970s, under the pre-1976 "preference right" coal leasing scheme, speculation on coal leases was widespread. Even prior to the
enactment of the 1976 Coal Leasing Amendments and SMCRA, the Department of the Interior recognized widespread problems, and in 1973, the then Secretary
issued Order No. 2952, which provided: In the exercise of my discretionary authority under Section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. §
201(b)), I have decided not to issue prospecting permits for coal under that section until further notice and to reject pending applications for such permits in
order to allow the preparation of a program for the more "orderly" development of coal resources upon the public lands of the United States under the Mineral
Leasing Act, with proper regard for the protection of the environment. Accordingly, no prospecting permits for coal under Section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing
Act, supra, shall be issued until further notice. All pending applications for such permits shall be rejected. . . . United States Department of the Interior, Secretarial
Order 2952 (Feb. 1973); see also Krueger, 539 F.2d at 237.
During the 1973 moratorium, the Interior Department undertook a series of national and local
EISs for coal leasing. Lease applicants challenged the moratorium, alleging that the 1973 moratorium failed to implement the policy of the Mining and Minerals
Policy Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. § 21a, to "foster and encourage the development of coal resources." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected
this argument, finding that: The Secretary had the right, before receiving or approving applications, to order a pause for refreshment of his judgment by further
investigation, public input, comprehensive consideration, and rulemaking directed toward the hopefully better implementation of the Mineral Leasing Act in light of
NEPA and other significant factors. Krueger v. Morton, 539 F.2d 235, 239 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Thus, the court upheld the moratorium as a valid exercise of
"discretionary judgment concerning the manner of executing powers entrusted to the Secretary" (under the pre-1976 MLA) pending the last programmatic review
of the coal program. Id. at 240. Further, in reviewing that earlier programmatic EIS, the court in NRDC v. Hughes held that NEPA obligated Interior to consider
the alternative of no new national coal leasing program whatsoever. NRDC v. Hughes, 437 F.Supp. 981, 990-91 (D.D.C. 1977) (requiring DOI to address "the
threshold question as to whether the proposed [coal leasing] policy is even necessary"); see also Hunter v. Morton, 529 F.2d 645, 649 (10th Cir. 1976) (holding
that 1973 coal leasing moratorium, S.O. 2952, was committed to agency discretion). In sum, as an interim step to winding down the federal coal-leasing program,
the Secretary should immediately pause all new coal leasing to prevent the unnecessary expansion of harm from the mining and burning of federal coal.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
52 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
E. BLM Must Analyze Market Substitution Effects of Federal Coal, Oil, and Gas Policies Together in Order to Make a Reasoned Choice Among Alternatives.
NEPA requires agencies to provide a clear basis for choice among considered alternatives, and in particular here BLM must distinguish between the climate
impacts of Action and No Action alternatives. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E). In the context of climate
change, BLM must analyze and disclose the
difference in greenhouse gas emission levels between alternatives. This requires BLM to evaluate the extent to which market effects - specifically the mix of coal,
oil, gas, wind, and solar, etc. used to generate electricity - change from one alternative to the next. As BLM explained in the 2017 PEIS scoping report, "[t]he
environmental (including climate change) and economic impacts of reform alternatives depend, in large part, on the estimated substitution effects."120 [Footnote
120 BLM, PEIS Scoping Report at 6-48 (Jan. 2017).]
BLM also explained that "identifying substitution will be a critical early data element to enable BLM to
subsequently determine" critical issues, including changes to electricity generation, federal and state revenues, employment, and GHG emissions.121 [Footnote
121 Id.]
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-9
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
53 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
i. BLM must evaluate its federal coal policies in tandem with those for oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters. BLM must consider the climate impacts of
Law Program
policies that restrict - and eliminate - fossil fuel leasing on all federal lands and waters. Fossil fuels produced from America's public lands and waters account for
approximately 25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.122 [Footnote 122 Matthew D. Merrill, et al., U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sequestration in the United States: Estimates for 2005-14, Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5131 (2018),
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2018/5131/sir20185131.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 41.] Attempting to address federal coal, but not oil and gas, would ignore the way in
which these fuels interact in the marketplace and require BLM to address climate with one hand tied behind its back. Any policies that would restrict the supply of
coal will impact oil and gas consumption, and vice versa. As the U.S. Energy Information Administration explained earlier this year, "increases in natural gas prices
are expected to reduce natural gas consumption for electricity generation, which will result in an increased share for coal . . . in the electricity generation
mix."123 [Footnote 123 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Fossil fuel production expected to increase through 2022 but remain below 2019 peak (Jan. 15,
2021), at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46496. Attached as Exhibit 42.]
That assessment is consistent with BLM's own conclusion in the 2017
federal coal scoping report that the "availability and the price of natural gas is one of the single biggest drivers of US coal demand."124 [Footnote 124 BLM 2017
coal scoping report at 5-18.]
Conveniently, BLM is currently beginning a similar review of oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, with an interim report
on the program and potential reforms still due out in early summer of 2021, just as we round into fall. As BLM concurrently begins these reviews of the federal
fossil fuel estate, it should consider the climate impacts of the programs together in order to adequately capture the choices facing BLM with respect to fossil fuels
produced from our public lands.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
54 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Law Program
ii. BLM must acknowledge and reject the myth of "perfect substitution." In its upcoming reviews, BLM must disavow a discredited economic assumption known as
"perfect substitution," which obscures the greenhouse gas emissions from coal leases.
Rejecting the "perfect substitution" myth is necessary to accurately
analyze the impacts of the federal coal leasing program. Four federal court decisions, from the Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the District
of Montana, all published since BLM prepared the 2017 scoping report, firmly rejected federal agency NEPA reviews that either denied the proposed fossil fuel
project would have any adverse market and climate effect, or claimed that the market effect was too uncertain. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit invalidated a
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ("BOEM") NEPA review that failed to adequately compare the greenhouse gas emissions of the action and no action
alternatives of the Liberty oil and gas drilling project. Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 736 (9th Cir. 2020). BOEM concluded that the no
action alternative - rejecting the Liberty project - would, counterintuitively, increase greenhouse gas emissions by shifting production to foreign sources with
comparatively weaker environmental protections. Id. But BOEM's model assumed foreign consumption of oil would remain static were the Liberty project
approved; crucially, this assumption ignored "basic economic principles" that are key to understanding climate impacts. As the Court explained, increasing the
supply of fossil fuels such as oil (i.e., approving the Liberty project) reduces prices; as price drops, foreign consumers will buy and consume more oil. Id. Thus, the
Court concluded, emissions from predictable market responses, whether domestic or foreign "are surely a 'reasonably foreseeable' indirect effect" that must be
analyzed and disclosed under NEPA. Id. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a BLM NEPA review where the agency asserted that there
would be no difference in the market or climate effects of a decision to authorize the expansion of two coal mines that operate of public lands in Wyoming. "Even
if we could conclude that the agency had enough data before it to choose between the preferred and no action alternatives, this perfect substitution assumption
arbitrary and capricious because the assumption itself is irrational (i.e., contrary to basic supply and demand principles)." WildEarth Guardians v. BLM, 870 F.3d
1222, 1236 (2017). The D.C. Circuit similarly rejected a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") NEPA review for the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline
where FERC dodged meaningful analysis of substitution effects by asserting that the project's GHG emissions "might be partially offset" by the market replacing the
project's gas with either coal or other gas supply. Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
54(continued) 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
The Court dismissed FERC's failure to study this issue, stating, "[a]n agency decisionmaker reviewing this EIS would thus have no way of knowing whether total
emissions, on net, will be reduced or increased by this project, or what the degree of reduction or increase will be. In this respect, then, the EIS fails to fulfill its
primary purpose." Id. The federal district court in Montana, like the Tenth Circuit, rejected a Department of Interior environmental assessment where the agency
claimed its decision would not likely have any impact on nationwide GHG emissions because other coal mines would be available to meet a supposedly immutable
demand for coal if the agency were to select the no action alternative. Montana Environmental Information Center v. OSM, 274 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1098 (D. Mont.
2017). In MEIC, the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("OSM") asserted in its environmental assessment that, "[t]he No Action
Alternative would not likely result in a decrease in CO2 emissions attributable to coal-burning power plants in the long term. There are multiple other sources of
coal that could supply the demand for coal." Id. The MEIC court squarely rejected OSM's assertion: This conclusion is illogical, and places [OSM's] thumb on the
scale by inflating the benefits of the action while minimizing its impacts. It is the kind of "inaccurate economic information" that "may defeat the purpose of [NEPA
analysis] by impairing the agency's consideration of the adverse environmental effects and by skewing the public's evaluation of the proposed agency action." Id.
(quoting NRDC v. Forest Service, 421 F.3d 797, 811 (9th Cir. 2005)). This long line of cases provides BLM and the Department of the Interior with ample
justification to acknowledge and reject past assumptions of perfect substitution that downplayed the significance of agency actions with respect to climate change.
Indeed, in correcting these prior analytic errors, BLM must acknowledge its past reliance on perfect substitution and explain why that approach was wrong. W.
Deptford Energy, LLC v. FERC, 766 F.3d 10, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (agencies "cannot depart from [prior] rulings without provid[ing] a reasoned analysis indicating
that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored"); Wis. Valley Improvement v. FERC, 236 F.3d 738, 748 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("an
agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it abruptly departs from a position it previously held without satisfactorily explaining its reason for doing so").
C-10
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
15 104.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General Federal Review Process
B. BLM's Preliminary Analysis Supports Critical Coal-Program Reforms. As discussed more fully in the sections that follow, BLM's own prior analyses documented
Law Program
in the 2017 Scoping Report support critical reforms to the federal coal program to avoid or reduce harm from new and existing leases, and evolving climate
science and policy only underscore the need for urgent action. BLM said about its 2017 Scoping Report that it "is the result of the BLM's review and consideration
of the materials and analyses received through the listening sessions, public scoping process, or otherwise available. Based on this review, it appears that
modernization of the Federal coal program is warranted." 26 [Footnote 26 2017 PEIS Scoping Report, at ES-4.]
Two primary areas Federal Defendants singled
out as "requiring modernization" were: (1) addressing the "impact of the program on the challenge of climate change;" and (2) adopting measures to ensure a "fair
return to Americans for the sale of their public coal resources."27 [Footnote 27 Id.]
Further, "there is a need for program reform to better protect the
nation's other natural resources (e.g., air, water, and wildlife)."28 [Footnote 28 Id. at 6-4.]
While the Scoping Report identified numerous potential reform
options, the sum of the report supports increasing the royalty rate for existing leases, basing any new leasing on a carbon budget that reflects national climate
policy and evolving science, and developing funding and programs to assist communities that may experience economic impacts from a transition away from
coal.29 [Footnote 29 Id. ES-9 to ES-11 (describing "Possible Option Combination Package #3").]
Importantly, while BLM's prior analysis supports near-term
reforms, it is equally clear that failure to act expeditiously is not an option. In 2017, BLM stated that "[climate] assessments and observed changes make it clear
that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases across the globe is necessary in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and underscore the urgency of
reducing emissions now."30 [Footnote 30 2017 PEIS Scoping Report, at 5-52.]
Phasing out federal coal production is a necessary step toward meeting this
imperative, where BLM acknowledged both that "reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal use worldwide is critical to addressing climate change" and "the
Federal coal program is a significant component of overall US coal production."31 [Footnote 31 Id. at 6-4.]
To ensure that federal coal policy aligns with
federal climate policy, as well as BLM's prior analysis, we urge BLM to commence needed reforms.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
16 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Law Program
II. BLM Should Take Immediate Steps to Address Harm from Federal Coal Leasing That Do Not Require the Completion of BLM's Planned Review of the Federal
Coal Program. BLM has ready tools to reduce the negative impacts of federal coal production immediate, with the target of phasing out federal coal production
altogether as necessary to avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. As discussed above, BLM has a solid foundation for immediate coal program
reforms to reduce or eliminate the climate and non-climate impacts of federal coal production preliminarily analyzed in the 2017 Scoping Report and vetted
through the preceding public processes. While we support BLM's further review of aspects of the program-including the consideration of the program's
greenhouse gas emissions as a component of all such emissions from federal fossil fuels-BLM can and should take actions in the near term to reduce the climate
change impacts of federal coal production at the same time it studies longer-term measures to eliminate those impacts. Thus, we urge the BLM to take the
following immediate actions that do not require additional study in a comprehensive review: 1. Pause all new leases and lease modifications during the upcoming
review; 2. Cancel all leases illegally approved under the Trump Administration and invalidated by federal courts, including the Alton coal lease in Utah; 3.
Incorporate the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane into the royalty rate for existing federal coal leases as they come up for 10-year renewals; 4.
Deny all pending and future requests for royalty relief as improper fossil fuel subsidies.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
17 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Law Program
A. The Secretary Should Pause Federal Coal Leasing as an Interim Step Toward Ending Leasing. Consistent with the Secretary's clear statutory and regulatory
authority, we urge the Secretary to immediately pause federal coal leasing as an interim step to ending all fossil fuel leasing. As discussed below, pausing federal
coal leasing is essential to prevent locking in harmful and avoidable climate and non-climate impacts from mining and burning federal coal even while the
Administration works on a longer-term plan to winding down the federal coal-leasing program.
Continuing to lease coal from public lands is fundamentally
incompatible with the urgent action required to combat climate change. Indeed, the systemic flaws in the federal coal program that prompted the Obama
Administration in 2016 to impose a moratorium and review of the coal program still persist today: leasing publicly-owned coal is inconsistent with U.S. climate
commitments, which have only grown stronger under President Biden; coal leases fail to ensure a fair return for American taxpayers; and coal mining from public
lands continues to impose significant public health and climate externalities on the American people.32 [Footnote 32 SO 3338, supra note 11.]
Unfortunately,
the Obama administration ran out of time to make enduring changes to address these problems and, just one year into the study of needed reforms, thenSecretary Zinke rescinded the moratorium.33 [Footnote 33 Secretarial Order 3348, "Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium" (Mar. 29, 2017). Attached as
Exhibit 14.]
In April 2021, Secretary Haaland issued Order (SO) 3398 purporting to revoke the Zinke Order.34 [Footnote 34 SO 3398, supra note 25.]
SO
3398 identified the Zinke Order (among others) as inconsistent with the policies set forth President's Executive Order 13990, entitled "Protecting Public Health
and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis," and required the Assistant Secretary to submit a report within 60 days (i.e., by June 15,
2021) identifying a plan and timeline to reverse or amend the policies embodied in the Zinke Order.35 [Footnote 35 Id.]
To date, however, all of the harm
done by the Zinke Order - namely, lifting the moratorium and allowing mine expansions such as Alton to go forward - still exists. From March 2017 through
today, BLM continues to lease public coal. And to our knowledge, the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management has not yet complied with the
direction to prepare a plan for reversing or amending the Trump administration's coal-leasing policy. Consistent with BLM's prior analysis and the direction in SO
3398 and EO 13990, the Secretary should pause new leasing as an immediate first step toward addressing the harm of federal coal-leasing. Further, in reinstating a
coal-leasing pause, the Secretary should eliminate the exceptions in Section 6 of Secretary Jewell's order, and thereby preclude emergency leasing, 43 C.F.R. §
3425.1-4, and leases for which a record of decision previously issued but was vacated by a federal court. Failing to eliminate these exceptions at this point would
unacceptably and unnecessarily lock in harmful impacts from
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
17(continued) 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
a significant amount of federal coal, and would ignore the recent science that has emerged since 2016 demonstrating the urgency of the climate crisis.
We need a full environmental review of the federal coal program that identifies, and puts to use, all available legal mechanisms to bring the coal program to an
Law Program
Shoats
Al
156 N/A
4 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Shoats
Al
156 N/A
5 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
orderly, timely end.
As the review proceeds, I urge your department to work with other sectors of government to facilitate an equitable transition away from coal for coal-impacted
and dependent communities.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-11
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
An assessment should focus on how to make the transition away from harmful industries effective, fast, and humane for all involved.
216 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Stop all new leases and cancel as many existing ones as possible.
221 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
STOP LEASING LAND FOR COAL. THE USE OF COAL IS NOT GOOD FOR OUR PLANET. WE NEED TO CHANGE TO CLEAN ENERGY NOW.
Marcia
113 N/A
3 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Analyze all environmental impacts from past, current, and potential future coal leasing on public lands as part of its review
Marcia
154 Powder River Basin
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
moving forward with a revision of 43 CFR Part 3400 (the federal coal program) and developing a new set of rules, guidance documents, and other management
Last Name
First Name
von der Pahlen
Maria C.
82 N/A
Weber
Donald
Weir
Elaine
Westkott
Westkott
Comment
Number
Resource Council
criteria by which leasing and mining of federal coal resources is judged under the public interest mandates of federal law, including protection of land, water, air,
wildlife, and global climate resources;
Westkott
Marcia
154 Powder River Basin
8 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
As part of explaining the anticipated timeline for your review, we ask that you provide details about the milestones of reforms you will seek to implement, such as
regulatory amendments or new guidance documents. Additionally, we ask that you publicly explain how the agency will act in the interim on decisions such as
royalty relief reduction applications, the more than 100 lease renewals that will come up for review during President Biden's first term, federal mine plan
modifications, assessing bonding adequacy for existing and prospective operations, and any other leasing actions. Our organizations believe a pause in these
decisions is warranted to prevent the agency from locking in adverse impacts that would blunt any reforms for decades to come.
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
8 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Until your review is complete we ask that you pause any decisions on pending lease applications, including leases that have previously been the subject of NEPA
Resource Council
analysis given the outdated nature of any previous NEPA documents. We also ask that you pause any decisions on lease renewals to insure that any new
regulations or agency decisions can be implemented at the time of lease renewal.
Westkott
Marcia
113 N/A
2 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Increase transparency of and public oversight around the federal coal program
Westkott
Marcia
154 Powder River Basin
4 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
our organizations also ask BLM to commit to a high level of public transparency in its process forreviewing the federal coal program, including transparency
Resource Council
regarding which agency staff will be carrying out the review, whether or what third-party contractors will be involved, the timeline for your review, and other key
details.
Westkott
Marcia
154 Powder River Basin
6 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
205 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
Resource Council
We also ask you to keep your obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in mind as you identify the
process for your review going forward.
White
Tim
Woodcock
Charlene
89 N/A
1 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
An immediate pause on coal leasing on public lands will protect public land, public coffers, and mitigate the climate crisis.
Woodcock
Charlene
89 N/A
5 104.0000.00
General Federal Review Process
It's time to protect the climate and taxpayers by pausing the leasing of public lands for coal.
Adams
Matthew
10 Navajo Transitional Energy
1 104.0100.00
comment period extension
NTEC respectfully requests at least a 60-day extension of the comment period to allow us to prepare responsive and adequate comments. In addition to the open-
request
ended nature of the request for information, the notice identifies specific issues for comment. Many of these issues, including consideration of climate impacts and
Company
Knowing what we've known for more than 100 years, it's well past time to stop supporting the extraction and use of fossil fuels, especially coal.
addressing exports are extraordinarily complex and require sufficient time to formulate a response.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
55 104.0100.00
comment period extension
We would have liked to have more time to research and write up an entire comment section for BLM on the need to use the increased royalties proposed in our
request
recommendations, to fund adaptations and job training to a net-zero economy. We refer BLM to Hein and Howard (Dec 2015, pg. 11) for a start on legal
precedents for funds from mining activities that are dedicated to be used in the public interest. We also refer to section 4.3 on the presidential mandates and goals
for agencies to the United States towards a net-zero economy.
Dempsey, Jr.
Stan
9 Colorado Mining Association
1 104.0100.00
comment period extension
NMA respectfully requests a 60-day extension of the comment period to allow the association and its members to prepare responsive and adequate comments. In
request
addition to the open-ended nature of the request for information, the notice identifies specific issues for comment. Many of these issues, including consideration of
climate impacts and addressing exports are extraordinarily complex and require sufficient time to formulate a response.
Deti
Travis
1 Wyoming Mining Association
1 104.0100.00
comment period extension
Despite the breadth of the request, only a 30-day comment period was provided, currently set to expire on Sept. 20. WMA respectfully requests a 60-day
request
extension of the comment period to allow the association and its members to prepare responsive and adequate comments. In addition to the open-ended nature
of the request for information, the notice identifies specific issues for comment. Many of these issues, including consideration of climate impacts and addressing
exports are extraordinarily complex and require sufficient time to formulate a response.
Jarobe
Scott
11 Peabody
1 104.0100.00
comment period extension
Peabody respectfully requests a 60-day extension of the comment period to allow the association and its members to prepare responsive and adequate comments.
request
In addition to the open-ended nature of the request for information, the notice identifies specific issues for comment. Many of these issues, including consideration
of climate impacts and addressing exports are extraordinarily complex and require sufficient time to formulate a response.
Sweeney
Katie
17 National Mining Association
2 104.0100.00
comment period extension
NMA respectfully requests a 60-day extension of the comment period to allow the association and its members to prepare responsive and adequate comments. In
request
addition to the open-ended nature of the request for information, the notice identifies specific issues for comment. Many of these issues, including consideration of
climate impacts and addressing exports are extraordinarily complex and require sufficient time to formulate a response.
Sweeney
Katie
17 National Mining Association
1 104.0100.00
comment period extension
We respectfully request a 60-day extension and appreciate your consideration.
request
Anderson
Shannon
29 Powder River Basin
2 104.0200.00
add to mailing list
Please keep our organizations on your mailing list and we look forward to providing additional public comment and input as the process moves forward.
Resource Council
C-12
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Westkott
Marcia
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
30 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
add to mailing list
lease keep our organizations on your mailing list.
31 104.0300.00
requests for public meetings
we request to participate in this process through a stakeholder group convened by DOI so any revision of the Federal Coal Leasing Program can be advised by
6 104.0300.00
requests for public meetings
20 104.0300.00
requests for public meetings
9 104.0200.00
Resource Council
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Company
Grey
Becky
Huggins
Mallory
160 N/A
industry and other stakeholder input.
Finally, please have a robust participation process for your review. I urge you to involve the public and tribes in your review of the federal coal program to ensure
voices of people that are directly affected by the government's leasing and mining of federal coal are involved in the process.
12 People, Public Lands, and
Climate Collaborative
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Ensure that engagement events - both online and in-person - are accessible and comfortable for participants by providing basic tools and services, including
translation, interpretation, refreshments, child care, and ample time and opportunity for all participants to be heard.
6 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Resource Council
Bidding for leases and the failure to either obtain a fair return for federal coal or to account for external environmental and social harms
The Mineral Leasing
Act directs the agency to "award [coal] leases . . . by competitive bidding," id. § 201 (emphasis added), as a theoretical means to insure that the American people
"receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources . . ." 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(9). Under BLM's regulations, the agency is supposed to
determine the "fair market value" [FMV] for the coal, and then consider various bids, accepting the highest bid above FMV from a qualified mining company. 43
C.F.R. § 3400.05 (defining FMV to mean "that amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the coal deposit would be
sold or leased by a knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy or lease");
see also id. Part 3422. The regulations include a bid floor of "$100 per acre or its equivalent in cents per ton." Id. § 3422.1(b)(2).
In practice, however, there is
typically only one bidder. For example, between 1990 and 2013 96 of 107 tracts leased (about 90%) involved only a single bidder in the bonus bid leasing auction.
See GAO, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information (GAO 14-140)
(Dec. 2013) at 16.5 As a result of this and other factors, the agency has often failed to obtain FMV, and has sold federal coal for much less than a dollar a ton.
(footnote 5 This is largely due to the fact that most lease applications come from existing operators seeking to expand their existing mining operations, rather
than new companies competing for new mines.) (See attached PDF for table: Successful Competitive Lease Sales Since 1990, Powder River Basin, Wyoming).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
114 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Resource Council
On January 19, 2017, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued IM No. 2017-034 - Information and Consent Considerations when a Qualified Exchange
Proponent Selects Federal Coal in a Split Estate Tract for Exchange. The IM ensured that when federal coal is conveyed to private owners, surface landowners
located above that coal would continue to enjoy the same right to consent (or not to consent) to surface-mining operations just as they have when the federal
government owns the coal. This right was satisfied by requiring that prior to mineral conveyance, a proposed recipient of federal coal must provide the BLM
Authorized Officer (AO) with evidence that it obtained written consent from any surface owner deemed qualified by the BLM AO for the coal to be surface
mined. That is to say, because qualified surface owners above federal coal have a legal right to not consent to surface mining that could ruin their homes and
surface operations, the BLM decided that they should also have a right to not consent to mineral swaps that would take away the that right.
On September 30,
2020, IM 2017-034 expired. We write to ask that you immediately reissue and use this expired IM. Additionally, we ask that you take steps to make this order
permanent, such as through manual, handbook or, preferably, rule amendments when BLM updates the federal coal program rules at 43 CFR 3400.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
115 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Resource Council
Section 714(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from entering into a coal lease involving
federal coal rights that underlie private surface lands "until the surface owner has given written consent to enter and commence surface mining operations...." The
plain intent of this language is to protect surface owners in split-estate situations where the federal government has the ability to afford such protection; that is,
when the federal government owns the coal estate. SMCRA is silent, however, about the Secretary's authority to exchange a federal coal estate that underlies
private surface lands. With IM No. 2017-034, the BLM exercised its authority to restrict deeds to allow such consent and reflect congressional intent.
When
Congress included §714 in SMCRA it plainly signaled its desire to provide reasonable protection for surface owners who own land over federal coal. Congress
could not have afforded similar protection to private surface owners without interfering with the legally protected property rights of private mineral estate
owners and so the surface owner consent provision was limited to federal coal estates. Nonetheless, when the BLM exchanges federal coal for private property it
has the authority to include any restrictions otherwise consistent with federal law, including, as BLM issued in the IM in 2017, a provision that protects a surface
owner's pre-exchange right to consent to surface coal mining operations on the property. With the expiration of IM No. 2017-034, coal companies are again able
to propose federal coal exchanges for the very purpose of avoiding the need to obtain surface owner consent, thereby undermining the policy intent underlying
§714 of SMCRA. Failing to preserve the surface owner's right to consent might not violate the letter of the law, but it would certainly violate its spirit. BLM should
therefore re-issue its order. This is not merely idle theory. We have been informed by the State of Montana that private coal owners are actively preparing to
initiate exchange proposals. And now that the IM has expired, surface owners who own land over federal coal are actually at risk. For that reason, we respectfully
ask that you reinstate an instructional memorandum to protect surface owner consent and that you commence the process of instituting a permanent fix.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
23 105.0000.00
Other Laws
It is critical that before new leasing, BLM ensures that previously leased lands fully comply with SMCRA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other
environmental requirements governing coal mining and development. However, beyond these legal requirements more often overseen by EPA, OSMRE, and state
agencies, BLM has an independent duty to assess impacts and corresponding mitigation measures pursuant to its mandates under the MLA, FLPMA, and other
statutes. This is especially true for areas mining federal coal, where SMCRA and FCLAA have given the Department of the Interior special management obligations
under federal mining plans and resource recovery and protection plans (R2P2s). In sum, the new federal coal leasing regulatory framework must minimize and
mitigate adverse environmental impacts of mining federal coal reserves. For instance, BLM should prohibit or limit leasing to companies that have violated the
terms of their leasing permits and/or those that have not met their reclamation or bonding requirements.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-13
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
110 105.0000.00
Other Laws
move forward with the Revision of Existing Regulations Pertaining to Fossil Fuel Leases and Leasing Process 43 CFR Parts 3100 and 3400 identified as a priority
1 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Resource Council
rulemaking by DOI
Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the United States must "receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless
otherwise provided for by statute" (43 U.S.C. § 1701 (a)(9)). In addition, there are long-standing policies and case law that indicate a landowner lessor should be
compensated for damages incurred by the lessee when mining. For decades, the Bureau of Land Managements (BLM) has failed to meet these fiduciary duties on
the federal lands it manages, in two ways: By making discretionary decisions that have allowed non-competitive practices to take over the Coal Leasing Program,
and by failing to incorporate the true social costs (i.e. damages) of mining and burning coal into leasing royalties and fees. As a result, BLM is simultaneously losing
money on behalf of US taxpayers, and forcing social costs of coal production onto them.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
18 105.0000.00
Other Laws
On March 24, 2020, House Bill 200, a new CCUS-related law entitled "Reliable and Dispatchable Low-Carbon Energy Standards," became law in Wyoming. The
new law is a groundbreaking statute that establishes a framework by which utilities must consider retrofitting CCS/CCUS technologies. It is emblematic of
Wyoming's ongoing efforts to encourage coal-fired power plants in the State to retrofit CCS/CCUS technology, and thus cements Wyoming's role as being in the
vanguard of CCS/CCUS standards for electricity generation in the United States.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
7 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Our two local governments responded to residents' broadly held concerns about the significant impacts of coal export terminals on local public health, only to
bear the brunt of expensive legal battles financed by a coal corporation that has received over $100 million in federal subsidies which we believe are improper and
which we ask you to investigate. While the Secretary of the Interior is never obligated to offer coal leases,[i] [i] [Footnote: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as
Amended, Section 2: 3O U.S.C. 201(a) (1) Sec. 2. "That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to, and ... shall divide any of the coal lands or the deposits of
coal ... into leasing Tracts ..., and thereafter ... shall, in his discretion, ...from time to time, offer such lands or deposits of coal for leasing,..."
offer must contain provisions "for the protection of the interests of the United States" and "for the safeguarding of the public welfare."[ii]
leases that she does
[ii] Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920 as Amended, Section 30: "Each lease shall contain provisions for ... the safety and welfare of the miners ... and such other provision as he may deem
necessary to insure the sale of the production of such leased lands to the united States [sic] and to the public at reasonable prices, for the protection of the
interest of the united States [sic], for the prevention of monopoly, and for the safeguarding of the public welfare:"
As we witness increasingly frequent and
severe climate-related disasters, as we digest the stark "Code Red" realities laid out in the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC, as the International Energy
Agency calls for no new coal leases or extensions,[iii] [iii] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 p. 20
and as the nation hopes to play a leadership
role at COP26, it is clear that policies encouraging more coal mining, and in particular coal export, are counter to the national interest and the public welfare.
Hashe
Janis
83 N/A
5 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
2 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
3 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
10 105.0000.00
Other Laws
I also support investigation of century-old interstate commerce laws that essentially allow one state to control or prevent environmental regulations enacted by
another state.
the Department of Interior, through BLM regulatory tools afforded by FLPMA, NEPA, and the MLA, has a duty to fully analyze and implement fair, timely
mitigation measures for the adverse environmental, social, and public health impacts attributable to its management of coal and other fossil fuels on public lands
the PEIS needs to examine how a range of possible revisions to the BLM's set of regulatory tools, such as the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), could improve the
efficacy of mitigation measures
The Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) needs to be strengthened to clarify that federal lease-related royalties sent to the states are public monies specifically intended to
mitigate negative social, economic, and environmental impacts experienced by communities proximate to areas of coal, oil, and gas extraction. These monies
should not be used to further subsidize coal production, distribution, and combustion entities that have caused the negative impacts.
The current MLA wording
is so vague that Utah's Permanent Community Infrastructure Fund Board (CIB) and Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) argue that the $28 million in
MLA funds they've already put toward a $1.5 billion Uintah Basin Railway oil export project somehow qualifies as "planning." And while the Utah Legislative
Auditor General, in a 2020 audit report, reprimanded the CIB for improper use of MLA funds, the MLA itself lacks any meaningful accountability enforcement
component. [CIB audit report at https://le.utah.gov/interim/2020/pdf/00003384.pdf]
Absent clear, specific guidelines for royalty monies the MLA gives states,
fossil fuel industry promoters and their allies in the Utah State Legislature have given the CIB broad discretionary authority to use MLA funds as it sees fit. During
the 2021 Utah Legislature session, Senate Bill 176 specifically excised from state statute the directive that MLA monies be used for "the alleviation of social,
economic, and public finance impacts resulting from the development of natural resources." The PEIS should examine and recommend ways to ensure that MLA
funds are used by states to mitigate damages resulting from the extraction, transportation, production, and combustion of coal and other fossil fuels.
Lisella
C-14
Maria
60 N/A
9 105.0000.00
Other Laws
When it comes to the federal coal-leasing program: Immediately reinstate President Obama's coal-leasing moratorium.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Olson
Julia
Organization
Letter # Name
18 Our Children's Trust
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
9 105.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Other Laws
BLM has Public Trust and Constitutional Obligations to use its Authority to Protect the Atmosphere 7. Under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the
government is restrained from engaging in conduct that infringes upon fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, which includes a climate system that
sustains human life and liberty. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, embedded in our Constitution and other founding documents, and in the very sovereignty of our
Nation, U.S. residents (both present and future, i.e. Posterity) have a right to access and use crucial natural resources, like air and water. The U.S. government,
and its executive agencies, have fiduciary duties as trustees to manage, protect, and prevent substantial impairment to our country's vital natural resources which
the government holds in trust for present and future generations.26 (Footnote 26 Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1254 (D. Or. 2016).) As an
executive agency of the U.S. government, BLM has an obligation to refrain from activities that substantially impair the atmosphere and other public trust resources
(including land, water, and wildlife) and that harm young people's constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the law. As part of its
review, BLM must define and recognize the nature of its public trust obligation to ensure it is managing national trust resources in a way that does not
substantially impair essential trust resources or limit the ability of youth and future generations from accessing and enjoying trust resources in the short- and longterm. As the honorable Judge Ann Aiken stated in her decision to deny the government's motion to dismiss Juliana, "the right to a climate system capable of
sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,"27 (Footnote 27 Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1250 (D. Or. 2016).) and BLM
should align its policies to ensure this right is not violated.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
19 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Law Program
Federal public lands coal is a "leasable" mineral sold under the Mineral Leasing Act, which provides that "[d]eposits of coal . . . and lands containing such deposits
owned by the United States . . . shall be subject to disposition in the form and manner provided by this chapter." 30 U.S.C. § 181. The Mineral Leasing Act further
explicitly authorizes the Secretary to prescribe all "necessary and proper rules and regulations" to implement the provisions of the Act. 30 U.S.C. § 189.
Moreover, as amended in 1976, the Mineral Leasing Act explicitly provides that leasing is discretionary: The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to divide any
lands subject to this Act which have been classified for coal leasing into leasing tracts of such size as he finds appropriate and in the public interests and which will
permit the mining of all coal which can be economically extracted in such tract and thereafter he shall, in his discretion, upon the request of any qualified applicant
or on his own motion, from time to time, offer such lands for leasing and shall award leases thereon by competitive bidding. 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1). As this
provision has been interpreted by the courts, the Secretary is "permitted," but not required, to lease particular tracts for coal mining, and is delegated "sweeping
authority" to implement that statutory authority. WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 783 F. Supp. 2d 61, 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v.
DeWitt, 279 F.3d 1036, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 2002). As the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed just a decade after Congress passed the Mineral Leasing Act, the statute "goes
no further than to empower the Secretary to execute leases." United States ex rel McLennon v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419 (1931) (MLA); see also W. Energy All.
v. Salazar, 709 F.3d 1040, 1044 (10th Cir. 2013) (Secretary has "considerable" discretion in leasing decisions).36
[Footnote 36 A federal district court in
Louisiana recently held, without analysis, that because the Mineral Leasing Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") do not explicitly authorize a
pause on oil and gas leasing, any such pause is contrary to law, and further, that a pause is effectively a substantive rule that must be subject to notice and
comment. See Louisiana v. Biden, Case No. 2:21-CV-00778 (W.D. LA, June 15, 2021). The court's decision is contrary to many decades of case law and agency
practice, is currently on appeal, and should not guide BLM's actions related to coal leasing.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
57 105.0000.00
Other Laws
Law Program
IV. Continuation of the Federal Coal Program Would Require Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act. We urge BLM to begin a rapid phase out of
federal coal leasing. However, to the extent the agency takes any alternative course of action that involves new leasing, BLM's review must consider the impacts,
including climate impacts, on threatened and endangered species. Specifically, BLM must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service as required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the combustion and emissions impacts of coal leasing do not further imperil
endangered and threatened species.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
18 105.0000.00
Other Laws
The Secretary has clear statutory and regulatory authority to immediately pause, and eventually end, federal coal leasing. Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,
30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., and the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 ("FCLAA"), Public Law 94-377, 90 Stat. 1083 (Aug. 4, 1976) (codified at 30 U.S.C.
§ 181 et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior has broad authority to administer the federal coal-leasing program. See 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1). Pursuant to this
authority, the Secretary of the Interior has significant discretion to establish the terms of federal coal leases. Each lease shall include "provisions ... necessary to
insure the sale of the production of such leased lands to the United States and to the public at reasonable prices, for the protection of the interests of the United
States, for the prevention of monopoly, and for the safeguarding of the public welfare." 30 U.S.C. § 187. Further, each lease must set annual rents and royalties,
require diligent development, and "include such other terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine." Id. § 207(a), (b)(1). Federal coal leases have an initial
duration of twenty years,and are renewable for ten-year terms thereafter. Id. § 207(a); 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(1). "[R]entals and royalties and other terms and
conditions of the lease will be subject to readjustment at the end of its primary term of twenty years and at the end of each ten-year period thereafter if the lease
is extended." 30 U.S.C. § 207(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(1) ("All leases issued after August 4, 1976, shall be subject to readjustment at the end of the first 20year period and, if the lease is extended, each 10-year period thereafter."). In addition to the Secretary's broad discretion regarding how to lease coal, the law
conveys to the Secretary discretion end federal coal leasing. The FCLAA provides that the Secretary "is authorized" to identify tracts for leasing and thereafter
"shall, in his discretion ... from time to time, offer such lands for leasing ...." 30 U.S.C. § 201; see also WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 859 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87
(D.D.C. 2012) ("Under the [FLCAA], the Secretary is permitted to lease public lands for coal mining operations after conducting a competitive bidding process"
(emphasis added)). Further, the Secretary has discretion to reject lease applications on the grounds that "leasing of the lands covered by the application, for
environmental or other sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest." 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-8(a)(3).
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-15
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Steitz
Jim
Organization
Letter # Name
162 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
4 105.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Other Laws
The BLM's charter legislation, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, did not authorize BLM to take actions known today to be heinously reckless, but
commands you to make rational decisions informed by advancing science, not agency inertia or industry appetites. Other laws governing the sale of federally
owned fossil fuels were written before our understanding of its effects on our atmosphere. and its existential threat to our civilization. To keep climate change
under 2 degrees C, as the US committed in the Paris accord, requires that our carbon emissions decline by at least half by 2040, and continue to decline
thereafter. To issue decades-long leases on federal land, supplying subsidized coal that undercuts a true market cost for electricity, renders this mathematically
impossible.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
17 204.0000.00
Air Quality
Resource Council
Air Quality Impacts: During blasting operations, coal mines emit significant amounts of toxic air pollution, contributing to regional haze and higher ozone levels.
Coal haul trucks are surrounded in a cloud of air pollution that is carried by the wind to neighboring lands. BLM's planning documents must ensure compliance
with Clean Air Act standards for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, but mines have continually violated these standards. Coal mines must also mitigate dust
under their state SMCRA permits, but compliance issues continue to plague mine-adjacent communities14.
(footnote 14 For example, over 100 current and
former residents of Colstrip, Montana recently sued their local power plant and mine over ongoing coal dust-related damage.
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/colstrip-residents-sue-power-plant-coal-mine/article 1eb6b611-2db4-5574-9dc5-c992810f8acf.html?)
Mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts must be addressed in BLM's review.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
77 204.0000.00
Air Quality
Resource Council
Air Quality Impacts
BLM's review must evaluate the impacts of coal leasing on local and regional air quality. BLM's own regulations require that the agency
manage federal lands according to federal and state air quality standards.149
(footnote 149 See 43 C.F.R. § 2920.7(b)(3) (requiring that BLM "land use
authorizations shall contain terms and conditions which shall . . . [r]equire compliance with air . . . quality standards established pursuant to applicable Federal or
State law") (emphasis added); see also 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8) ("In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall . . . provide for compliance
with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans.").)
The Mineral Leasing
Act also mandates that the agency insert provisions in each coal lease that require compliance with the Clean Air Act (as well as the Clean Water Act). 30 U.S.C.
§ 201. BLM should include a discussion of current local and regional air quality conditions and modeling of future compliance under various leasing scenarios.
Pollutants which require specific attention include PM10 and PM2.5, as well as NOx and ozone.
In a related issue, any NEPA analysis should disclose and discuss
Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) as established by land managers. Although AQRVs lack the legal force of criteria pollutant emission limits, for example, they
are not without legal significance. The PEIS should provide discussion and analysis of AQRVs and how they factor in the air quality permitting process for federal
coal leases.
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
16 204.0000.00
Air Quality
6 204.0000.00
Air Quality
Coal mining activities have also contributed to local air quality violations and overall degradation of air quality in the region, including regional haze in Western
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
The floods, fires and extreme heat indicate it is time for action! Please restore the coal leasing moratorium to help our climate.
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
If our country is sincere in fighting climate change, it cannot continue to promote coal production.
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Our planet is burning and flooding! What will it take for fossil fuel extractors to start caring about the future of their children?
14 205.0000.00
Climate Change
BLM's review must examine how best to measure and assess the climate impacts of continued Federal coal production, transportation, and combustion as well as
Association
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
affected Park Service land and water to ensure compliance with all applicable air quality requirements
Resource Council
Adkinson
Glenda
165 N/A
Alet
Frances
168 N/A
Alexander
Gunta
169 N/A
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Consultation with relevant agencies to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of development on the air quality, including visibility impairment, of
U.S. national parks.
Resource Council
how to mitigate, account for, or otherwise address those impacts through the structure and management of the coal program. As discussed below, BLM has
significant authority to combat the climate crisis, and the agency should, at a minimum consider the following policy options: * Changing the methodology used to
determine which areas and how much coal is available for leasing, such as: o establishing a coal leasing budget tied to U.S. GHG emission reduction and climate
goals o creating a new regional lease planning process to make affirmative leasing decisions o developing a land-scape level approach to identify areas for leasing;
l Raising royalty rates with an "adder" to incorporate GHG externalities from all stages of the coal process, including the social costs of carbon and methane; and
l Requiring mitigation for climate and environmental harms from coal production.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
39 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Climate Change Impacts Are Already Occurring and Must Be Analyzed and Disclosed with Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The BLM seeks comments on how best
to measure and assess the climate impacts of continued Federal coal production, transportation, and combustion, in its review of the Federal coal program.16
(footnote 16 86 Fed. Reg. 46873, 46876)
It must do so utilizing the best available climate science to analyze and disclose to the public the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and climate impacts that would result from its coal program. A large and growing body of scientific research demonstrates, with ever increasing
confidence, that climate change is occurring and is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities, primarily the use of fossil fuels. The
2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C found that human activities are estimated to have caused
approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and that warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at
the current rate.17 (footnote 17 Myles R. Allen, et al., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC, Summary for
Policymakers 1, 6 (Valérie Masson-Delmotte et al. eds., 2018) [hereinafter, IPCC 1.5°C Report Summary],
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf. )
systems from global warming have already been observed."18
C-16
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
The IPCC also found that "[i]mpacts on natural and human
(footnote 18 Id. at 7.)
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
40 205.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Climate Change
Federal lands are also a critical carbon sink. The USGS found that in 2014, federal lands of the conterminous United States stored an estimated 83,600 MMT CO2
Resource Council
Eq., in soils (63%), live vegetation (26%), and dead organic matter (10%).66
(footnote 66 Id. at 12-13.)
In addition, the USGS estimated that Federal lands
"sequestered an average of 195 MMT CO2 Eq./yr between 2005 and 2014, offsetting approximately 15% of the CO2 emissions resulting from the extraction of
fossil fuels on Federal lands and their end-use combustion."67
(footnote 67 Id. at 1. ). Thus, in addition to GHGs and their implications for the climate, BLM
should analyze the impacts of the Federal coal program on carbon sequestration and analyze and disclose to the public how its decisions and resulting fossil fuel
development could lead to the elimination or degradation of these crucial carbon sinks, resulting loss of carbon storage, and related climate change impacts. This
analysis should include a consideration of the time lag between leasing and any reclamation and the significance of the loss of carbon sinks on GHG emissions and
climate change during that time period.
Aron
Elaine
133 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We also cannot ignore social impacts any longer: illness, disability, and early deaths due to both climate and pollutant impacts; loss of habitability of homes and
entire towns and regions due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts, excessive heat, frequent severe fires, etc.; and increasing infrastructure costs to replace public
and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and destructive hurricanes, fires, and floods.
Bagley
Charles
177 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Bahm
Jesse
178 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Massive hurricane hits New Orleans, again! Drought and water rationing in the Southwest! Record heat in the Northwest! Climate Change is showing its teeth --
Bailey
Michele
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
Continuing "business as usual" with fossil fuels industries, including coal, is not just counterproductive in this time of climate crisis, it is unconscionable. The stakes
Don't make it worse!
Stop burning federal lands' coal.
Coal production is extremely detrimental to our public lands and leases for coal production should be halted to maintain our resources and reduce coals impact
on climate change.
419
1
are too high.
Baines
Heather
179 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We need real action from the US government if we have ANY hope to tackle climate chaos facing us.
Baxter
Lou
183 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
If we don't stop climate change the future is bleak. Across the world wildfires and floods are more frequent and more intense because of climate change that has
Beans
Ellen
94 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
already occurred.
I strongly recommend that changes in this COAL program must now consider COAL'S adverse impact on people and our government such as:
- More and more losses of homes and entire towns due to far more frequent wildfires which as a CA resident is very personal, plus massive flooding, stronger
hurricanes and tornadoes, and sea level rise
- Impacts on governments as enormous numbers of people are displaced due to the above climate-caused conditions
- Increasing infrastructure costs to replace public and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and destructive hurricanes, fires, and floods
- General disruption of life in our towns and cities
Behar
Rebecca
185 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
I expect to see these changes as soon as possible, considering the grim long-term consequences for climate and for human public health, of mining and worse,
Behar
Rebecca
185 N/A
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
FIX THIS NOW! We need our government to take every single action possible, to impact Global Warming.
Bender
Kae
186 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Really, we need to STOP using ALL fossil fuels, but especially COAL. And often, now, extracted coal is exported to be burned elsewhere but still pollute the
Bender
Kae
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
16 205.0000.00
Climate Change
burning coal.
planet's atmosphere. We MUST stop exacerbating the Climate Crisis.
424
1
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
I cannot believe with the climate crisis blistering that the Biden administration would not just CONTINUE coal leasing but INCREASE it. That is just asking for
more acceleration of the problems.
Justice
As discussed above, the federal coal leasing program represents a significant portion-11 percent-of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and has thereby resulted in
considerable adverse climate-change impacts on the States that have never been properly accounted for. Climate change impacts in the United States have
increased dramatically in recent years and will likely continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. The last seven years have been the warmest on record, with
2020 tied with 2016 for the top spot. (Footnote 25: Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows (Jan. 14,
2021), available at: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest- year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows)
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
7 205.0000.00
Climate Change
9 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Justice
In sum, as part of its review, BLM must consider the impacts of continuing the federal coal leasing program on climate change as well as the States' efforts to
mitigate these impacts and shift to a clean energy economy.
Justice
Perhaps even more significant than the climate change impacts on environmental justice communities are the localized impacts associated with the transport and
export of coal. Each year, millions of tons of coal are moved across the western U.S. and through California and Washington in rail cars to ports in places like Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Stockton, and Richmond, CA, and through Spokane, the Columbia River valley, Centralia, Bellingham, and Ferndale, WA-areas that are
surrounded by low-income and minority communities that are already disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution. A 2015 study published in the
journal Atmospheric Pollution Research found that the passage of a diesel-powered, open-top coal train resulted in nearly twice as much particulate matter
emissions as a diesel-powered freight train. According to a 2017 report by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD"), particulate matter
emissions from the storage and handling of bulk materials such as coal present an environmental and public health concern because small dust particles released
from such activities cause or contribute to a wide variety of serious health problems, including asthma, bronchitis, cardio-vascular diseases, and cancer. (Footnote
90: Jaffe, Daniel, et al., Diesel particulate matter and coal dust from trains in the Columbia River Gorge, Washington State, USA, Atmospheric Pollution Research
6 (2015) 946-952.) (Footnote 91:BAAQMD, Rule Development Workshop Report: Particulate Matter (Jan. 27, 2017), available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/archive-2018-regulation-6/bundled-documents/20170127_wsr_reg6combined-pdf.)
Boyce
Samantha
469
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
The science is clear: Even if we halted all coal production now, oil and gas fields that are already producing - if fully exploited - will push global warming past the
dangerous 1.5-degree Celsius limit. Our future demands a managed decline of federal coal production, in line with our country's climate goals, beginning right
away.
New coal leasing and mining will worsen the climate and extinction crises and increase the pollution burden on vulnerable communities.
2
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-17
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Last Name
First Name
Brooks
Heidi
195 N/A
Burdick
Amrita
199 N/A
Burke
Lisa
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
The recent IPCC emphasizes what we already knew. We as the human family have set climate change in motion, and if we collectively don't stop it, it will become
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Coal is a dirty fuel that clearly exacerbates the climate crisis, and that causes environmental damage all along the way.
205.0000.00
Climate Change
Even if we halted all coal production now, oil and gas fields that are already producing - if fully exploited - will push global warming past the dangerous 1.5-
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We simply cannot afford to wait--we must begin to dramatically reduce our emissions, including those from coal, now
205.0000.00
Climate Change
Our public lands must not be used to contribute further to climate change. The extractive industries have enjoyed subsidies, tax breaks, below-market-cost
unstoppable. We have run out of time.
475
N/A
1
Burnett
Barbara
Burwell
Margaret
200 N/A
477
N/A
degree Celsius limit.
leasing of public lands. It's WAY PAST time for them to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE to mitigate the problems they've caused while raking in historic profits.
1
Caine
JC
201 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
In this time of global warming, our government has no business investing in coal.
Canright
Mark
203 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
It is time to stop burning coal now. I want my daughter and future generations to have a good healthy future. I want my family and all people to have healthy lives
Cantino
Heather
205.0000.00
Climate Change
205.0000.00
Climate Change
now without more disastrous storms, floods, fires and suffering.
480
N/A
1
Chamberlain
Royal
482
N/A
The National Environmental Policy Act requires use of the most up-to-date science, which clearly shows that federal fossil-fuel leasing on public lands must end
immediately,. Our currently steeply accelerating climate catastrophe means we have absolutely no time to lose.
The increasing frequency and severity of drought, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes are clear indicators that we are already late in taking action to end
our dependence on fossil fuels. With coal being the dirtiest of fossil fuels, our use of coal must be brought to an abrupt halt. It is too late to just kick the can
1
Commerford
John
354
N/A
farther down the road.
205.0000.00
Climate Change
4 205.0000.00
Climate Change
People have been swept away by floods in Germany, China and now Tennessee. The fires in the West won't go out. AGW isn't coming, it's here. And we need to
face the fact that America has contributed the most anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere, so we have a moral responsibility to lead the way out of this crisis.
1
Cooper
Jami
119 N/A
Modifications of existing leases, where Congress has authorized the Secretary to allow up to 960 acres (increased from 160 acres by the Energy Policy Act of
2005) of contiguous lands for noncompetitive leasing by modifying an existing lease.
This must be changed. Any lease modification should be reviewed with the
added inspection of how the modification would affect the climate. If the modification impacts the climate negatively in any way- it should be denied.
Deeanna
Anon
80 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Dillon
John
75 N/A
5 205.0000.00
Climate Change
I am writing to ask the BLM to stop leasing public land for coal development. Until we have a better understanding of our climate crisis we should not continue to
Burning coal emits very harmful pollution into the air and our lungs. Also, burning coal is perhaps the most problematic source of carbon to the earth's
Ditore
Steve
495
N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Dirty, sooty, and CO2- producing at levels higher than oil or gas, it's the first fossil fuel that should be completely eliminated.
Divito
Martine
370
Please stop wasting my tax payment. Encouraging the use of coal will cost me even more in the long run, How? The cost addressing (re)development required
Edwards
Paul
Elias
Evan
pollute our atmosphere with known CO2 emissions.
atmosphere, which intensifies the existential crisis of climate change.
205.0000.00
Climate Change
150 N/A
N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
205.0000.00
Climate Change
This coal leasing program seems like very low hanging fruit on terms of changes we need to take to mitigate climate change. I'm puzzled. Why on earth would you
1
because of climate change is increasing by the minute.
Coal is a dirty, poisonous substance the burning of which for any reason is a crime against humanity and all life. It is accelerating the heating of the planet that will
kill us all.
407
1
Elka
Patricia
511
N/A
I am extremely concerned with the hastening pace of climate change. The coal industry plays a major part in contributing to climate change. I support these new
changes to the Federal Coal Program to address the global reality of climate change.
1
continue that program into the future?
Enk
Michael
132 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Recent extreme weather events demonstrate the urgency of addressing climate change and restoring the coal leasing moratorium on federal lands.
Garcia
Kristie
158 N/A
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Just weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its assessment of the state of the climate -a review of 14,000 studies and backed by 195
countries - this assessment is panel's grimmest yet. The window to stop some of the worst effects of the climate crisis is rapidly closing, the report found, and
world leaders must act with urgency to prevent catastrophe. The report states in no uncertain terms that we need transformational change to avoid more
frequent and damaging occurrences of the extreme climatic events, and that includes transitioning to clean energy. I urge the Biden administration to heed the
findings of this report and end new coal leasing through its reassessment of the coal program
Grey
Becky
160 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
In the West, climate change brought an unprecedented summer of drought, heat, and wildfires that devastated communities across the state. Federal coal remains
the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States. Between 2011 and 2012, the Bureau of Land Management leased over 2.1 billion tons of coal in
the Powder River Basin, unlocking nearly 3.5 billion metric tons of climate-polluting CO2 that will be released when this coal is burned. While the pace of leasing
has since slowed, hundreds of millions of tons remain pending in company lease applications, with the possibility of millions more if leasing continues unfettered. In
order for the Biden Administration to honor its commitment to drastically reduce the country's contribution to climate change, drastic reforms must be made to
the federal coal program.
Hall
Ian
87 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
In the past 500 million years, 75% of the time there has been no ice at either pole. The science is clear: Earth is currently not as warm as the norm.
Hardin
Gina B.
72 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
I urge you to stop all new coal leases on federal lands. It is, to say the least, irresponsible to continue to lease coal when all evidence indicates we are in the midst
of the hocky stick acceleration of climate disruption.
It is self-defeating to continue to lease coal while considering a multi-trillion dollar plan to address climate.
We cannot address accelerating climate disruption while continuing to make it worse.
C-18
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
26 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
12 205.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Climate Change
No existing lease should not be renewed without a reevaluation of its environmental impacts and corresponding readjustment of lease conditions to reasonably
minimize impacts on the natural environment and human health, longevity, and quality of life. There is no ethical or strategic justification to limit analysis of
environmental impact of coal to those in the vicinity of the mine. Consider for example: * Global warming everywhere threatens the United States' welfare,
security, and expenses, for example by contributing to the displacement of enormous numbers of people here and abroad due to sea level rise and increasingly
severe, prolonged droughts. * Deadly PM2.5 and ozone are known to travel intercontinentally[6] (Footnote [6] HEMISPHERIC TRANSPORT OF AIR
POLLUTION 2010 PART A: OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER: Air Pollution Studies No. 17, Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution,
2010 ) * ; while populations directly downwind from power plants suffer the most harm, there is evidence that ozone produced out of state causes more deaths
in California than that produced in-state.[7] (Footnote [7] Mortality burdens in California due to air pollution attributable to local and nonlocal emissions
Hashe
Janis
83 N/A
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Coal is without doubt a dying industry in the US and its demise should be accelerated as quickly as possible to begin diminishing global effects of climate change.
Hufana
Maryknoll
55 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
I remember exiting the hospital building after one of my shifts last year in the month of September and looked up at the sky and saw that the world was orange. It
was frightening in that I thought about the societal impacts such as possible illnesses due to the harmful pollutants in the air as a result of a wildfire. In addition, we
could assume that because of the rise in illnesses due to climate change, that there would be an increase in hospitalizations. One of my recommendations is for
the Bureau of Land Management to direct their attention to these matters as they are very real and could happen at any moment. It would be of great help to
increase awareness about the harmful effects of climate change by directly informing the public about them. This could be done by spreading utilizing social media
platforms, creating a fact sheet, etc.
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
8 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Huskinson
Lynne
Measure the cumulative impacts of climate change caused by fossil energy development on public lands and demonstrated by adverse impacts to communities,
24 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Adding climate change language has to be part of the new federal coal leasing program.
Jackson
Lisa
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
I hope you will implement strong changes to the program so help change the course of the climate crisis we are all in. Even China today announced that it would
Kirby
Matthew
22 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Climate Collaborative
412
landscapes, and wildlife on or near public lands.
stop building new coal power plants abroad - an obvious recognition that coal is not a good investment, nor good for the planet.
1
13 National Parks Conservation
Association
Climate change is having a tremendous impact on our National Parks and communities and coal combustion is a major culprit. Past estimates found that than onetenth of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from federal coal. Ninety percent of our national parks are currently experiencing conditions that scientists
unequivocally link to climate-changing air pollution: they are hotter, wetter, or drier than they were for most of the past century. Of the 423 national park sites in
the U.S. National Park System, one in three already suffers the harmful effects of air pollution.
Kohout
Carolynn
Konkar
Surabhi
Kramer-Dodd
Gay
Langenderfer
Mary
Lechner
Carl B.
Lisella
Maria
377
N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Coal production and usage heavily contributes to climate chaotic change.
124 N/A
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
New coal leasing and mining will worsen the climate and extinction crises and increase the pollution burden on vulnerable communities. Our public lands must
N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Coal is filthy and it contributes in a major way to climate change
68 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
If there is any way we can slow down global warming before it gets any worse, we must do that. i believe that coal is a major factor in this issue.
N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Coal should be abandoned as a fuel. This is because of its massive contribution to climate change, past, present and future.
60 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
The science is clear: Even if we halted all coal production now, oil and gas fields that are already producing - if fully exploited - will push global warming past the
not contribute to these emergencies.
379
383
dangerous 1.5-degree Celsius limit. Our future demands a managed decline of federal coal production, in line with our country's climate goals, beginning right
away. New coal leasing and mining will worsen the climate and extinction crises and increase the pollution burden on vulnerable communities. Our public lands
must not contribute to these emergencies.
Lisella
Maria
Lish
Christopher
60 N/A
5 205.0000.00
Climate Change
175 N/A
4 205.0000.00
Climate Change
End federal coal leasing. Forty-two percent of coal in this country comes from publicly owned lands and resources, but BLM has NEVER studied the climate
impacts of the program as a whole. That is inexcusable. If we hope to avoid catastrophic climate change, we must keep coal, oil and gas where they belong - in the
ground.
Water and air pollution must be accounted for, including that produced: * at the mine; * along transport routes; * during combustion (including sulfur dioxide,
mercury, and particulate emissions); and * from coal ash dumps. Societal impacts must be accounted for, including: * decreasing productivity and increasing
illness, disability, and early deaths due to both climate and pollutant impacts; * increasing health care costs; * increasing loss of habitability of homes and entire
towns and regions due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts, excessive heat, frequent severe fires, etc.; * increasing government and security budgets, as
enormous numbers of people are displaced due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts, extreme fires, floods, hurricanes etc.; * increasing infrastructure costs to
replace public and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and destructive hurricanes, fires, and floods; and * funding for pensions, early retirement and job
training for coal miners as part of a broad safety net and a just transition from coal to clean energy.
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
The climate crisis is here. It is happening right now all across this country. The science is clear: Even if we halted all coal production now, oil and gas fields that are
already producing-if fully exploited-will push global warming past the dangerous 1.5-degree Celsius limit. Our future demands a managed decline of federal coal
production, in line with our country's climate goals, beginning right away. New coal leasing and mining will worsen the climate and extinction crises and increase
the pollution burden on vulnerable communities. Our public lands must not contribute to these emergencies.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-19
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Lish
Christopher
Organization
Letter # Name
175 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
5 205.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Climate Change
3. The BLM should update the Federal Coal Program to dramatically reduce coal production.
Forty percent of coal in this country comes from publicly owned
lands and resources, but the BLM has NEVER studied the climate impacts of the program as a whole. That is inexcusable. If we hope to avoid catastrophic climate
change, we must keep coal, oil, and gas where it belongs-in the ground. This requires a full environmental review of the federal coal program that identifies, and
puts to use, all available legal mechanisms to bring the coal program to an orderly, timely end.
Lomaka
Chris
390
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
We can not go on the way we have, and that is common knowledge. We must shift now to clean energy or we are sealing our doom as a leader among countries
and sealing the doom of life as we know it. This is not an overly dramatic statement as we all have been shown with recent storms and wildfires, after years of
increasing storms, wildfires, droughts, and climate change. Please move forward away from coal and all fossil fuels. The future of us all depends on it.
1
Lucas
Mitchell
157 N/A
4 205.0000.00
Climate Change
40% of coal in this country comes from publicly owned lands and resources, but BLM has NEVER studied the climate impacts of the program as a whole. That is
inexcusable. If we hope to avoid catastrophic climate change, we must keep coal, oil, and gas where it belongs -- in the ground.
Lyon
Janet
MacKerel
Martin
Madden
Elizabeth
37 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Please take a stand on our climate crisis and do not renew coal leases on federal land. Make no more subsidies to the carbon emitting coal industry.
137 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
In undertaking your review of the federal coal program, please keep at the top of mind the outsize role coal plays in carbon dioxide emissions which cause global
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
warming. The highest priority must be accelerating our transition to clean, renewable energy.
417
1
Meijer
Kristin
283 N/A
Any commitment to solving the climate crisis without addressing coal leasing on public lands is just an empty promise. Please protect the climate and taxpayers by
ending the leasing of public lands for coal.
Why doesn't someone tax more these coal burning companies? Couldn't our government somehow encourage more "green jobs" or renewable energy industries
to enlarge, because burning coal and recent heat dome or wave at end of Jun bothered many people in the NOrthwest corner of the USA? Shouldn't someone
note, that we need to change how we build houses, that keep in the heat, where as this summer's high heat in my neighbor of the Eastside of Seattle, WA has
brought out more companies installing air condition systems? Is that ultimately what is good for the Earth?
Mesford
Mike
Meyer
Amy
393
63 N/A
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Given the effects of burning coal and the climate damage we are seeing already these leases should be ended as soon as possible.
N/A
205.0000.00
Climate Change
The results of continued inaction on our worsening climate situation-- wildfires and floods, ever-increasing hot weather-- are more apparent every day.
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
not only is it counterproductive to continue coal production and development, but it is aggravating an already horrible situation by contributing to greenhouse
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
1
Morris
David
Olson
Julia
101 N/A
gas emissions and climate change.
18 Our Children's Trust
The federal government has long known that burning coal causes dangerous climate change that imperils the health and wellbeing of American children and future
generations. The environmental consequences of the BLM's coal leasing program are well documented and are contributing to the catastrophic heat, drought, and
wildfires terrorizing the West coast and hurricanes, flooding and tornadoes horrifying the East coast. The costs of these climate change-induced disasters are
staggering and many of the victims will be unable to recover. There is simply no legal, scientific, or economic basis to continue plundering our public lands for
coal.
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
7 205.0000.00
Climate Change
BLM's conduct that causes climate change is part of the ongoing conduct challenged as unconstitutional in the Juliana litigation, BLM's review should be guided by
the court's findings as to how the government is a substantial factor in causing the youth plaintiffs' constitutional injuries.25 (Footnote 25 Juliana v. United States,
947 F.3d 1159, 1168 (9th Cir. 2020); Juliana v. United States, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1062 (D. Or. 2018).)
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
14 205.0000.00
Climate Change
BLM must also review its policies and practices to ensure that they do not further imbalance the Earth's energy system, which is already in the danger zone
according to scientists, including those within the federal government.32
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
19 205.0000.00
Climate Change
(Footnote 32 See Assessing "Dangerous Climate Change", supra note 6.)
This revenue is dwarfed by the billions of dollars spent on climate disasters in this country. In the 2010s, the NOAA National Centers for Environmental
Information reports that there were 123 climate disaster events, resulting in 5,224 deaths, with a price tag of $844.7 billion.40 (Footnote 40 NOAA, Nat'l
Centers for Environmental Information, Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.
14. Just as of July 9, 2021,
"there have been 8 weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect the United States. These events included 1 drought event, 2
flooding events, 4 severe storm events, and 1 winter storm event. Overall, these events resulted in the deaths of 331 people and had significant economic effects
on the areas impacted."41 (Footnote 41 Id.)
15. These kinds of extraordinary (and deadly) costs must be taken into account when analyzing the viability of
BLM's coal leasing program.
Orr
Lou
205.0000.00
Climate Change
Pruitt
Katherine
396
5 American Lung Association
N/A
14 205.0000.00
Climate Change
This is unacceptable, especially as climate change intensifies and Americans suffer as a result of record-setting lethal heat waves, ravaging wildfires, and severe
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
27 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Given the impact of coal on the world's climate, and the urgent need to slow climate change by slashing greenhouse gas emissions;
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
49 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We the undersigned call on the Bureau of Land Management in the strongest terms possible to do its part to clean our air and water, protect our people, and help
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
51 205.0000.00
Climate Change
1
The campaign was about Climate Change and all of the proposed remedies, using coal was NOT one of them!! It is the WORST and you must restore the
moratorium. Better yet, get rid of coal usage altogether!
storms that cost lives and destroyed infrastructure.
curb the potentially catastrophic ravages of climate change.
The emission of greenhouse gases is causing temperatures to rise year over year, fueling more extreme weather and contributing to dangerous hurricanes, heat
waves, dramatic spikes in air pollution, and increases in tick- and mosquito-borne infectious disease outbreaks. These impacts are expected to increase in
frequency, intensity and duration for years to come, and can be expected to have enormous consequences for the health and security of all Americans.
C-20
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Organization
Letter # Name
Raceles
Donna
445
Raynolds
Linda
Reichert
Dr. Cheryl
398
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We the people are sick and tired of the disasters from climate change that is happening all the time, and it all comes down to using dirty coal.
42 N/A
5 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Environmental regulations need to reflect the urgency of climate change.
205.0000.00
Climate Change
I believe that human-caused climate change is responsible for a significant portion of our planet's duress. We can't change variations in the normal climate cycles,
205.0000.00
Climate Change
205.0000.00
Climate Change
205.0000.00
Climate Change
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
N/A
1
Robert
Brett
450
N/A
but we can and must do what we can do to help alleviate an escalating global climate crisis.
The use of fossil fuels like coal is creating a change in the climate of the planet that threatens the future of our entire civilization, and we have developed
alternative sources of energy that do not adversely affect climate. We need to move on to these new sources of energy now and never look back.
1
Rohrlich
David
434
N/A
1
Roller
Sheryl
Sheppard
Michael
438
N/A
Surely the colossal worldwide destruction caused by unprecedented heat, forest fires, and deluges tells us that we must stop burning fossil fuels at anything
resembling our current rate.
Why are we inventing new ways to pull carbon from our atmosphere and trying to increase the amounts we clean from emissions etc only to turn around and
chug it right back up there! There are billions of lives at risk due to climate change and possible extinction around every corner!! THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH!! To
2
96 N/A
hell with profits etc
The necessity of such a review is made clear by the science of climate change. The future demands an immediate reduction of federal coal production. New coal
leases and mining will make the climate crisis worse and increase the pollution on vulnerable communities. Public lands must not contribute to these emergencies.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
28 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Law Program
III. BLM Must Analyze the Climate Impacts of the Federal Coal Leasing Program in Light of the Looming Climate Crisis. Despite its long history, BLM has never
analyzed the climate impacts of the federal coal leasing program as a whole - not in any of the prior comprehensive reviews, the last of which occurred in the
1980s, not in any of the NEPA reviews for Resource Management Plans, and not in reviewing any individual coal leases. As federal coal managed by BLM accounts
for up to 40 percent of all coal burned in the U.S. to generate electricity, analysis of the choice to lease public lands for coal leasing is long overdue. BLM has an
obligation to be honest with the American people about the choices it makes in its stewardship of public lands, and the environmental and climate consequences
of those choices.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
30 205.0000.00
Climate Change
41 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Law Program
(2) We are in the midst of a global climate crisis, and BLM's environmental baseline must reflect that. BLM must disclose that recent climate science, which has
emerged since the 2017 PEIS scoping report, shows that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut further, and reduced faster, than previously understood in order to
avoid massive human suffering from climate disruption.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
B. BLM Must Recognize the Recent Climate Science that has Emerged Since its 2017 Coal Scoping Report and the Scientific Consensus on the Need to
Dramatically Reduce GHG Emissions in the Near-Term. BLM's review coal-program review must acknowledge and respond to emerging climate science that
underscores the need for immediate action to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from federal fossil fuels. The New England Journal of Medicine recently broke
from its traditional structures to publish an editorial from the editors of 19 health journals worldwide, which aptly summarized the state of our scientific
understanding of climate change: The science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk
catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse. . . Rises above 1.5°C increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could
lock the world into an acutely unstable state. This would critically impair our ability to mitigate harms and to prevent catastrophic, runaway climate change.71
[Footnote 71 Editorial, Call for Emergency Action to Limit Global Temperature Increases, Restore Biodiversity, and Protect Health, New England Journal of
Medicine, at 1 (Sept. 9, 2021). Attached as Exhibit 30.] The authors note that "current strategies for reducing emissions to net zero by the middle of the century
implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" and that "insufficient [government] action
means that temperature increases are likely to be well in excess of 2°C, a catastrophic outcome for health and environmental stability."72 [Footnote 72 Id. at 2
(emphasis added).]
As part of defining the environmental baseline for its upcoming review of the federal coal program, BLM must acknowledge that the state of
climate sciences has progressed since BLM prepared its coal scoping report in 2017 and that, despite this improved scientific knowledge, current federal policies
fall short of achieving those emission reduction goals. "Establishing appropriate baseline conditions is critical to any NEPA analysis. 'Without establishing the
baseline conditions which exist ... before [a project] begins, there is simply no way to determine what effect the [project] will have on the environment and,
consequently, no way to comply with NEPA.'" Great Basin Res. Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 844 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Half Moon Bay
Fishermans' Marketing Ass'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988)). The findings of two reports in particular, published in 2018 and 2021, from the
world's leading climate scientists should inform BLM's climate analysis. These findings are summarized below.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
10 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Any review of the federal coal program must recognize that today we are in a climate crisis, that the world's leading scientists tell us we must reduce and then
eliminate greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible. And further, continuing the choice to lease publicly owned lands and minerals to fossil fuel companies is
incompatible with U.S. climate objectives, contrary to the public interest, and would lock in decades of climate pollution at the very moment we must take strong
action to reduce emissions.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-21
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
42 205.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Climate Change
i. The full effects of climate change will depend on how effectively we limit warming. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a
Law Program
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C that quantified the devastating harms that would occur at 2°C warming, highlighting the necessity of limiting warming
to 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic impacts to people and life on Earth.73 [Footnote 73 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018: Summary for
Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to
eradicate poverty (2018). Attached as Exhibit 31.]
The IPCC 2018 Special Report provides overwhelming evidence
that climate hazards are more urgent and
more severe than previously thought, and that aggressive reductions in emissions within the next decade are essential to avoiding the most devastating climate
change harms. The IPCC Special Report concluded that pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C with little or no overshoot require "a rapid phase out of CO2
emissions and deep emissions reductions in other GHGs and climate forcers."74 [Footnote 74 Rogelj, Joeri et al., 2018: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with
1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C, An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,
sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (2018), https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ at 112. Attached as Exhibit 32.]
In pathways consistent with limiting
warming to 1.5°C, global anthropogenic CO2 emissions must decline by about 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach near zero around 2050.75
[Footnote 75 Id. at 95, Figure 2.5, Figure 2.6; also at Summary for Policymakers at 12-14.]
The recent IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
report, analyzes five scenarios ranging from a very low GHG emissions scenario to a very high GHG emissions scenario, and in all of them warming of at least
1.5°C is unavoidable. Between 2021 and 2040, 1.5°C temperature increase is very likely to be exceeded under the very high GHG emissions scenario (CO2
emissions double by 2050), likely to be exceeded under the intermediate and high GHG emissions scenarios (CO2 emissions stay current until 2050 and CO2
emissions double by 2100, respectively), more likely than not to be exceeded under the low GHG emissions scenario (CO2 emissions reach net zero around
2050), and more likely than not to be reached under the very low GHG emissions scenario (CO2 emissions reach net zero around 2050). In all scenarios except
for the very low and low GHG scenarios, global warming of 2°C is likely to occur.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
42(continued) 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Law Program
Both the IPCC Climate Change 2021 report and the 2018 IPCC Special Report provide overwhelming scientific evidence for the necessity of immediate, deep
greenhouse gas reductions across all sectors. The Climate Change 2021 report estimates that, for a 67% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, total emissions of
400 GtCO2 must not be exceeded from January 2020 onwards.76 [Footnote 76 IPCC, AR 6, Summary for Policy Makers at SPM-38.]
Global emissions are
currently about 40 GtCO2 per year, so this emissions cutoff would be passed in about 10 years without immediate and drastic action to reduce global emissions.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
43 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Law Program
ii. Greenhouse gas emissions have made the Earth's climate hotter and more extreme. According to the IPCC's Climate Change 2021 report, "[i]t is unequivocal
that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have
occurred," and "[t]he scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented
over many centuries to many thousands of years."77 [Footnote 77 Id. at SPM-5 and SPM-9.]
As human emissions continue to rise, the average global
atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2019 reached 410 parts per million (ppm), a level not seen for at least 2 million years.78 [Footnote 78 Id. at SPM-9.]
The
last time CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was at 400 ppm, global mean surface temperatures were 2 to 3°C warmer and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets
melted, leading to sea levels that were 10 to 20 meters higher than today.79 [Footnote 79 LeQuéré, Corinne et al., Global carbon budget 2018, 10 Earth Syst. Sci.
Data 2141 (2018). Attached as Exhibit 33.]
The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 47 percent larger than the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, and much
greater than levels during the past 800,000 years.80 [Footnote 80 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Technical Summary. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021) at TS-35
("IPCC, AR6, Technical Summary"). Attached as Exhibit 34.]
The atmospheric concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), two other potent
greenhouse gases, have increased by 156 percent and 23 percent relative to pre-industrial levels.81 [Footnote 81 IPCC, AR 6, Summary for Policy Makers at SPM5 and SPM-9.]
As a result, it is now irrefutable fact that humans are drastically changing Earth's climate with unprecedented increases in temperature. Globally,
each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any preceding decades since 1850, which is the first year with reliable temperature
measurements. Average global surface temperature from 2001 to 2020 was 1.8°F (0.99°C) higher than in 1850 to 1900, with larger increases over land than over
the ocean. The best estimate for the human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850 to 2019 is 1.9°F (1.07°C).82 [Footnote 82 Id. at SPM-5 and
SPM-6.]
Since 2012, global warming has been especially pronounced, with the past five years (2016-2020) being the hottest five-year period since 1850 (Figure
1).83 [Footnote 83 IPCC, AR 6, Technical Summary at TS-8.]
[See Figure in attached: - Global Average Temperature 1880 - 2020]
Figure 1: Global average
temperature from 1880 to 2020. Data from NOAA National Centers for
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
43(continued) 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Environmental Information.84 [Footnote 84 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (Accessed September 9, 2021), available at:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php#anomalies.
Note: The IPCC generally uses 1850 as a reference, whereas this NOAA
dataset begins in 1880, so the graph represents NOAA's choice of reference frame.
C-22
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
44 205.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Climate Change
iii. Extreme weather events are becoming the new normal. Human-induced climate change is already affecting weather and climate extremes observed around the
Law Program
globe. Many events such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones are not only changing in severity but are also now attributable to
human actions. 85 [Footnote 85 IPCC, AR6, Summary for Policy Makers at SPM-10.] Alarmingly, many of the changes we are imposing on our climate "due to
past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level." 86 [Footnote
86 Id. at SPM-28.]
SPM- 5, 11.]
Extreme weather events are striking with increasing frequency, most notably heat waves and heavy precipitation events.87 [Footnote 87 Id.at
In the contiguous United States, extreme temperatures are expected to increase even more than average temperatures, with more intense heat
waves and 20 to 30 more days per year above 90°F by mid-century for most regions under a higher emissions scenario.88 [Footnote 88 U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. I at 185, 199 (2017), https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ (last
visited October 4, 2021).
Heavy precipitation has become more frequent and intense in most regions of the U.S. since 1901.89 [Footnote 89 Id. at 20.]
This is
both because increasing temperatures cause more evaporation from soils, which places more water vapor in the atmosphere,90 [Footnote 90 Climate Central,
"Hurricanes and Climate Change: What We Know," (September 6, 2017), http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/hurricanes-and-climate-change-what-weknow.
and because warmer air holds more water vapor, resulting in more extreme rain and snowstorms.91 [Footnote 91 U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. I (2017), https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ at 214.]
Climate warming
also has exacerbated recent historic droughts by reducing soil moisture and contributing to earlier spring melt and reduced water storage in snowpack.92
[Footnote 92 Id. at 45, 236.]
As conditions become hotter and drier, climate change is contributing to an increase in area burned by wildfire and a lengthening of
the wildfire season in recent decades.93 [Footnote 93 U.S. Global Change Research Program, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States, Fourth National
Climate Assessment, Volume II (2018), https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/. ]
In addition to the toll on human lives from the fires themselves, airborne soot from
wildfire smoke was linked to over 33,000 deaths a year globally between 2000 and 2016, causing 0.62% of all worldwide deaths yearly, according to a recent
study.94
[Footnote 94 Chen, Gongbo & Guo, Yuming et al., Mortality risk attributable to wildfire-related PM2.5 pollution: a global time series study in 749
locations, 5 Lancet Planetary Health E579 (2021). Attached as Exhibit 35.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
44(continued) 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Law Program
Snyder
Val
43 N/A
BLM must acknowledge these findings, summarize them for the public, and evaluate impacts of the federal coal program based on the extent of the damage we
have already inflicted upon the Earth.
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
These are just the financial costs, the environmental degradation costs go far beyond that, given the contributions of additional CO2 to the climate change
situation that as recognized by the I.P.C.C. threatens the very survival of the human race itself. Aside from the climate disaster aspect, coal production pollutes
both ground and surface water, and loads the atmosphere with toxins for all to attempt to deal with to protect their health from these discharges.
Steitz
Jim
162 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
To keep climate change within a level tolerable for human civilization requires, as a mathematical certainty, that 80% of known remaining fossil fuel reserves must
remain underground, not converted into atmospheric carbon dioxide. This necessarily includes federally owned bodies of coal, oil, and gas on public lands, whose
extraction is retarding our urgently needed transition from fossil fuels. These leases swamp all other efforts to promote alternative energy, conservation, or
efficiency. Only a full termination of federal coal leasing will reflect the understanding that no cost-benefit calculation exists, by which the Department of Interior
may conclude that the sale of these fossil fuels is in the public interest, or represents a rational or reasonable allocation of the natural resources under Interior
Department management.
Steitz
Jim
162 N/A
2 205.0000.00
Climate Change
The Bureau of Land Management is bound by the factual findings of National Climate Assessment issued on Nov. 21, 2018. The pseudoscientific gibberish and hand
waving obfuscation of BLM mineral program staff typically found in leasing decision documents must be disavowed. The Assessment, as well as the recent 5th
report of the IPCC, showed indisputably that our emissions of carbon dioxide, if pursued for several more decades, will lead to global warming of 4-5 Celsius or
more.
Teasley
Regi
228 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We must focus our actions of addressing the climate crisis-not exacerbating it.
Vanalstyne
Eldwin
232 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
These coal leases are clearly being done for political (donations to political parties) and businesses that are only interested in their bottom lines. Our living
Vescio
Pat
233 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
I think many experts now agree, there is not much time left to fight the climate crisis and fossil fuels pollution.
Via
Sara
234 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Please- we need to keep the coal in the ground if we are to avoid an untenable climate outcome!!
von der Pahlen
Maria C.
82 N/A
4 205.0000.00
Climate Change
However, considering what we know about what is at stake, and the dire consequences of climate change to humanity and the world as we known it, we must act
Weiner
Linda
219 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
Coal is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses which are currently destroying our world.
White
Ildiko
163 N/A
3 205.0000.00
Climate Change
This must stop. In a time of increasing climate disruption, there's no reason to continue these subsidies for the coal industry. More than 200 coal leases are
environment is so much more important than that. We must get serious about climate change and its impact on our economy and national security.
decisively and with urgency.
coming up for renewal in the next four years, and the BLM must seize this opportunity to make a stand against the climate pollution these leases will bring.
Wilson
Karen
208 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
If we are to alter climate change then coal must go, it's as simple as that!
Winter
Kenneth
210 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
In recent years, I have invested a lot of time and effort in understanding the climate crisis upon us. Great suffering is coming; it has already started. Burning fossil
Wolf
Dorothy
211 N/A
1 205.0000.00
Climate Change
We are in the midst of a climate emergency. No more fossil fuel subsidies or projects!
Molaris
David
36 N/A
2 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
I agree we need to stop reducing the price of BLM coal leases, which provides an incentive to extract and burn coal that will add much carbon and organic
fuels is the lead cause of environmental degradation--led by consumption of coal here and abroad.
mercury compound into the atmosphere.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-23
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pruitt
Katherine
Organization
Letter # Name
5 American Lung Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
10 206.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Carbon/GHG Emissions
The extraction and combustion of coal produces three main types of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). Carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from coal are produced primarily during combustion for electricity generation. Methane gas is released both during mining
and after mining as coal is degassed while in transport and processing. Even after a mine has stopped actively producing coal, it can continue to release methane
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
16 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
The emissions associated with coal extraction on federal lands are a significant contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas production.
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
40 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
Coal is transported from the mine to its point of service via trains, trucks, and marine vessels. Each mode of transportation releases its own toxic air pollutants,
primarily through diesel exhaust. These include particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx contributes to the production of ground-level ozone
(smog).
Steitz
Jim
70 N/A
3 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
The current level of carbon dioxide is over 400 parts per million and increasing. The warming to date, 1.2 degree C, is more rapid than anything Earth has
experienced in several million years, and will accelerate under projected emission scenarios. This summer has given a terrifying preview of our future if BLM coal
leasing continues, with hundreds of Americans suffocated by heat waves, Hadean wildfires consuming California and Oregon, and the Southwest turning to dust
under permanent drought. The federal government has already leased millions of acres of coal reserves, with far more coal than can ever be burned, if we wish
not to inflict such tortures upon our children.
To keep climate change within a level tolerable for human civilization requires, as a mathematical certainty, that
80% of known remaining fossil fuel reserves must remain underground, not converted into atmospheric carbon dioxide. This necessarily includes federally owned
bodies of coal, oil, and gas on public lands, whose extraction is retarding our urgently needed transition from fossil fuels. These leases swamp all other efforts to
promote alternative energy, conservation, or efficiency.
Thea
Kaz
66 N/A
1 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
Thea
Kaz
66 N/A
2 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
Coal is the number one top energy polluting method and should be kept in the ground where it belongs to limit the amount of C02 we produce in the
atmosphere.
We must curb out human caused greenhouse gasses and heavily invest in research and design of clean renewable energy that does not produce carbon emissions.
We must once and for all stop considering producing energy that spews carbon into teh atmosphere. Leave it in the ground and move on from this method.
Invest in solar and wind, geothermal and other clean zero carbon solutions that are green and environmentally healthy.
Whisenhunt
Rodney
Alper
Dean
204 N/A
1 206.0000.00
Carbon/GHG Emissions
We are in a climate crisis because we have polluted our atmosphere with green house gases, carbon dioxide being the most prevalent and the chief byproduct of
3 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of All GHGs must be accounted for, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, black carbon, methane, carbon monoxide and others. In 2019, coal power plants
burning fossil fuels. Why, except to kowtow for the short-term profits of the coal industry, would you continue to promote a self-destructive and the ultimately
stupid act of degrading and destroying the only habitable planet available?
2 Alper & McCulloch
coal
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
13 206.0100.00
Resource Council
produced less than a quarter of the energy in the U.S., and around half of the power plant-generated nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.
Accounting for GHG emissions of As discussed in greater detail below, federal coal leasing and its various externalities contribute significantly to our Nation's GHG emissions, and therefore to the
coal
threats posed by climate change. As much as 23% of all of America's GHG emissions from 2005-14 originated from coal, oil, and gas extracted from public lands.
And the federal coal program accounts for the lion's share of those emissions - over 60% of emissions from federal fossil fuel production.11
(footnote 11
Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration in the United States: Estimates for 2005-14, USGS, Nov. 23, 2018, available at
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20185131 )
It has been estimated that if all available fossil fuels from public lands were extracted and used, the lifecycle
GHG emissions would be almost 500 gigatons (Gt) of CO2.12
(footnote 12 See Dustin Mulvaney et al., Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth,
The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels (Aug. 2015).)
Lifecycle GHG emissions arise from the coal extraction process,
transportation and refining of coal, and from its combustion - all of which must be comprehensively considered in BLM's review. In short, BLM's review must
provide the necessary information for it to restructure the coal leasing regulatory framework in order to ensure that federal coal leasing does not stand as an
obstacle to the United States achieving the GHG reduction goals to which it committed in the Paris Agreement.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
43 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of BLM Must Fully Analyze and Disclose the Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Emissions Resulting from its Actions
coal
In July 2020, CEQ promulgated a new rule that
attempts to reinterpret and revise NEPA, and to eviscerate many of NEPA's well-established, judicially recognized protections, including elimination of the
requirement for agencies to analyze cumulative effects altogether.74
(footnote 74 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304 (July 16, 2020).)
If implemented, this rule will eliminate
environmental reviews for entire classes of projects that may have devastating cumulative or indirect impacts on people and the environment. And it will cause
agencies to disregard, rather than disclose and consider, carbon pollution that threatens the integrity of our climate. Therefore, we urge BLM to apply the 1978
CEQ regulations,75 as amended in 1986 and 2005, and current body of NEPA case law, as further discussed herein, to its review of the Federal coal program.
(footnote 75 43 Fed. Reg. 55,978 (Nov. 29, 1978).)
BLM must use the best available climate science to analyze and disclose to the public the GHG emissions and
climate impacts that would result from decisions made under the Federal coal program. Notably, courts have repeatedly held that agencies must analyze and
disclose to the public the GHG emissions resulting from the production, transportation, processing, and end-use of fossil fuels that will be produced or
transported as a result of agency approvals.76
(footnote 76 Michael Burger & Jessica Wentz, Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The
Proper Scope of NEPA Review, 41 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 110, 128-29 (2017), http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2017/05/Burger-Wentz-2017-05-Downstream-andUpstream-Emissions.pdf. )
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357,1374 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (GHG emissions from the combustion of gas "are an indirect
effect of authorizing this [pipeline] project, which [the agency] could reasonably foresee"); Citizens for a Healthy Cmty. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 1:17-cv02519-LTB-GPG, 2019 WL 1382785, at *8 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2019) ("Defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and violated NEPA by not taking a
hard look at the foreseeable indirect effects resulting from the combustion of oil and gas."); WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 71 (D.D.C. 2019)
("BLM failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of leasing because it failed to quantify and forecast aggregate GHG emissions from oil and gas
development."); Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 549¬50 (8th Cir. 2003);
C-24
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
43(continued) 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of San Juan Citizens All. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1242-43 (D.N.M. 2018) (BLM's reasoning for not analyzing indirect GHG emissions was
coal
"contrary to the reasoning in several persuasive cases that have determined that combustion emissions are an indirect effect"); W. Org. of Res. Councils, 2018
WL 1475470, at *13 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018) ("In light of the degree of foreseeability and specificity of information available to the agency while completing the
EIS, NEPA requires BLM to consider in the EIS the environmental consequences of the downstream combustion of the coal, oil and gas resources potentially open
to development under these RMPs."); Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enf't, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1098-99 (D. Mont. 2017)
(holding indirect effects from coal trains includes the 23.16 million metric tons of GHG emissions from the combustion of coal extracted from the mine);
Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1156 (D. Colo. 2018) ("BLM acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and violated
NEPA by not taking a hard look at the indirect effects resulting from the combustion of oil and gas in the planning area under the RMP."); Diné Citizens Against
Ruining Our Env't v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enf't, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1213 (D. Colo. 2015) ("[T]he coal combustion-related impacts of
[the mine's] proposed expansion are an 'indirect effect' requiring NEPA analysis"), vacated as moot, 643 Fed. App'x 799 (2016); High Country Conservation
Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d. 1174, 1198 (D. Colo. 2014) ("[R]easonably foreseeable effect [of downstream combustion] must be analyzed, even
if the precise extent of the effect is less certain.").
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
44 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Accounting for GHG emissions of BLM must also analyze and disclose the cumulative impacts of the GHG emissions resulting from its actions. "Cumulative" effects are "the incremental impact of
coal
the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes
such other actions," 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.25(c), and "can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time."
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. For example, in an environmental assessment for a coal lease in Colorado, BLM acknowledged that "[c]limate change is fundamentally a
cumulative issue with global scope, and all GHGs contribute incrementally to climate change, regardless of the emissions' location, duration, or source type."77
(footnote 77 Bureau of Land Management, New Elk Coal Mine Lease by Application Federal Coal Lease (COC71978), 3-6 (2019),
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/118470/176016/214475/DOI-BLM-CO-F020-2019- 14_PRELIM_EA-508.pdf. ) BLM should continue to analyze and
disclose to the public the cumulative climate impacts of its decisions under the Federal coal program. This is because analysis of cumulative impacts protects
against "the tyranny of small decisions," Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), by confronting the possibility that agency action
may contribute to cumulatively significant effects even where impacts appear insignificant in isolation, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.27(b)(2).78
(footnote 78 See
Council on Envtl. Quality, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997),
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ- ConsidCumulEffects.pdf. )
This is particularly important in the climate
change context where, given the national and global magnitude of the problem, agencies have previously attempted to portray the GHG emissions associated with
a single project as relatively insignificant. Courts have not viewed this practice favorably.
For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the impact
of "greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct." Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008). In WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, the court held that given the national,
cumulative nature of climate change, considering each individual project in a vacuum deprives the agency and the public of the context necessary to evaluate an
agency action before irretrievably committing to that action. 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 83 (D.D.C. 2019). The court remanded the EAs and FONSIs to the agency for
further consideration.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
44(continued) 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Accounting for GHG emissions of On remand, BLM produced a supplemental assessment of the potential effects that fossil fuel leasing on the federal land in Wyoming may have on climate change,
coal
but plaintiffs maintained that BLM's supplemental assessment still failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the environmental impacts of the leasing decisions, the
court agreed. Wildearth Guardians v. Bernhardt, 502 F.Supp.3d 237, 259 (D.D.C. 2020), dismissed sub nom, WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland, 2021 WL 3176109
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2021). The court agreed, finding that BLM's supplemental EA failed to properly consider proposed and "reasonably foreseeable BLM lease sales
in the [state,] region[,] and nation." Id. at 249 (citing Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d at 77). Consequently, the court found that BLM did not analyze the cumulative impact
that the Wyoming Lease Sales would have when added to the lease sales in neighboring states. Id. at 250-51.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
45 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of BLM should not ignore the cumulative impacts, particularly GHG emissions, resulting from fossil fuel leasing and development approvals, including similar,
coal
cumulative federal lease sales. WildEarth Guardians, 368 F. Supp.3d 41 at 56. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that if an agency has prepared a reasonably
foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) for a particular area then the agency must fully analyze the impacts full development in that RFDS in its site-specific
NEPA analysis, if that analysis has not previously been conducted. Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 831, 854 (10th Cir. 2019).
There, BLM was "foreclose[d]" from authorizing a proposed activity when the agency had failed to fully analyze all reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts. Id.
at 854. As the Tenth Circuit explained, once an RFDS has been issued, the wells predicted in that document were "reasonably foreseeable future actions." Id. at
853. (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7). In Wildearth Guardians v. BLM, the court noted that "if BLM ever hopes to determine the true impact of its projects on climate
change, it can do so only by looking at projects in combination with each other, not simply in the context of state and nation¬wide emissions." 2020 WL 2104760,
at *11. "Without doing so, the relevant 'decisionmaker' cannot determine 'whether, or how, to alter the program to lessen cumulative impacts' on climate
change." Id. (internal citations omitted).
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-25
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
46 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of BLM Must Analyze and Disclose the Significance of its Actions' Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Implications for Climate Change
coal
In addition to including
quantitative estimates of the total GHG emissions resulting from its approvals, BLM must also assess the ecological, economic, and social impacts of those
emissions, including assessing their significance. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8(b); 1502.16(a)-(b). The inclusion of this information in an agency's NEPA analysis allows
members of the public and interested parties to evaluate this information, submit written comments where appropriate, and spur further analysis as needed. W.
Org. of Res. Councils v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., CV16-21-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470, at *16 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018). Agencies must analyze the
significance and severity of emissions, so that decisionmakers and the public can determine whether and how those emissions should influence the choice among
alternatives. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. at 351-52 (recognizing that EIS must discuss "adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided[,]" which is necessary to "properly evaluate the severity of the adverse effects").
Thus, BLM must analyze and disclose to the public the
environmental effects of the anticipated GHG emissions (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) of the Federal coal program. Agencies "must do more than quantify
pollution" rather the agency "must also 'discuss the actual environmental effects resulting from those emissions.'" WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 2019 WL
2404860, *8 (D. Mont. Feb. 11, 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1216 (9th Cir. 2008)). BLM must
analyze the effects of GHG emissions in the same manner as it must for any other resource. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 538 F.3d at 1216-17.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
47 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Accounting for GHG emissions of However, BLM must not merely quantify GHG emissions and calculate what percentage they represent of U.S. GHG emissions. Courts have found this approach
coal
inadequate. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2008); see also California, 2020 WL
4001480, at *48-49 (citing San Juan Citizens All. v. BLM, 326 F. Supp. 3d. 1227, 1248 (D.N.M. 2018) (rejecting "facile conclusion" that leasing decision's climate
impacts were "minor" and no cumulative impacts analysis was required); see also Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 414 (1976) (discussing "practical
considerations" of studies)). Even in combination with a general, qualitative discussion of climate change, calculating only the tons of greenhouse gases emitted or a
percent comparison to sectoral or national emissions fails to meaningfully assess the actual incremental impacts to property, human health, productivity, and so
on. High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52. F.Supp.3d 1174, 1190 (D. Colo. 2014) ("Beyond quantifying the amount of emissions relative
to state and national emissions and giving general discussion to the impacts of global climate change, [the agencies] did not discuss the impacts caused by these
emissions."); Montana Environmental Information Center v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, 274 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1-06-99 (D. Mont. 2017) (rejecting the argument
that the agency "reasonably considered the impact of greenhouse gas emissions by quantifying the emissions which would be released if the [coal] mine expansion
is approved, and comparing that amount to the net emissions of the United States"). Comparing an agency action's emissions to a state, national, or global
inventory reveals nothing about the significance of the action's contributions to actual environmental impacts. See California, 2020 WL 4001480, at *46 (citing
Stack & Vandenbergh, The One Percent Problem, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1385, 1393 (2011) (framing sources as less than 1% of global emissions is dishonest and a
prescription for climate disaster)).
In its 2016 Final Guidance on the consideration of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change, CEQ explicitly addressed
the inappropriateness of an agency's assertion that the emissions resulting from its actions represent only a small fraction of global emissions in order to avoid
analysis and disclosure of climate impacts, as follows: Climate change results from the incremental addition of GHG emissions from millions of individual sources,
which collectively have a large impact on a global scale. CEQ recognizes that the totality of climate change impacts is not attributable to any single action, but are
exacerbated by a series of actions including actions taken pursuant to decisions of the Federal Government. Therefore, a statement that emissions from a
proposed Federal action represent only a small fraction of global emissions is essentially a statement about the nature of the climate change challenge, and is not
an appropriate basis for deciding whether or to what extent to consider climate change impacts under NEPA.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
47(continued) 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of Moreover, these comparisons are also not an appropriate method for characterizing the potential impacts associated with a proposed action and its alternatives
coal
and mitigations because this approach does not reveal anything beyond the nature of the climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse individual sources of
emissions each make a relatively small addition to global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have a large impact.79
(footnote 79 Council on
Environmental Quality, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change
in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, 1, 10- 11 (2016) (emphasis added), available at:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf [hereinafter, CEQ Final Guidance]. Although the CEQ
Final Guidance was withdrawn in response to President Trump's Executive Order 13783, "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth," Withdrawal
of Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National
Environmental Policy Act Reviews, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,576 (Apr. 5, 2017), this does not preclude agencies from utilizing the tools contained therein to consider the
impacts of its actions on climate change when conducting environmental reviews, as required by NEPA and relevant case law. Executive Order 13783 was
subsequently rescinded by President Biden's Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis. )
C-26
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
48 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of To take the required "hard look," agencies must tell the public what quantitative estimates mean in terms of "actual environmental effects." Ctr. for Biological
coal
Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1216 (9th Cir. 2008) ("While the EA quantifies the expected amount of CO2 emitted from light
trucks MYs 2005-2011, it does not evaluate the 'incremental impact' that these emissions will have on climate change or on the environment more generally. . . .
The EA does not discuss the actual environmental effects resulting from those emissions."); Or. Nat. Res. Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, 470 F.3d 818, 82223 (9th Cir. 2006) (rejecting assessment of logging project's impacts by looking exclusively at the number of acres to be harvested); Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 2004) (While tallies of "the number of acres to be harvested" and "the total road construction
anticipated" were "a necessary component" and "a good start" to the analysis, respectively, they do not amount to the required "description of actual
environmental effects"); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(c).
While agencies are not required to use any specific protocols to determine the significance of emissions, BLM
should undertake a robust analysis and discussion of GHG emissions in its review of the Federal coal program. This is because an agency's failure to provide a
discussion of the significance of impacts resulting from its decisions and associated climate implications deprives the public of important information on the
cumulative GHG emissions and true climate implications of agency actions. See Or. Nat. Desert Ass'n v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 625 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100
(9th Cir. 2010) ("[NEPA] require[es] agencies to take a 'hard look' at how the choices before them affect the environment, and then to place their data and
conclusions before the public."). Accepted methods exist to quantify and analyze the significance of GHG emissions, which BLM could use to evaluate the
significance of the emissions and to balance consequences of emissions against benefits of continued fossil fuel development approvals, as further described below.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
52 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of Global Carbon Budgeting
coal
Another measuring standard available to agencies for analyzing the significance of GHG emissions is to apply those emissions to the
remaining global carbon budget through carbon budgeting- which offers a cap on the remaining stock of greenhouse gases that can be emitted while keeping global
average temperature rise below scientifically researched warming thresholds, beyond which climate change impacts may result in severe and irreparable harm.90
(footnote 90 The Paris Agreement states that global warming must be held "well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" with a goal to "limit the temperature
increase to 1.5°C." U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties, Twenty-First Session, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Art. 2,
U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.I (Dec. 12, 2015) [hereinafter, Paris Agreement],
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf.; see also AR6 at 36 ("[t]he term carbon budget refers to the
maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions that would result in limiting global warming to a given level with a given probability,
taking into account the effect of other anthropogenic climate forcers. This is referred to as the total carbon budget when expressed starting from the preindustrial period, and as the remaining carbon budget when expressed from a recent specified date (see Glossary). Historical cumulative CO2 emissions
determine to a large degree warming to date, while future emissions cause future additional warming. The remaining carbon budget indicates how much CO2
could still be emitted while keeping warming below a specific temperature level"). )
Research shows that enormous and rapid cuts in GHG emissions are needed
to meet climate goals. The IPCC's Special Report on 1.5°C (also known as SR1.5) estimated a remaining budget from the start of 2018 of approximately: · 420
Gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C;91
(footnote 91 Joeri Rogelj et al., Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC,
Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5ºC in the Context of Sustainable Development, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1, 96 (Greg Flato et al. eds.,
2018) [hereinafter, Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report], https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf. The full report is
available here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf. )
1.5°C;92
(footnote 92 Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report, at 96. )
· 1500 GtCO2 for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C.94
· 580 GtCO2 for a 50% chance of limiting warming to
· 1170 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 2°C;93 and
(footnote 94 Id.)
(footnote 93 Id. )
The concept of a remaining carbon budget implies that to stabilize global
warming at any particular level, global emissions of CO2 need to be reduced to net zero levels at some point. Net-zero CO2 emissions describes a situation in
which all the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are counterbalanced by deliberate anthropogenic removals so that, on average, no CO2 is added or removed from
the atmosphere by human activities.95
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
(footnote 95 AR6, at 5-122.)
C-27
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
52(continued) 206.0100.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of In order to meet these targets, the IPCC 1.5ºC Report (also known as SR1.5) concluded that global CO2 emissions would need to reach net zero in about 30
coal
years to stay within a 580 GtCO2 budget, reduced to 20 years for a 420 GtCO2 budget.96
(footnote 96 Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report, at 96. )
The same
timeframe is utilized in AR6's 1.5C scenario (also known as SSP-1-1.9), citing a decline to net-zero CO2 emissions around 2050 with years of net-negative
emissions following.97
(footnote 97 AR6, at SPM-15.)
AR6 reaffirms with high confidence the IPCC's finding in AR5 that there is a near-linear relationship
between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause, referred to as the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions
(TCRE). Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate
of 0.45°C. This is a narrower range compared to AR5 and SR1.5, reflecting reduced uncertainty due to methodological improvements.98
SPM-36.)
(footnote 98 Id. at
In AR6, the IPCC revised the estimated remaining carbon budget due to methodological improvements, which from the start of 2020 is approximately:
· 400 GtCO2 of CO2 (GtCO2) for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C;99
limiting warming to 1.5°C;100
(footnote 100 Id.)
(footnote 99 Id. at SPM-38. )
· 500 GtCO2 for a 50% chance of
· 1150 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 2°C;101 and
GtCO2 for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C.102
(footnote 102 Id.)
(footnote 101 Id.)
· 1350
Although there are uncertainties in carbon budgets, the IPCC concluded in SR1.5
that, overall, "current understanding of the assessed geophysical uncertainties suggests at least a ±50% possible variation for remaining carbon budgets for 1.5°Cconsistent pathways."103
(footnote 103 Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report, at 107.)
In other words, the remaining global carbon budget may be significantly
smaller than these estimated budgets. AR6 expanded the assessment of Earth system feedbacks compared to SR1.5 and included it in its central remaining carbon
budget estimates. Some feedbacks are accounted for through the non-CO2 warming estimate, while the remainder combines to reduce the median remaining
carbon budget estimates for 1.5°C and 2°C of warming by about 10 to 20 GtCO2, respectively, compared to SR1.5.104
(footnote 104 AR6, at 5-98. )
At the
67th percentile, remaining carbon budget estimates for limiting warming to 1.5°C and 2°C are about 40 to 60 GtCO2 larger, respectively, mainly as a result of a
narrower assessed TCRE range. These remaining carbon budgets may vary by an estimated ± 220 GtCO2 depending on how successfully future non-CO2
emissions can be reduced.105
(footnote 105 Id. at 5-9.)
The potential carbon emissions from existing fossil fuel reserves-the known belowground stock of
economically extractable fossil fuels-considerably exceed both the carbon budget for 2°C and 1.5°C of warming. Globally, the IPCC previously found in AR5 that,
"[e]stimated total fossil carbon reserves exceed [the 2°C budget] by a factor of 4 to 7."106
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
52(continued) 206.0100.00
Resource Council
(footnote 106AR5, at 64.)
Accounting for GHG emissions of Research shows that potential emissions from just U.S. federal fossil fuels could take up all or a significant portion of the remaining global carbon budget. A 2015
coal
analysis prepared by EcoShift Consulting estimated that the potential emissions from all U.S. fossil fuels is 697-1,070 GtCO2eq.107
(footnote 107 Dustin
Mulvaney et al., EcoShift Consulting, The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels 1, 18 (2015), https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/Potential-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-U-S-Federal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf. )
Federal fossil fuels- including crude oil, gas, coal, oil shale, and tar
sands-account for as much as 492 GtCO2eq, or approximately 46 to 50% of total potential emissions.108
(footnote 108 Id. )
comprise 91% of these potential emissions, with already leased federal fossil fuels accounting for as much as 43 GtCO2eq.109
Unleased federal fossil fuels
(footnote 109 Id. )
The 2015
analysis is included for context and scale but is likely outdated due to lease sales that have occurred in the intervening years and the dynamic nature of reserve
definitions. A more recent Nature article found that globally, "[b]y 2050, we find that nearly 60% of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90% of coal must remain
unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget."110
(footnote 110 Dan Welsby, et al., Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world, 597 Nature 230, 230
(2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8. )
This same paper finds that in the U.S. specifically, 97% of an estimated 239 billion tonnes of coal
reserves (and 99% of an estimated 873 billion tonnes of coal resources, which include both economic and uneconomic deposits) must remain unextracted to keep
within a 1.5C carbon budget.111
(footnote 111 Id. Reserves figure from main text. Resources figure from Supplementary information, Supplementary Table 10:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-021-03821-8/MediaObjects/41586_2021_3821_MOESM1_ESM.pdf. )
In order to follow a
1.5°C-consistent pathway, research also shows that the world will need to decrease total fossil fuel production by roughly 6% per year between 2020 and
2030.112
(footnote 112 Peter Erickson, et al., UN Environment Programme, The Production Gap The discrepancy between countries' planned fossil fuel
production and global production levels consistent with limiting warming to 1.5ºC or 2ºC 1, 2 (2020),
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
53 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of https://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PGR2020_FullRprt_web.pdf. )
coal
2050, global coal supply must fall by over 7% per year between 2020 and 2050.113
According to the International Energy Agency's Report on Net Zero by
(footnote 113 International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050 (2021),
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050. See Annex A, Table A.1: Energy supply and transformation. Add unabated coal and coal with CCUS energy supplies
(EJ) and calculate cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR) from 2020 to 2030 and 2050 using the formula: CAGR(Supply, 2020-20x0) = (Supply in 20x0 / Supply in
2020)^(1/(20x0-2020)) - 1. CAGR 2020-2030 = -7.3% and CAGR 2020¬2050 = -7.1% per year. )
Recent analysis from the UN Environmental Programme
(UNEP) has shown that, even with countries' firm climate commitments, current nation-level planning will lead to production of more than twice the amount of
fossil fuels as would be consistent with 1.5° Celsius warming, and fifty percent more than for 2° Celsius, by 2030.114
(footnote 114 SEI, IISD, ODI, Climate
Analytics, CICERO, and UNEP, The Production Gap: The Discrepancy between Countries' Planned Fossil Fuel Production and Global Production Levels
Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5°C or 2°C (2019), http://productiongap.org/. ) While global carbon budgets are imperfect, they represent another
measuring standard presently available to BLM to use to analyze and disclose to the public the significance of its decisions on GHG emissions and their
implications for climate change. The global carbon budget is rapidly being spent, and every additional ton of emissions is a debit against the climate. Thus, BLM
should analyze and disclose to the public how the emissions resulting from its decisions would impact the remaining global carbon budget. BLM previously
attempted to use global carbon budgeting in a draft EA for the New Elk coal lease in Colorado.115
(footnote 115 Bureau of Land Management, New Elk Coal
Mine Lease by Application Federal Coal Lease (COC71978), 1-1, 3¬17 (2019), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/118470/176016/214475/DOI-BLMCO-F020-2019-14 PRELIM EA-508.pdf. )
The fact that BLM used it to analyze the climate impact of both a single federal coal lease and a set of 283 federal oil
and gas leases demonstrates its usefulness to the public and decisionmakers, and BLM's ability to apply this measuring standard in decision making. Utilizing global
carbon budgets here would help BLM disclose the cumulative climate impacts of the Federal coal program in a way that is clearly understandable to
decisionmakers and the public.
C-28
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
Last Name
First Name
Aron
Elaine
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
48 206.0100.00
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
5 206.0100.00
133 N/A
1 206.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
coal
transportation, by the destruction of trees and other photosynthesizers.
Accounting for GHG emissions of If BLM does not immediately ban coal leases for coal destined for the electric power sector and the incineration sector, it should institute a rule allowing for a fee
coal
Justice
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of Meanwhile, greenhouse gases must be measured, including those produced before, during and after active mining; those emitted by truck, train, barge,and/or ship
to cover the downstream greenhouse gas emissions from burning that coal (carbon dioxide).
Accounting for GHG emissions of California has enacted several policies and programs and invested billions of dollars to both respond to the impacts of climate change and to address future
coal
threats, which would be undermined by continuing to lease, mine, and burn federal coal. For example, California has set a statutory target of reducing GHG
emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38566, and a plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 45 percent by 2030 to
meet this target. (Footnote 45: California Air Resources Board, California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Nov. 2017), available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.)
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
6 206.0100.00
Justice
Accounting for GHG emissions of Climate change impacts are hardly limited to California, New York, Washington, and New Mexico. As BLM itself has recognized, "[v]irtually every community in
coal
the US is being impacted by climate change, and Federal programs have an obligation to be administered in a way that will not worsen and help address these
impacts. (Footnote 82: Scoping Report at 6-3.) Reducing coal consumption is one of the lowest-hanging fruits in these efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Among
fossil fuels, coal is the highest-emitting fuel still in use: Coal releases 2.21 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour ("kWh") of electricity generated, whereas natural gas
produces 0.91 pounds of CO2/kWh. (Footnote 83: U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA"), Frequently Asked Questions, "How much carbon dioxide is
produced per kilowatt hour of U.S. electricity generation?" (Dec. 15, 2020), available at: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11.)
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
18 206.0100.00
Justice
Accounting for GHG emissions of The States have long been leaders in pursuing policies and innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thereby mitigate the harmful impacts of climate
coal
change. Notwithstanding these ongoing efforts, climate change has increasingly and dramatically affected the States in recent years. In the past two months alone,
California has experienced the severe impacts of yet another record-breaking fire season, while Hurricane Ida left a path of destruction from the Gulf Coast to
New York-events that are directly connected to our warming planet. Consequently, the States have a substantial interest in ensuring that the federal coal leasing
program, which has been estimated to account for 11 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, does not undermine these efforts. (Footnote 7: BLM, Federal Coal
Program: Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement-Scoping Report (Jan. 2017) ("Scoping Report") at 5-31.)
Boyer
Edward
192 N/A
1 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of In addition, burning coal for heating, power generation, and manufacturing releases a great deal of mercury into the air both of the US and - sent by the winds
from the US - to other nations around the globe - taking a toll on human health and life expectancy, on quality of human life, AND on the health of ecosystems
around the world - including the oceans and the fish populations and the safety of fish-based protein for all humans and animals who rely on those fish for food.
From the reading I've just done, it appears that monitoring and reducing airborne emissions of mercury in the United States has not been effectively done. Burning
of coal still appears to be one of the major contributors to poisoning our water, air, and soil.A combination of continuing reductions in coal mining and coal
burning plus strict limits on airborne emissions of mercury are essential for the Biden Administration and the US Congress to energetically pursue and achieve
nationally and to pursue international agreements for internationally monitored and enforced standard
Cooper
Jami
119 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Davitt
Kim
105 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Gibson
Kenneth
292 N/A
206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of So I am requesting that every company with a lease pays a carbon tax.
coal
Accounting for GHG emissions of Coal accounts for 16 percent of the U.S.'s annual carbon emissions and is not profitable ecologically or economically.
coal
Accounting for GHG emissions of Recommend the taxing coal at the mine site per unit of CO2e released during its production and consumption.
2
coal
Accounting for GHG emissions of I am also asking for an inflation-indexed amount of at least $500/tonne of emitted CO2-equivalent emissions, plus a percentage of revenue beyond that.
Gollomp
Everett
104 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Green
Susan
161 N/A
3 206.0100.00
coal
Accounting for GHG emissions of The BLM should expand its Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement reports to address coal impacts. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) must be
coal
accounted for, including those produced:
o locally, before, during and after active mining, o by truck, train, barge,and/or ship transportation,
o by combustion at any location, and
o By the destruction of trees and other photosynthesizers
All GHGs must be accounted for, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, black carbon, methane, carbon monoxide and others. In 2019, coal power plants
produced less than a quarter of the energy in the U.S., and around half of the power plant-generated nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.
Harvey
Ann
26 N/A
13 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of Every EA and EIS must account for reasonably expected cumulative and global impacts of GHG pollutants and impacts of air and water pollutants in all affected
coal
areas. As a major departure from current policy, all agencies performing environmental assessments should be directed as follows.
* The lease is responsible for greenhouse gasses, air and water pollutants, and railbed impacts due not only to mine operations and coal refuse, but also to
processing, transport, storage, combustion, and coal ash, wherever they occur.
* The impacts of total, not annual, emissions of greenhouse gasses due to use of recoverable coal as well as mine methane[8] * Environment International, Vol
133, Part B, December 2019, ) (Footnote [8] The International Energy Agency Special Report: Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for theGlobal Energy Sector
documents that the coal supply chain releases as much methane as that for natural gas and almost as much as oil. (p 104). )
* should be analyzed, because once produced, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 300 to 1,000 years[9] (Footnote [9] NASA Climate News, Oct. 9, 2019: The
Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide)
* While short-lived but extremely potent climate forcers such as methane, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide threaten to push the earth over climate tipping
points before we have a chance to rein in emissions.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-29
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Holmes
Stanley
Johnson
Redge
Lish
Christopher
Organization
Letter # Name
112 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
4 206.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
coal
32 Public Lands Policy
42 206.0100.00
Coordinating Office
175 N/A
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of a new suite of mitigation measures may be needed, such as incorporating a climate change impacts fee on coal extracted from federal lands; [see the case made at
https://climate.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/Burger-09-2016-Climate-Change-Impacts-Fee_1.pdf]
Accounting for GHG emissions of More reliable measurement and verification, as well as automated reporting, is needed to accurately assess greenhouse gas emissions in the coal lifecycle.
coal
3 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of 2. The BLM should expand its Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement reports to address coal impacts.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) must
be accounted for, including those produced: * locally, before, during and after active mining; * by truck, train, barge,and/or ship transportation; * by combustion
at any location; and * By the destruction of trees and other photosynthesizers. All GHGs must be accounted for, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, black
carbon, methane, carbon monoxide and others. In 2019, coal power plants produced less than a quarter of the energy in the U.S., and around half of the power
plant-generated nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
14 206.0100.00
Lovie
Julie
130 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of Fossil fuels produced from public lands and waters account for approximately 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It's simply not possible to square approving
new coal mines, or new oil and gas wells on public lands and waters, with President Biden's promise to take an all-of-government approach to tackling the climate
crisis.
Accounting for GHG emissions of Greenhouse gases (GHGs) must be accounted for, including those produced: locally, before, during and after active mining, by truck, train, barge,and/or ship
coal
transportation, by combustion at any location, and By the destruction of trees and other photosynthesizers
All GHGs must be accounted for, including carbon
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, black carbon, methane, carbon monoxide and others. In 2019, coal power plants produced less than a quarter of the energy in the U.S.,
and around half of the power plant-generated nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.
Maguire
Matt
8 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of The BLM should expand its Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement reports to address coal impacts. **Greenhouse gases (GHGs) must
coal
be accounted for, including those produced:
o locally, before, during and after active mining,
o by truck, train, barge,and/or ship transportation,
o by combustion at any location, and o By the destruction of trees and other photosynthesizers
*All GHGs must be accounted for, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, black carbon, methane, carbon monoxide and others. In 2019, coal power plants
produced less than a quarter of the energy in the U.S., and around half of the power plant-generated nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
11 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of In assessing the cumulative long-term impairment to the atmosphere, BLM must complete a full programmatic accounting of GHG emissions due to its policies
coal
and practices, since at least 1965 to determine its role in contributing to historic and ongoing emissions and the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and the levels of heating being experienced today. Much of this work has already been done by USGS for GHG emissions from federal lands for 20052014, and simply needs to be expanded and updated.28 (Footnote 28 See Matthew D. Merrill et al., Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration
in the United States- Estimates for 2005-14 (2018).
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
13 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of As such, the BLM should perform an extraction-based emissions accounting to ensure that it accounts for the full scope of emissions that are caused by its coal
coal
leasing program. Under an extraction-based accounting approach: CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are attributed to the country where those fuels are
extracted, which may not be the country where the emissions are actually released. Like consumption-based accounting, this approach can help account for
changes in GHG emissions responsibility due to international trade. In particular, this approach can help track the emissions associated with fossil fuels exported
to other countries. For example, as U.S. coal consumption has declined (and, with it, CO2 emissions from coal combustion), there has been increasing pressure to
export coal to other countries. Extraction-based emissions accounting would estimate emissions associated with burning this exported coal in China, Korea, or
other end markets throughout the world. Extraction-based accounting is perhaps the easiest to implement . . . because it can be performed simply from
countries' fossil fuel production statistics, carbon contents of those fuels (whether standard factors from the IPCC or country-specific factors), and adjusting for
the estimated fraction of each fuel that is not combusted but is instead used for non-energy uses such as to make plastics.30 (Footnote 30 Declaration of Peter A.
Erickson in Support of Plaintiffs' Urgent Motion under Circuit Rule 27-3(b) for Preliminary Injunction, Ex. 1 at 12, Juliana v. United States, No. 18-36082 (9th Cir.
Feb. 7, 2019).)
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
12 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of As part of its assessment, BLM should factor in the GHG emissions from coal extracted from federal public lands that is exported to other countries.29
coal
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
10 206.0100.00
(Footnote 29 Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline Institute, Unfair Market Value II: Coal Exports and the Value of Federal Coal (June 2016).)
Accounting for GHG emissions of As noted in the NOI, a current area of controversy is the degree to which the BLM should analyze the effect of leasing decisions on coal combustion downstream.
coal
Wolverine does not object to the consideration of the impact of federal coal leasing in the aggregate on net coal combustion, but any such analysis must consider
the interaction of federal coal leasing with other law and market constraints. Analysis of coal combustion on a leasing level has little effect on aggregate emissions,
and extensive analysis of combustion effects will serve no purpose in creating a useful scientific opinion at the leasing level.
Reed
Sam
73 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Richardson
Sarah
39 N/A
2 206.0100.00
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Accounting for GHG emissions of and stronger environmental reviews, that take greenhouse gases into consideration, for renewals of existing leases
coal
Accounting for GHG emissions of The BLM also should expand Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement reports to address coal impacts. This includes the production of
coal
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
45 206.0100.00
greenhouse gases locally; the transportation of coal; the combustion of coal; and the destruction of trees and other carbon "sinks".
Accounting for GHG emissions of C. BLM Must use Available Tools to Evaluate the Climate Impacts of the Federal Coal Program. Beyond quantifying the volume of carbon dioxide and methane
coal
emissions that result from the federal coal program, comparing those emissions totals among alternatives, and evaluating the extent to which those alternatives
are consistent with federal greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, BLM must also use all the tools available to it to evaluate the impact, and not just the
volume, of carbon pollution.
C-30
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
47 206.0100.00
Law Program
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of ii. Carbon budgets. In evaluating the future of the federal coal program, BLM has the opportunity to stanch the flow of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere to
coal
avoid a climate catastrophe. As part of the upcoming review, BLM should use carbon budgets to assess and compare the impacts of various program alternatives.
Carbon budgets essentially work backward from a desired temperate threshold (say, 1.5?) and desired confidence at limiting warming to that temperature increase
(say, 50% confidence level), to arrive at an amount of greenhouse gases that the world's economies can emit - forever - while likely staying within the desired
temperature. Based on equitable principles, individual country's contributions can be articulated. Thus, federal proposals can be understood as a percentage of the
remaining U.S. carbon budget as one means of analyzing the magnitude of the proposal's climate impact. In
order to stay within planetary carbon budgets to
avoid worst-case climate change scenarios, additional mining and burning of U.S. federal coal is simply untenable. A 2016 analysis found that the carbon emissions
that would be released from burning the oil, gas, and coal in the world's currently operating fields and mines would fully exhaust and exceed the carbon budget
consistent with staying below 1.5°C.102 [Footnote 102 Oil Change International, The Sky's Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of
Fossil Fuel Production, (September 2016), http://priceofoil.org/2016/09/22/the-skys-limit-report/ at Table 3. Attached as Exhibit 37. According to this analysis, the
CO2 emissions from developed reserves in existing and under-construction global oil and gas fields and existing coal mines are estimated at 942 Gt CO2, which
vastly exceeds the 1.5°C-compatible carbon budget estimated in the 2018 IPCC report on Global Warming of 1.5°C at 420 GtCO2 to 570 GtCO2.]
The
reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone, even excluding coal mines, would likely lead to warming beyond 1.5°C.103 [Footnote 103 The CO2
emissions from developed reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone are estimated at 517 Gt CO2, which would likely exhaust the 1.5°C-compatible
carbon budget estimated in the 2018 IPCC report on Global Warming of 1.5°C at 420 GtCO2 to 570 GtCO2.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
47(continued) 206.0100.00
Law Program
Accounting for GHG emissions of An important conclusion of the analysis is that no new fossil fuel extraction or infrastructure should be built, and governments should grant no new permits for
coal
extraction and infrastructure. Furthermore, many of the world's existing oil and gas fields and coal mines will need to be closed before their reserves are fully
extracted in order to limit warming to 1.5°C.104 [Footnote 104 Id. at 7, 13.]
In short, the analysis established that there is no room in the carbon budget for
new fossil fuel extraction or infrastructure anywhere, including in the United States, and much existing fossil fuel production must be phased out to avoid the
catastrophic damages from climate change.105 [Footnote 105 This conclusion was reinforced by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report which estimated that global
fossil fuel reserves exceed the remaining carbon budget (from 2011 onward) for staying below 2°C (a target incompatible with the Paris Agreement) by 4 to 7
times, while fossil fuel resources exceed the carbon budget for 2°C by 31 to 50 times. See Bruckner, Thomas et al., 2014: Energy Systems in Climate Change
2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press (2014), at Table 7.2.]
A 2019 Oil Change International analysis underscored that the United States must halt new fossil fuel
extraction and rapidly phase out existing production to avoid jeopardizing our ability to meet the Paris climate targets and avoid the worst dangers of climate
change.106 [Footnote 106 Oil Change International, supra note 102.]
The analysis showed that the U.S. oil and gas industry is on track to account for 60
percent of the world's projected growth in oil and gas production by 2030-the time period over which the IPCC concluded that global carbon dioxide emissions
should be roughly halved to meet the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target.107 [Footnote 107 IPCC, AR 6, Summary for Policy Makers at SPM-15.]
Between 2018 and
2050, the United States is poised to unleash the world's largest burst of CO2 emissions from new oil and gas development-primarily from shale and largely
dependent on fracking-estimated at 120 billion metric tons of CO2 which is equivalent to the lifetime CO2 emissions of nearly 1,000 coal-fired power plants.
Based on a 1.5°C IPCC pathway, U.S. production alone would exhaust nearly 50 percent of the world's total allowance for oil and gas by 2030 and exhaust more
than 90 percent by 2050.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
48 206.0100.00
Accounting for GHG emissions of Research on the United States' carbon budget and the carbon emissions locked into U.S. fossil fuels similarly supports the conclusion that the U.S. must halt new
coal
fossil fuel production and rapidly phase out existing production to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. A 2015 analysis of U.S. fossil fuel resources
demonstrated that the potential carbon emissions from already leased fossil fuel resources on U.S. federal lands would essentially exhaust the remaining U.S.
carbon budget consistent with the 1.5°C target.108 [Footnote 108 EcoShift Consulting, The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels,
(2015). Attached as Exhibit 38.]
This analysis estimated that recoverable fossil fuels from U.S. federal lands would release up to 349 to 492 GtCO2eq of carbon
emissions, if fully extracted and burned. Of that amount, already leased fossil fuels would release 30 to 43 GtCO2eq of emissions, while as yet unleased fossil fuels
would emit 319 to 450 GtCO2eq of emissions. A 2016 study found that carbon emissions from already leased fossil fuel resources on federal lands alone (30 to
43 GtCO2eq) would essentially exhaust the U.S. carbon budget for a 1.5°C target (25 to 57 GtCO2eq) if these leased fossil fuels are fully extracted and
burned.109 [Footnote 109 Robiou du Pont, Yann et al., Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, 7 Nature Climate Change 38 (2017), at
Supplemental Table 1. "). Attached as Exhibit 39.]
The potential carbon emissions from unleased federal fossil fuel resources (319 to 450 GtCO2eq) would
exceed the U.S. carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C many times over.110 [Footnote 110 EcoShift Consulting, supra note 108 at 4.]
More recent
scholarship affirms these findings, and concludes that even steeper reductions in GHG emissions are necessary to keep emissions within the remaining available
carbon budget associated with 1.5°C warming. One such study used a global energy system model to assess the amount of coal, oil, and gas that would need to
remain in the ground both regionally and globally, to allow for a 50 percent change of limiting warming to 1.5°C.111 [Footnote 111 Dan Welsby, et al.,
Unextractable Fossil Fuels in a 1.5°C World, supra note 61 at 230. Welsby notes that in 2015 McGlade and Elkins estimated that one-third of oil reserves, nearly
half of methane gas, and 80 percent of global coal reserves would need to stay in the ground to limit warming to 2°C, with the updated figures a marked increase
in the cuts required under prior carbon budgets.]
Globally, the study concluded, 60 percent of the world's oil, 60 percent of its methane gas, and 90 percent of
coal "must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5°C carbon budget."112 [Footnote 112 Id.]
would not be extracted under a global 1.5°C target,"113 [Footnote 113 Id. at 231.]
Thus, "very high shares of reserves considered economic today
which, for the U.S., meant that 97 percent of U.S. coal reserves must remain
undeveloped in order to meet our national goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C or less.114 [Footnote 114 Id. at 233.]
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-31
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
South
Eric
Organization
Letter # Name
153 Wyoming Coalition of Local
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
5 206.0100.00
Governments
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Accounting for GHG emissions of The District Court of the District of Columbia recently held that the BLM failed to adequately analyze impacts to greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions at the
coal
leasehold stage. WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 64-66 (D. D.C. 2019). Under the Mineral Leasing Act and BLM regulations, prior to a lease sale,
BLM "has the authority to impose conditions, such as NSO stipulations, dictating steps leaseholders must take to protect the environment. . . After the lease sale,
however, the leaseholder has 'the right to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the
leased resource in a leasehold.'" Id. at 65 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-3 and 1-2). After the lease is issued, the BLM does not have "authority to preclude all activities
pending submission of site-specific proposals and the authority to prevent proposed activities if the environmental consequences are unacceptable." Id. (citing
Richardson and Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Thus, "an agency cannot defer analyzing the reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts of an activity past the point when that activity can be precluded." Id. (emphasis added). The specific holding of the District Court of the District of
Columbia is that BLM need not conduct a site specific (e.g. parcel by parcel) review of potential impacts, but that BLM must quantify GHG emissions in the
aggregate. Id. at 66-68.The BLM must also follow holdings in the Ninth and Tenth Circuit that require BLM to reasonably evaluate impacts to various resources
whether it be impact to wildlife habitat, visual resources, local economies, or otherwise. See Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (9th Cir. 1988); N.M. ex rel.
Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 718-19 (10th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the Coalition encourages the BLM to provide the public with the information and analysis
necessary to determine the impacts of a lease sale to withstand any future action.
Warren
Rob
Anderson
Shannon
207 N/A
40 Powder River Basin
1 206.0100.00
49 206.0200.00
Resource Council
Accounting for GHG emissions of Although other countries will continue to burn coal, America needs to stop contributing to this huge source of green house gases.
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
One tool available to analyze and disclose the significance of emissions and related climate change impacts is the Interagency Working Group's Social Costs of
Etc
Carbon,80 which remains the best available scientific and economic basis for determining the value of avoiding each ton of GHG emissions.
(footnote
80Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, U.S. Government 1 (2016) [hereinafter IWG 2016 Report], https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201612/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under
Executive Order 13990, U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, U.S. Government 1 (2021) [hereinafter IWG 2021 Report],
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. )
The social cost of
carbon protocol (hereinafter, "SCC") is a metric that is used to reflect the damages associated with an increase in carbon emissions.81 (footnote 81 CEQ Final
Guidance, at 32, n.86C. )
The SCC analysis is an important tool to effectuate the purposes of NEPA. The SCC can be used by agencies to put the significance of
the emissions in a context that decisionmakers and members of the public could understand because it was "designed to quantify a project's contribution to costs
associated with global climate change." High Country Conservation Advocates, 52 F. Supp. At 1190-91. The SCC allows agencies to "present the environmental
impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options." 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14. A District Court in Montana recently agreed in regard to a Federal coal lease that "[t]he SCC Protocol remains a viable model tool for monetizing the
costs of greenhouse gas emissions..." Wildearth Guardians v. Bernhardt, 2021 WL 363955, at *9 (D. Mont. Feb. 3, 2021).
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.82
The SCC was developed by the
(footnote 82 IWG 2016 Report, at 1. While Exec. Order No. 13783 (March 28,
2017) at § 5(b), disbanded the Federal Government's Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the Social Cost of Carbon, and withdrew its Technical Support
Document ("TSD") "as no longer representative of governmental policy," notably, the Order did not refute or undermine the scientific or economic basis of the
TSD, but rather withdrew the document for political reasons.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
49(continued) 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Therefore, the protocol remains a credible tool for assessing the impacts of GHG emissions. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(3) (requiring the use of "existing credible
Etc
scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment."). In January 2021, Executive
Order 13990 re-established the IWG and stresses the importance of the SCC and related tools, including the social cost of nitrous oxide and social cost of
methane (collectively, social cost of greenhouse gases) to agency decision making: "An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately determine the
social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions." Exec. Order No. 13990, 86 Fed. Reg.
7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). )
The IWG was comprised of multiple federal agencies and White House economic and scientific experts, and the SCC was developed
using up-to-date peer-reviewed models.83
(footnote 83 Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, U.S. Government 1, 2 (2013) [hereinafter IWG 2013
Report], https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf;
Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, U.S. Government 1, 2 (2010) (hereinafter IWG 2010 Report), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201612/documents/scc tsd 2010.pdf. )
According to one analysis, "[t]he SCC estimates the benefit to be achieved, expressed in monetary value, by avoiding the
damage caused by each additional metric ton (tonne) of carbon dioxide (CO2) [released] into the atmosphere."84
(footnote 84 Ruth Greenspan Bell & Dianne
Callan, Environmental Law Institute, More than Meets the Eye: The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Climate Policy, in Plain English 1, 1 (2011),
https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/pdf/more_than_meets_the_eye_social_cost_of_carbon.pdf?_ga=2.264401292.2091293810.15542261361873117202.1554226136. )
These costs are created when GHG emissions force climate change, increasing global temperatures. This leads to sea level rise,
increased intensity of storms, drought, and other changes, which have negative economic impacts including property damage from storms and floods, reduced
agricultural productivity, impacts on human health, and reduced ecosystem services. The SCC estimates the dollar value of these negative economic impacts and
recognizes that every marginal ton of CO2 carries with it a social cost of carbon.85
(footnote 85 Richard Revesz et al., Global warming: Improve economic
models of climate-change, 508 Nature 173, 173-75 (2014), https://web.stanford.edu/~goulder/Papers/Published%20Papers/Revesz%20et%20al%20%20Social%20Cost%20of%20Carbon%20(Nature%20508).pdf. )
C-32
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
50 206.0200.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
While the SCC may underestimate climate costs because it does not include all important damages, the IWG's social cost metrics remain the best estimates yet
Etc
produced by the federal government for monetizing the impacts of GHG emissions and are "generally accepted in the scientific community." 40 C.F.R. §
1502.22(b)(4). Several courts have rejected agency refusals to use the SCC as a means of evaluating the impact of GHG emissions that result from agency action.
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enf't, 274 F. Supp.
3d 1074, 1094-99 (D. Mont. 2017) (rejecting agency's failure to incorporate the federal SCC estimates into its cost-benefit analysis of a proposed mine expansion);
Zero Zone, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 832 F.3d 654, 679 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding estimates of the SCC used to date by agencies were reasonable); High Country
Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1190-93 (D. Colo. 2014) (holding the SCC was an available tool to quantify the significance of
GHG impacts, and it was "arbitrary and capricious to quantify the benefits of the lease modifications and then explain that a similar analysis of the costs was
impossible") (emphasis in original). If an agency monetizes the economic benefits of fossil fuel extraction, it must then also monetize the costs of carbon pollution.
See Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr., 274 F. Supp. 3d at 1094-99. An agency may not assert that the social cost of fossil fuel development is $0: "by deciding not to
quantify the costs at all, the agencies effectively zeroed out the costs in its quantitative analysis." High Country Conservation Advocates, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 1192;
see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1200 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that while there is a range potential social
cost figures, "the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero").
Further, Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3399 "prioritizes action on
climate change and establishes a Departmental Climate Task Force," at the Department of the Interior.86
2021).)
(footnote 86 DOI Sec. Ord. 3399 § 1 (April 16,
The Secretarial Order acknowledges that the social costs of greenhouse gases are "a useful measure to assess the climate impacts of GHG emission
changes for federal proposed actions, in addition to rulemakings," and "is an essential tool to quantify the costs and benefits associated with a proposed action's
GHG emissions and relevant to the choice among alternatives."87
(footnote 87 Id. §5(b).)
In the absence of other tools, BLM should use the social cost of
greenhouse gas metrics to assist in analyzing and disclosing to the public the significance of the GHG emissions resulting from its decisions. Even if NEPA does not
require a cost-benefit analysis in all cases, it does require agencies to assess the significance of their actions, and the SCC remains one of the best tools available to
analyze and disclose to the public the significance of GHG emissions.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
50(continued) 206.0200.00
Resource Council
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Critically, these protocols not only contextualize costs associated with climate change but can also be used as a proxy for understanding climate impacts and
Etc
comparing alternatives. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a) (stating agency "shall" include all "information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts
[that] is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
60 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Applying the Social Cost of GHGs to Department of the Interior decisions on coal development
Etc
very different measure of climate impact than a climate test, with each measure potentially playing a unique and valuable role in BLM's decision-making. The social
The social costs of GHGs discussed in previous sections are a
cost of GHGs, unlike the climate test, enables BLM to quantify the economic impact of GHG emissions authorized by any of its decisions. This ability is
particularly essential in situations where proponents of a decision that will result in increased extraction are touting the purported economic benefits of such
extraction - whether in terms of employment gains, increased tax revenue, or general economic betterment. BLM should consistently apply the social cost of
GHGs, including the SCC and SCM, in such instances to counterbalance claims of this nature with a clear-eyed assessment of the economic costs associated with
GHG emissions.121
(footnote 121 Id.; see also Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of GHGs (IWG), Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990, U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,
U.S. Government 1 (2021) [hereinafter IWG 2021 Report], https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument
SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. )
Even in the absence of data regarding purported economic benefits, the social cost of GHGs tool is useful to
provide perspective on the economic downside of extractive activity.
The social cost of GHG metrics is not, however, designed to provide a benchmark for the
significance of GHG emissions or determine their consistency with climate goals. They assign a dollar figure to climate impacts but are not set up to provide
context as to whether that dollar figure is significant from a decision-making perspective; and the dollar figure standing alone cannot tell us whether the emissions
and their associated costs are consistent with a 1.5° Celsius warming world.
Although both the social cost of GHGs and potential economic module of the
climate test currently under development address the economics of extraction, they ask entirely different questions within that sphere: the social cost of GHGs
methodology assesses the monetized cost of the externalities associated with extraction, whereas a climate test economic module would ask whether a decision is
economically viable even when those costs are not entirely internalized. Accordingly, both the social cost of GHGs and the climate test should be applied to all
BLM coal-related decisions moving forward, ranging from programmatic-level reviews to site-specific leasing and permitting decisions.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-33
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
51 206.0200.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Social Cost of Methane Similarly, the Social Cost of Methane is another available tool to BLM to use to analyze and disclose the significance of emissions and
Etc
related climate change impacts of the Federal coal program.88
(footnote 88 IWG 2016 Report, at 3. The August 2016 update added some clarifying information
around uncertainties in the modeling that supports the social cost of carbon, id. at 2 but did not adjust the damages values (the costs) published in the 2015
update, id.; compare id. at 7 with Technical Support Document: - Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under
Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 1, 7 (2015),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292643830_Technical_Support_Document_Technical_Update_of_the_So
cial_Cost_of_Carbon_for_Regulatory_Impact_Analysis_under_Executive_Order_12866; Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon
for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of
Nitrous Oxide, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 2-3 (2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201612/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates
under Executive Order 13990, U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, U.S. Government 1 (2021) [hereinafter, IWG 2021
Report], https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. )
Similar to the
SCC, the Social Cost of Methane provides a standard methodology that allows state and federal agencies to quantify the social benefits of reducing methane
emissions. According to the EPA, 7.2% of all methane emissions still come directly from coal mining each year (as of 2019), and an additional 0.9% comes from
abandoned underground coal mines for a total of 8%.89
(footnote 89 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2019, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019. )
As set forth more fully above, the
IWG's social cost metrics remain the best estimates yet produced by the federal government for monetizing the impacts of GHG emissions and are "generally
accepted in the scientific community." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4). Thus, BLM should apply them in its analysis of the Federal coal program.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
6 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Based upon our review of the literature and our analyses, we found that the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining on federal lands, and from
Etc
burning of that coal, are so high that any new leases from coal mining should be banned on all federal lands in three years. In addition, the costs of carbon dioxide
emissions from burning coal incur such an immense social cost, that all coal leases for coal that will be burned by the electrical power sector and incineration
sector should be banned immediately.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
11 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Add a fee on both underground-mined coal and surface-mined coal produced on federal lands, for the carbon dioxide gases emitted from burning coal in the
Etc
electric power sector, that would currently be assessed at $102.13 (in 2020 dollars) per Metric Ton of Coal Produced, and that would grow over time with the
GDP inflator index. The royalty increases we reached for carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are so high, because the social costs of these emissions are
currently around double the current market price of coal facing the electric power sector. Therefore, to allow the price of coal to float and incorporate these
costs, we recommend this as a fee rather than a royalty. This policy recommendation would only be relevant if BLM does not immediately ban coal leases for coal
destined for the electric power sector and the incineration sector.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
16 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
The US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Table ES-2) has come up with prices that seek to encapsulate the costs of
Etc
greenhouse gas emissions on society. In its analysis, the working group states that the social cost of a greenhouse gas is that "monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with adding a small amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year. In principle, it includes the value of all climate change impacts,
including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk natural disasters, disruption
of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services" (The US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, Feb 2021, pg. 2). This group provides the most current and appropriate way for the federal government to account for greenhouse gas
damages, which is why we used it in our analyses.
To clarify how social costs of greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed, we use our Table 1 as an example. Table
1 works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the US net methane emissions from coal production from underground mines, and the amount of
emissions per metric ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per Metric ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty
increases based on these costs. Data is converted into Metric Tons as per international scientific norms. Column 1 is the year from which data are culled. Column
2 represents the net US methane emissions from underground coal mines. It is "net" emissions, because some coal mining companies partially capture methane
emissions from the mines to reuse as an energy source. Column 3 shows the total amount of coal produced in the US from underground mining. Column 4
represents the Metric Tons of methane emissions per Metric Ton of coal, calculated by dividing Column 2 by Column 3. The social cost of methane (Column 5) is
given in 2020 dollars, and is from a federal interagency working group: the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021).
C-34
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
16 206.0200.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
A GDP price deflator (Column 6) was used to adjust methane's social costs for inflation from 2020 dollars to valuations appropriate for each year of data. Here
Etc
we use the annual GDP Implicit Price Deflator values in (US BEA Aug 26, 2021 Table 1.1.9.), as per the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Table ES-2). For example, 104.691 (2015)/113.648 (2020) = 0.92. Then the next column, Column 7, gives the social cost of
methane per metric ton, by multiplying Column 5 (the social cost of methane), by Column 6 (the GDP Price Deflator). Column 8 gives the social cost of methane
per metric ton of coal, by multiplying Column 4 (Emissions of Methane per Metric Ton Coal) by Column 7 (Social Cost of Methane per Metric Ton). So for
example, in 2015, the social cost of methane per metric ton of coal is $8.92. The next columns show the prices of coal at the national mouth-mine price, per
short ton (Column 9) and per metric ton (Column 10). The next two columns show the average price of coal across the US when sold to power plants, per short
ton (Column 11) and per Metric Ton (Column 12). Surprisingly, this number is a lower price than the national average mouth-mine price. Finally, the percent
royalty increase is calculated as the social cost of methane per metric ton of coal (Column 8), relative to (divided by) the average US mouth-mine price per metric
ton (Column 10) and the average US price delivered to the power plants (Column 12).
This gives the suggested royalty increase per US national average mouth-
mine price of coal (Column 13), and the suggested royalty increase per the US national cost of coal delivered to the electric power sector (Column 14). We
calculate the 5-year averages of these at the bottom of the same two columns, in the row labeled "Average 2015-2019". In this case, the suggested royalty
increases are 15.1% and 22.5%, respectively. These royalty increases take into account only the emissions of methane from mines, not factoring in additional
greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining and burning. Other tables factor in other greenhouse gas emissions. Table 8 gives the sum total of all suggested
royalties.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
26 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Social Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Underground Coal Mining, and Suggested Royalty Increases
Etc
emissions from carbon dioxide from underground mining work. It works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the carbon dioxide emissions from
Table 5 is similar to Table 1, but focuses on
US coal production from underground mines, and the emissions per metric ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per
Metric ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty increases based on these costs. Because the EPA provided this data in Carbon Dioxide equivalents (Column
1), we needed to convert it to regular carbon dioxide emissions by Metric Ton (Column 2). Based on the US national average mine-mouth price, the suggested
royalty increase on underground coal production is 0.2%. Based on the US price of coal delivered to the electric power sector, the suggested royalty increase on
underground coal production is 0.3%.
The carbon dioxide emissions from underground coal mining are an order of magnitude lower than those of methane, and
the social costs of methane per Metric Ton are much higher because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Thus the suggested
royalty increases for carbon dioxide are much lower.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
43 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Based upon our review of the literature and our analyses, we found that the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining on federal lands, and from
Etc
burning of that coal, are so high that any new leases from coal mining should be banned on all federal lands in three years. In addition, the costs of carbon dioxide
emissions from burning coal incur such an immense social cost, that all coal leases for coal that will be burned by the electrical power sector and incineration
sector should be banned immediately.
Bass
Bass
Margot
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
45 Essential Information, Inc.
2 206.0200.00
5 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Our primary conclusion is that the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions are so high that new coal leases should be banned on federal lands in three years, and
Etc
that all coal leases for coal burned by the electrical power sector and incineration sector should be banned immediately.
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
In calculating the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions, we rely upon the analytical framework of Hein and Howard (December 2015, Table 1, see Appendix
Etc
1). We incorporate more recent data from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, analyzing data from 2015 up to the most recent year
for when full annual data is available (generally 2019). For the baseline social cost of each greenhouse gas per Metric Ton, we use the updated 2020 values from
the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Tables ES-1 and ES-2). These numbers have a significant range depending on
the discount rate used, so we chose the average 3% discount rate price as a middle-range value to use.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
15 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
An immediate ban on federal coal leases for coal destined for the electric power sector and the incineration sector is the only reasonable policy conclusion that
Etc
one can draw based upon our analysis using a well-reasoned expert methodology and the latest data available. A full ban on any coal mining on federal lands in
three years may sound like another aggressive and market-disrupting step. However, if the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions are not taken into account by
BLM in making its new rules, the US government is knowingly subsidizing US coal production at the direct expense of the US taxpayer. As federal lands are
managed on behalf of US taxpayers, and the Secretary of the Interior and BLM have statutory duties to safeguard the public welfare, they need to implement these
bans. Alternatives that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions are available, and have demonstrated their viability in the national marketplace. While our
recommended interim steps to a ban has high associated royalties and fees, they will ensure that coal production takes into full account the social costs of
greenhouse gas emissions prior to the ban.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
21 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Metrics such as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) should not be applied to the production of federal coal. The SCC provides "an estimate of the economic value of
Etc
the extra (or marginal) impact caused by the emission or reduction of an additional ton of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) at any point in time."27
(Footnote 27 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, § 20.6, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden
and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (2007).)
Utilizing modeling expertise in both atmospheric science and economics, the SCC
is calculated through the use of sophisticated models that in turn rely upon a variety of technical and socioeconomic considerations and assumptions. Among the
costs the SCC is intended to measure, for example, are changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and
the value of ecosystem services due to climate change. Even among experts, these estimates vary; since 1996 hundreds of SCC values have been published, some
of which have been peer-reviewed and others not.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-35
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Gordon
Mark
Organization
Letter # Name
23 Governor of Wyoming
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
22 206.0200.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
The SCC also assumes that all fossil fuels will be combusted with no carbon mitigation. It is reasonably foreseeable that at least some amount of fossil fuels will
Etc
mitigate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the use of CCS/CCUS. Congress has provided funding for research and projects related to CCS/CCUS
technologies for decades.29 (Footnote 29 See Folger, P. "Recovery Act Funding for DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Projects, R44387
(Congressional Research Service, Feb. 18, 2016) (available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44387.pdf). )
DOE is currently funding research with the goal of siting
one or more large-scale CCS/CCUS projects at coal-fired power plants and other large emitters of CO2 under the CarbonSAFE initiative, discussed above.30
(Footnote 30 https ://www .net1 . doe. gov/coal/carb on-storage/storage-infrastructure/carb onsafe.)
Researchers at the University of Wyoming are leading a
CarbonSAFE project in Gillette, Wyoming.
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
6 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
the federal government's assessment of the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (SC-GHG) grossly understates damages attributable to pollutants associated with
Etc
coal and should, given the full range of harms, be pegged to the High Impact Estimate or greater and be reflected in coal lease royalty rates and other fees; [see
info at www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf?source=email]
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
25 206.0200.00
Association
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Leasing decisions under the previous administration happened with severely curtailed input from the public, lack of consideration of environmental impacts, and
Etc
were not based on credible knowledge and/or science. The Department must ensure that this review includes evaluation of environmental and community
consequences, including the social cost of carbon, based on accurate data, public input and best available science.
Lucas
Mitchell
157 N/A
7 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Incorporating social costs into coal royalties for every coal lease renewal. Initial coal leases last 20 years, and while coal companies can opt to renew them in 10-
Etc
year increments, BLM can renegotiate the terms when leases come up for renewal. Hundreds of leases will come up for renewal in President Biden's first term,
and BLM should incorporate the social cost of carbon, currently around $51/ton, into the cost of fossil fuel companies leasing taxpayer-owned resources.
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
8 206.0200.00
Commissioners
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
11 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
The SCC assumes that all fossil fuels will be combusted with no carbon mitigation and with the utilization of CCUS/CCS, greenhouse gas emissions will be
Etc
mitigated and should be taken into account.
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Wolverine recognizes that in the past, the Secretary has elected through Administration policy to use the Federal Social Cost of Carbon ("SCC") in rulemaking
Etc
proceedings, despite the fact that the SCC is technically unsound, was not developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and sharply diverges from OMB
guidelines regarding critical elements such as discount rates. Nevertheless, the Secretary does have discretion to set policy for project-level decisions, including
leasing decisions, and should categorically reject the SCC in those contexts. Not only was the SCC not developed for project-level decisions, but the SCC cannot
provide useful information at the project level. This is because at the project level, the incremental SCC impact of the proposed action in relation to the no-action
alternative or other project alternatives will generally be indeterminable. For example, for local effects, the impact of a lease on a stream, the no action or project
alternatives will have identifiably different impacts. But for global impacts of the type attempted to be measured by the SCC, one cannot know the effect of, for
example, the no action alternative, without knowing how the various actors will respond. Even if a coal lease application is denied, there will be no effect on net
SCC calculations unless there is a coordinated policy to deny other similarly-situated coal leasing, and such broad policy determinations are inherently beyond the
scope of project-level analyses.
In addition, as the BLM and OSMRE have recognized in recent project level NEPA analyses, the SCC by itself provides an
incomplete and biased accounting of the impacts of a decision. There is presently no corresponding "Social Benefit of Carbon" metric. While short term tax,
employment, and economic activity measures account for some of the benefits of coal production, they are by no means a complete accounting in the same
manner and at the same horizon and scale as attempted by the SCC. Consequently, the SCC is not useful at the project level and the PEIS and any resulting
regulatory or policy changes should make that clear.The Secretary (and the Administration generally) should seek express Congressional authorization and
guidance to the extent there is a desire to continue to employ the SCC in federal decision-making. Such authorization, if obtained, would place the Executive on a
far sounder democratic and constitutional footing than under current and potentially future practices.
C-36
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sarinsky
Max
Organization
Letter # Name
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
19 206.0200.00
at New York University
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
Consistent With Its Mandate to Serve the Public Interest, Interior Should Not Approve Further Leasing Unless It Determines that the Benefits of that Leasing
Etc
Exceed the Costs The Secretary of the Interior has broad discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act with respect to when, how, and whether federal coal leases
School of Law
may be offered.8
(footnote 8 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1); see Arnold v. Morton, 529 F.2d 1101, 1105-1106 (9th Cir. 1976); WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 783 F.
Supp. 2d 61, 63 (D.D.C. 2011); see also U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3338 at 6 (Jan. 15, 2016).)
Secretary to offer lands for coal leasing "in his [or her] discretion."9
Section 201 of that Act authorizes the
(footnote 9 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1) (emphasis added). Indeed, Interior has previously
recognized that it has "discretion not to lease in response to any coal lease application. Natural Gas Category Determination; Notice to Lessees for
Implementation of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 44 Fed. Reg. 42,534, 42,594 (July 19, 1979).)
she finds "appropriate and in the public interest."10
(footnote 10 Id. )
The MLA further states that the Secretary may lease coal as
Yet in previous leasing decisions, Interior has given insufficient consideration to the
externalities from coal extraction and combustion. Interior should rationally weigh the costs and benefits of any leasing decision and not engage in leasing
(including lease renewals and mine expansions) unless the economic benefits of that action exceed its social costs. Those social costs are substantial. As calculated
in a 2015 Policy Integrity report, monetized externalities for coal production and transportation-including methane emissions from mines along with fatalities,
greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution from coal transportation-conservatively accounted for more than 70 percent of coal's economic value at that time.11
(footnote 11 Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal, supra note 6, at 3.)
This calculation did not include many nonmonetized environmental harms from coal
production and transportation-such as emissions of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants, water pollution, water use, and habitat disruption12nor did it account for the greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution resulting from coal combustion.
(footnote 12 Id.)
Moreover, as the Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases has acknowledged, recent evidence indicates that the costs of methane pollution were likely
undervalued in that study.13
(footnote 13 Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide - Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13,990 at 4 (2021) (acknowledging that social cost valuations used in Policy
Integrity's 2015 study "likely underestimate societal damages from [greenhouse gas] emissions").)
Other researchers have similarly concluded that, in recent
years, the social costs of coal production and extraction have very likely exceeded its economic benefits.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
46 206.0200.00
Law Program
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
i. Social cost of carbon and social cost of methane. The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane tools are based on sound science; have already been used
Etc
by federal agencies, including BLM, to evaluate the impacts of agency policy proposals; and help put climate impacts into a context that is easily understood by
both the public and decision-makers. Federal agencies evaluating climate impacts of their proposals have frequently claimed that science has not developed the
tools to analyze climate impacts of individual proposals. This is not accurate. The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane are two reliable tools that are
available and should be utilized by BLM in the PEIS process. Under NEPA's implementing regulations, where "information relevant to reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known," NEPA regulations
direct agencies to evaluate a project's impacts "based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community." 40 C.F.R.
§ 1502.21. The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane are based on generally accepted research methods and years of peer-reviewed scientific and
economic studies. As the D.C. Circuit recently explained in invalidating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's review of a fossil fuel infrastructure project,
40 C.F.R. § 1502.21 requires federal agencies to evaluate the social cost of carbon as one potentially available, scientifically accepted tool for analyzing climate
impacts. Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm'n, 6 F.4th 1321, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The social cost of carbon was
created by an interagency working group ("IWG") in 2010 that consisted of scientific and economic experts from a dozen federal agencies and offices, including
EPA, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and the Treasury.95 [Footnote 95 Interagency Working Group, Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 (Feb. 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. ]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
46(continued) 206.0200.00
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
The working group's primary goal was to help federal agencies engaged in rulemaking to quantify the economic benefit of federal actions that reduce CO2
Etc
emissions. The result of their efforts was the social cost of carbon - a schedule of estimates of the global economic harm caused by each ton of CO2 emissions in
a given year, expressed as $/ton.96 [Footnote 96 Id.]
These values encompass damages from decreased agricultural productivity as a result of drought, human
health effects, and property damage from increased flooding, among other factors.97 [Footnote 97 Id.]
The IWG updated the social cost of carbon and
methane with interim values in February 2021, and plans to further update the figures in early 2022.98 [Footnote 98 Id.]
Although it was initially developed to
help agencies craft regulatory impact assessments of proposed rules, the social cost of carbon need not and should not be limited to this application.99 [Footnote
99 In any event, it is possible that the PEIS at issue here will involve proposed changes to BLM regulations, which would trigger the use of the social cost metrics.]
Secretarial Order 3399, signed by Secretary Haaland in April, acknowledges that the social cost of carbon and methane "can be a useful measure to assess the
climate impacts of GHG emission changes for Federal proposed actions, in addition to rulemakings."100 [Footnote 100 SO 3399 (April 16, 2021).]
The
Secretarial Order further instructs, "[f]or instance, when a Bureau/Office determines that a monetized assessment of socioeconomic impacts is relevant, the SCGHG protocol is an essential tool to quantify the costs and benefits associated with a proposed action's GHG emissions and relevant to the choice among
different alternatives being considered."101 [Footnote 101 Id.]
The guiding principle of NEPA is that the public is entitled to a clear understanding of the likely
impacts of federal agencies' decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court has called the disclosure of impacts the "key requirement of NEPA," holding that agencies must
"consider and disclose the actual environmental effects" of a proposed project in a way that "brings those effects to bear on [an agency's] decisions." Baltimore
Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 96 (1983). The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane provide decision makers and the
public with an informative, accessible mechanism for both analyzing and understanding the climate impacts of a proposed decision.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-37
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
31 206.0200.00
Law Program
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane
(3) BLM must use the scientific tools available to analyze climate impacts, including carbon budgets and the social cost of carbon and methane.
Etc
5 206.0300.00
Carbon Capture
The Federal Coal Leasing Program is responsible for no climate or environmental impacts. Rather, impacts occur downstream use through electricity generation
using the coal resource. WMA recognizes the Administration's political efforts to tie all human activity to perceived impacts on global climate change, and
supports the State of Wyoming's leadership in development of viable Carbon Capture Use and Storage (CCUS) technology to keep coal fired generation viable.
Through technological and emission control improvements, reductions in actual criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act, such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
particulate matter, has been an unqualified success. There is no reason to believe that with continuing advances in CCUS technology the same success cannot be
achieved for carbon dioxide emissions. However, this will not happen if the coal resource is placed off limits through overburdensome changes to the leasing
process. This would not be in the best interest of either the state of Wyoming or Americans that depend on reliable power every day.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
40 206.0300.00
Carbon Capture
2 206.0300.00
Carbon Capture
Coordinating Office
South
Eric
153 Wyoming Coalition of Local
considered and compared, economically as well as environmentally, with other regionally available base-load electricity generation sources.
Governments
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Innovation and technologies in carbon management, such as advanced combustion, gasification, as well as carbon capture use and sequestration should be
The State of Wyoming is in a position to support the continued operation of its coal-fired power plants, however, by its ongoing embracement of the installation
and operation of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology on coal-fired electricity generating stations.
41 206.0400.00
Resource Council
National Carbon Reductions
Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders instruct agencies to evaluate climate change in their decision-making. Secretarial Order 3226, Evaluating Climate
Goals
Change Impacts in Management Planning (January 19, 2001), acknowledged that "[t]here is a consensus in the international community that global climate change is
occurring and that it should be addressed in governmental decision making." The order established the responsibility of agencies to "consider and analyze potential
climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises, when setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, when developing multiyear management plans, and/or when making major decisions regarding potential utilization of resources under the Department's purview."68
(footnote 68
Department of the Interior, Sec. Order 3226, Evaluating Climate Change Impacts in Management Planning (January 19, 2001). ) Interior Secretarial Order 3289,
Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (September 14, 2009), reinstated the provisions
of Order 3226, and recognized that "the realities of climate change require us to change how we manage land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage and
tribal lands and resources we oversee," and acknowledged that the Department of the Interior is "responsible for helping protect the nation from the impacts of
climate change."69 (footnote 69 Department of the Interior, Secretarial Order 3289, Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and
Other Natural and Cultural Resources (September 14, 2009).)
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
42 206.0400.00
Resource Council
National Carbon Reductions
More recently, President Biden issued two executive orders describing the urgent need to address the climate crisis and directing all branches of federal
Goals
government to utilize accepted scientific methods in so doing.70
(footnote 70 See Exec. Order No. 13990, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037, Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (January 25, 2021); Exec. Order 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home
and Abroad (February 1, 2021). )
Executive Order 13990 directs "all executive departments and agencies . . . to immediately commence work to confront the
climate crisis," and calls for a government-wide agency review of programs and institution of scientific methods, such as the social cost of greenhouse gases, to
analyze the costs and benefits of agency action relative to climate.71
(footnote 71 Exec. Order No. 13990 § 5.)
Executive Order 14008 recognizes that "we
face a climate crisis that threatens our people and communities, public health and economy, and, starkly, our ability to live on planet Earth."72
Exec. Order No. 14008 § 201.)
(footnote 72
In pertinent part, Executive Order 14008 establishes a government-wide approach to the climate crisis based on science, and
directs the Government to: [D]eploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces
climate pollution in every sector of the economy; increases resilience to the impacts of climate change; protects public health; conserves our lands, waters, and
biodiversity; delivers environmental justice; and spurs well-paying union jobs and economic growth.73
(footnote 73 Id.)
Therefore, BLM must acknowledge
the disconnect between public land management for energy production and the scientific consensus on the climate crisis and determine what must be done in the
near future to mitigate its worst effects, particularly in light of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008 and their directives to federal agencies.
Aron
C-38
Elaine
133 N/A
2 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
Note that in 2019 coal power plants produced less than a quarter of the energy in the U.S., and around half of the power plant-generated nitrogen oxides and
Goals
carbon dioxide.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
4 206.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
National Carbon Reductions
President Biden has ordered that federal agencies account for greenhouse gas emissions damages and has also set clear goals to limit these emissions to the
Goals
greatest extent possible. On his first day in office, President Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement (President Joseph Biden Jr, Jan 20, 2021), an international
agreement focused on having each member country cut its greenhouse gas emissions. The same day, in Executive Order 13990 Section 5, President Biden reestablished the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. In doing so, he ordered: "It is essential that agencies capture the full costs of
greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including by taking global damages into account. Doing so facilitates sound decision-making, recognizes the
breadth of climate impacts, and supports the international leadership of the United States on climate issues" (President Joseph R. Biden Jr, Jan 20, 2021). In April,
President Biden also publicly established goals to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, and a net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050
(The White House, April 22, 2021). In September, the Biden Administration and the EU announced their joint commitment to the Global Methane Pledge, an
initiative to reduce global methane emissions to be launched at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) in November (The White House, Sept 18, 2021).
The Pledge prioritizes reductions of methane gas emissions, by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030.
Pursuant to President Biden's order, the US
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021) established prices that encapsulate the costs of greenhouse gas emissions on society.
In its analysis, the working group states that the social cost of a greenhouse gas is that "monetary value of the net harm to society associated with adding a small
amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year. In principle, it includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net
agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk, natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services." Compiled by a large panel of government-wide experts, these social damage estimates are the
most current and appropriate to use when analyzing the social costs of carbon production on federal lands. For that reason, we rely on these valuations in
producing our findings and recommendations for BLM. It is now incumbent on the Secretary of the Interior and BLM to fully account for these damages in its
review of the Coal Leasing Program.
Battista
Harry
Bonta
Rob
182 N/A
2 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions Goals President Biden run on the promise of climate action, how can that happen with you starting up the Trump-era coal leasing policies again this is totally
inconsistent with climate progress.
35 California Department of
17 206.0400.00
Justice
National Carbon Reductions
As the latest scientific research confirms, climate change "is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe." According to the Sixth Assessment Report
Goals
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), many of the effects of climate change due to past and future greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions "are
irreversible for centuries to millennia," especially changes in ocean acidification, melting ice sheets, droughts, and increasing sea levels. As temperatures continue
to rise, these impacts are expected to increase in both intensity and frequency. The IPCC has further stated that to stabilize human-induced global temperature
increase at any level, humankind must reach net zero anthropogenic carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions by 2050. A carbon budget would thereafter establish the
amount of CO2 that could be emitted while keeping global warming rates below a certain level. (Footnote 1: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, AR6
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Aug. 7, 2021), available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#SPM.) (Footnote 2: Id.) (Footnote 3: id.)
(Footnote 4: Id.) (Footnote 5: Id.)
Based on the latest research, it is now recognized that a majority of the Earth's unextracted fossil fuel reserves-including 90
percent of coal-must remain in the ground in order to achieve these goals. (Footnote 6: Welsby, D.; Price, J.; Pye, S.; et al., Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C
world, Nature 597, 230-234 (2021), available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03821-8.)
Bullitt-Jonas
Dragoo
Margaret
Denise
100 N/A
31 Snell & Wilmer
2 206.0400.00
5 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
It is long past time to end leasing of public lands for coal mining. To carry out President Biden's ambitious climate goals -- and to prevent runaway climate change --
Goals
we need phase out fossil fuel destruction on our public lands.
National Carbon Reductions
As a final note, use of metallurgical coal for steelmaking is consistent with the 2050 temperature goals of the Paris Agreement under the sustainable development
Goals
scenario identified by the International Energy Agency. (International Energy Agency, Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap: Towards more sustainable steelmaking,
IEA 2020).
Fay
Alexa
85 N/A
5 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The U.S. government has an obligation to put an end to coal leasing, as it is incredibly damaging to the environment and puts a 1.5 degree C future out of reach.
Goals
Fields
Gilbert
Joshua
Steve
155 N/A
2 206.0400.00
524 N/A
206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
Coal is one of the worst sources of climate-heating pollution in the world. The Biden administration has positioned itself as a climate champion, so this failure by
Goals
the administration to reject the Trump-era coal leasing policy is totally inconsistent with climate progress.
National Carbon Reductions
It's time (or past time) to get serious about accomplishing the greenhouse gas goals set by our President. Coddling the coal industry as is proposed by BLM
Goals
proposed new coal leasing, as well as the BLM continuing to pursue leasing in ANWR will not help achieve the President's targets.
National Carbon Reductions
Existing and new leases must be reviewed to conform to carbon reductions under the Paris Climate accords, according to new environmental guidelines, and the
Goals
health of U.S. residents.
1
Grossman
Mark
411 N/A
206.0400.00
1
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-39
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
26 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
1 206.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
National Carbon Reductions
Climate science has made it explicitly clear that coal consumption must be largely and expeditiously reduced to keep our planet inhabitable. The International
Goals
Energy Agency's new Special Report: Net Zero by 2050 lays out the very narrow pathway still available to reach net zero by 2050 and contain global warming
within 1.5 degree Centigrade, thus avoiding the most catastrophic impacts of climate disruption. It calls for no new coal mines or extensions of existing ones
(Footnote [1] "Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global EnergySector", pp. 20 and 21. ) BLM has broad authority to administer the federal coal program,
That authority includes NOT granting leases. From the Congressional record: Mr. Thompson, a concerned Illinois lawmaker, declared concerning a draft that
became the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, "the Secretary of the Interior is given practically unlimited authority as to the granting and the terms and conditions of
leases. One will search the bill in vain to find any provision in it which insures[sic] to anyone under any circumstances the unquestioned right to make a lease.
(Footnote [2] 51 Cong. Rec. H14,944 (Sept. 10, 1914) (statement by Mr. Thomson of Illinois), Source:
https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Coal_Royalties.pdf)
Indeed, the Act states that the Secretary "shall, in his discretion,... from time to time, offer such
lands for leasing…" (Footnote [3] Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as Amended, Coal, Section 2 (3O U.S.C. 201(a) (1)) ). While not obligated to sell coal leases, the
Secretary is however required to include in each lease "provisions ... for the protection of the interests of the United States,... and for the safeguarding of the
public welfare." (Footnote [4] Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as Amended, Section 30 (30 U.S.C. § 187) ). Recommendation: * The interests of the United States
and the public welfare will be best served by the Secretary exercising her discretion to lease no new coal reserves, as recommended by the International Energy
Agency
Heagerty
Daniel D.
102 N/A
1 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The federal government must take immediate and meaningful action to reduce our carbon and methane emissions. Per the IPCC, we are in "code red" now, we
Goals
must act immediately to move coal out of our energy supply systems. The International Energy Agency's (IEA) new Special Report: Net Zero by 2050 notes that
"a fighting chance of reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 ° requires "nothing short of a total transformation of the energy
systems that underpin our economies." The IEA calls for "no new coal mines or extensions." (p 21). BLM's decisions re: federal leasing of coal reserves will
directly, negatively, impact future generations. Current federal policies and related leasing of coal, oil and gas reserves present a real and draconian impact on the
climate conditions of our youth and our future generations. The federal government has a moral obligation to act in the interests of our youth and our future
generations. Time has run out, it is time to no longer promote or enable more carbon and methane emissions.
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
23 206.0400.00
Climate Collaborative
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
5 206.0400.00
Association
National Carbon Reductions
Develop and implement a plan to track and reduce emissions from public lands, recognizing that the United States' ability to meet its recommitment to the Paris
Goals
Agreement will require us to leverage the climate mitigation and adaptation potential of our public lands.
National Carbon Reductions
Just weeks ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its assessment of the state of the climate -a review of 14,000 studies and backed by 195
Goals
countries. The report states in no uncertain terms that we need transformational change to avoid more frequent and damaging occurrences of the extreme
climatic events, and that includes transitioning to clean energy. (Footnote : IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report_smaller.pdf) Additionally, in April, the International Energy Agency
released its first-ever full scenario report aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5ºC in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement. Although an imperfect
report, it contains a breakthrough that the BLM must note: The new report finds that there is "no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply." (Footnote : IEA
Global Energy Review. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021). This means no new expansion of, or investment in, oil, gas, or coal beyond what is
already committed.
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
8 206.0400.00
Association
National Carbon Reductions
Fossil fuel development from public lands currently accounts for nearly a quarter of the United States' greenhouse gas emissions and coal alone accounts for
Goals
nearly 10%. Those greenhouse gases contribute in large part to the climate impacts that are negatively affecting all national parks and public lands. Science has
made it clear that we can no longer afford the dirty costs of coal production on federal land, and a just and equitable transition of all continued development must
be rapidly and justly phased out. This will need to be done in a way that promotes national park resilience and nature-based solutions while promoting adaptive
planning and management.
Lalwani
Taj
134 N/A
2 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
For Biden's administration to meet its climate goals, we must stop using coal and move to renewable energy sources.
Goals
Lechtman
Bronya
20 Northern Plains Resource
2 206.0400.00
Council
National Carbon Reductions
Federal coal remains the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States. Between 2011 and 2012, the Bureau of Land Management leased over 2.1
Goals
billion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, unlocking nearly 3.5 billion metric tons of climate-polluting CO2 that will be released when this coal is burned.
While the pace of leasing has since slowed, hundreds of millions of tons remain pending in company lease applications, with the possibility of millions more if
leasing continues unfettered. In order for the Biden administration to honor its commitment to drastically reduce the country's contribution to climate change,
drastic reforms must be made to the federal coal program.
Lopez
Carloz
92 N/A
4 206.0400.00
Lopez
Carloz
92 N/A
3 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The damage from the carbon and methane produced by mining and burning coal is already proving catastrophic to the environment and any value passed on to tax-
Goals
payers now will be made totally moot by the staggering cost that global climate change is imposing on our nation.
National Carbon Reductions
Further coal leasing on public lands is entirely inconsistent with President Biden's proposals to mitigate global climate change.
Goals
Lucas
Mitchell
157 N/A
8 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
Fossil fuels produced from public lands and waters account for approximately 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It's simply not possible to square approving
Goals
new coal mines, or new oil and gas wells on public lands and waters, with President Biden's promise to take an all-of-government approach to tackling the climate
crisis.
Magidson
Jason
164 N/A
1 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
I am very concerned about the fact that fossil fuels produced from public lands and waters account for approximately 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Goals
C-40
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Olson
Julia
Organization
Letter # Name
18 Our Children's Trust
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
5 206.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
National Carbon Reductions
As part of its review of the federal coal leasing program, BLM should recognize the scientifically-defensible, economically viable, and technically feasible target of
Goals
reducing total U.S. emissions by close to 100% by 2050, while simultaneously enhancing sequestration capacity of sinks to drawdown historical cumulative CO2
emissions, placing the U.S. on an emissions trajectory consistent with returning atmospheric CO2 to below 350 ppm by 2100.6 (Footnote 6 See Our Children's
Trust, Government Climate and Energy Policies Must Target <350 ppm Atmospheric CO2 by 2100 to Protect Children and Future Generations (Mar. 2021)
[Attachment 1]; James Hansen et al., Assessing "Dangerous Climate Change": Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future
Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE e81648 (2013) [hereinafter Assessing "Dangerous Climate Change"]; Expert Report of James E. Hansen, Ph.D., Juliana v.
United States, No. 6:15-cv-01517 (D. Or. June 28, 2018); Expert Report of Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-cv-01517 (D. Or. June 28,
2018).
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
15 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
As such, BLM must determine how its policies and practices will result in GHG emissions reductions required in order to align with a trajectory of returning CO2
Goals
levels to below 350 ppm by 2100, which would restore the energy balance of Earth.35 (Footnote 35 Id.; James Hansen et al., Target Atmospheric CO2: Where
Should Humanity Aim? 2 Open Atmospheric Sci. J. 217 (2008).
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
16 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The Biden administration has made a U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030.36
Goals
(Footnote 36 The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution, Reducing Greenhouse Gases in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target
(April 2021). It is not possible to continue leasing federal lands for coal extraction given the current climate catastrophe and the U.S. government's commitment
to reduce its net GHG emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels. Experts have opined that it is technically and economically feasible to transition the U.S. off of
fossil fuels by 2050.37 (Footnote 37 See supra note 7.)
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
24 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
Given the fact that U.S. government conduct, including the BLM coal leasing program, has resulted in a quarter of all global GHG emissions that are causing the
Goals
current climate catastrophe, it is well past time for the BLM to end all new federal coal leases, permits, and other approvals and take all steps within its power to
ensure its regulations and actions are aligned with reducing total U.S. emissions by close to 100% by 2050 while simultaneously enhancing biogenic sequestration
capacity, placing the U.S. on an emissions trajectory consistent with returning atmospheric CO2 to below 350 ppm by 2100, or otherwise explain why those
reductions cannot be met. Without immediate effective action, our children and future generations will continue to suffer injury with long-lasting and potentially
irreversible consequences.48 (Footnote 48 See Assessing "Dangerous Climate Change", supra note 6; James Hansen et al., Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and
Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming Could be Dangerous, 16 Atmos. Chem. &
Phys. 3761 (2016); U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. II (2018).
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
10 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
BLM's federal coal leasing program and the resulting GHG emissions that result from the program are not in line with the U.S. government's public trust and
Goals
constitutional obligation to reduce emissions in line with a <350 ppm CO2 target by 2100, nor is it aligned with putting the U.S. on track to meet its NDC
commitment.
Parks
John
327 N/A
206.0400.00
1
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
32 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
In order to meet President Biden's goal of carbon-free electricity by 2035, coal fired electricity needs to be discontinued ASAP.
Goals
National Carbon Reductions
…listen to the science; to improve public health and protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals
Goals
and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to prioritize
both environmental justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals.
Pruitt
Pruitt
Pruitt
Katherine
Katherine
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
5 American Lung Association
5 American Lung Association
15 206.0400.00
31 206.0400.00
35 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that we face intensifying and irreversible climate effects if the world fails to reduce its greenhouse gas
Goals
emissions, and the U.S. government will be called upon at the COP 26 conference to provide leadership in the fight against climate change.
National Carbon Reductions
The efficient deployment of renewable energy from our nation's public lands is crucial in achieving the Biden Administration's goal of a carbon pollution-free
Goals
power sector by 2035.
National Carbon Reductions
The Federal Coal Leasing Program conflicts with the nation's climate policy and goals and threatens public health.
Goals
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
60 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The efficient deployment of renewable energy from our nation's public lands is crucial in achieving the Biden Administration's goal of a carbon pollution-free
Goals
power sector by 2035. In so doing, the Bureau of Land Management will strengthen the declared intentions of President Joe Biden in his Executive Order 13990
of January 20, 2021 to: …listen to the science; to improve public health and protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure
to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income
communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and
monuments; and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals. (Footnote : Federal
Register. Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-the-climatecrisis)
Ray
Shoaff
Linda
Nathaniel
88 N/A
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
3 206.0400.00
34 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change and all it's many well documented problems, we need to transition to net zero carbon emissions quickly.
Goals
Therefore no new coal mines or extensions can be allowed and policies developed for displaced workers in this sector.
National Carbon Reductions
A. Continued Federal Coal Leasing Conflicts with the Biden Administration's National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets and is Not Necessary to Meet U.S.
Goals
Energy Needs. Continued reliance on coal, whether from publicly owned lands and mineral reserves or other sources, is unnecessary to fulfill U.S. energy needs
and directly undermines the Biden administration's climate and clean energy goals. i. Continuation of the federal coal program conflicts with national climate
goals.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-41
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
35 206.0400.00
Law Program
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
National Carbon Reductions
President Biden committed to a fast, equitable transition to renewable energy in order reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030
Goals
and to net zero emissions by 2050.58 [Footnote 58 White House Fact Sheet, supra note 9.] "It is the policy of my Administration to organize and deploy the full
capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector of the economy."59
[Footnote 59 EO 14008, sec. 201.]
Meeting those goals requires rapidly phasing out federal coal production. BLM cannot effectively "combat the climate crisis"
while continuing to fuel that crisis by leasing publicly owned lands, waters, and minerals to fossil fuel companies.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
9 206.0400.00
Law Program
National Carbon Reductions
President Biden has promised strong climate action, in line with scientific consensus on the need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels from the world's economies. To
Goals
fulfill that promise, BLM must end the practice of leasing publicly owned lands and minerals to fossil fuel companies that have no intention of paying for the climate
damage they cause. Any other approach to managing the federal coal program would amount to a deliberate choice to exacerbate the climate crisis and extend
the human suffering it has already inflicted on families and communities in the United States and elsewhere.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
11 206.0400.00
Law Program
National Carbon Reductions
Over the last five years, the pace and severity of storms has increased dramatically, with real world experiences in the United States matching the urgency in the
Goals
scientific literature. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, since 1980, the U.S. has averaged eight separate billion dollar storms a year;
but since 2016 we have averaged more than 16 distinct billion dollar storms annually.6 [Footnote 6 National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Billion Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2021). Attached as Exhibit 6.]
According to the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, six of the seven largest wildfires in California's history have occurred since the start of 2020.7
[Footnote 7 Cal
Fire, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (last updated Sept. 27, 2021), https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 7.] The
wildfires this year in the western U.S. burned an area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined, impacting air quality in states as far away as Vermont and
Maine.8 [Footnote 8 Aya Elamroussi, Wildfires have burned a combined area the size of Delaware and Rhode Island - and then some, (July 28, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/weather/western-wildfires-wednesday/index.html (last visited September 26, 2021). Attached as Exhibit 8.]
Against this
backdrop, our millions of members and supporters urge President Biden and Secretary Haaland to take the strongest action possible to guard against the climate
crisis. This requires the Biden administration to make a choice to leave fossil fuels in the ground. To reduce our emissions as President Biden has promised - to 50
percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 20509 [Footnote 9 White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies (Apr. 22, 2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimedat-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/ (last visited September 27, 2021) (White House Fact Sheet").
Attached as Exhibit 9.]- there is no more room for continued fossil fuel development, and certainly none on federal lands.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
29 206.0400.00
Law Program
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
37 206.0400.00
Law Program
National Carbon Reductions
(1) BLM must acknowledge that continued federal coal leasing undermines the Biden administration's clean energy and climate goals, and that further federal coal
Goals
leasing is not required to meet U.S. energy needs.
National Carbon Reductions
Given this strong and clear signal from leading climate scientists, as well as the ever-growing body of research demonstrating the need to keep fossil fuels in the
Goals
ground in order or avoid the work effects of climate change, it is imperative that BLM analyze whether the continuation of the federal coal leasing program is
consistent with our international climate commitments and the need to keep global warming within tolerable levels. Given the state of
scientific consensus
around climate change, it is clear that efforts to meet our national and international climate commitments are compatible with leasing and burning federally-owned
coal well into the future. BLM must evaluate whether it is time for the U.S. government to get out of the business of selling taxpayer owned coal based on the
urgent need to address greenhouse gas emissions and the desire to meet our national and international emission reduction goals.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
38 206.0400.00
Law Program
National Carbon Reductions
Given that the Biden Administration's goals align with keeping warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels rather than the Paris Agreement's consensus pledge of
Goals
2°C, even steeper reductions in fossil fuel use will be required to achieve the updated goal. One recent paper in the scientific journal Nature, estimates that to
align with a 1.5°C scenario (with 50% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C), 97 percent of U.S. coal reserves would have to remain in the ground by 2050.64
[Footnote 64 Dan Welsby, et al., Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5°C world, 597 Nature 230, 233 (Sept. 9, 2021). Attached as Exhibit 27.] The study rightly
concludes that "[c]entral to pushing this transition forwards will be the domestic policy measures required to both restrict production and reduce demand."65
[Footnote 65 Id.]
Later this year, the world's leaders will meet in Glasgow, Scotland to revisit climate commitments and examine viable pathways to avoid
runaway climate change. BLM's review of the federal coal program must account for any new priorities or updated greenhouse gas emission reduction pledges
that emerge from those international conversations.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
85 206.0400.00
Law Program
National Carbon Reductions
BLM's review of the climate, public health, and environmental justice impacts of the federal coal leasing program comes at a crucial time, with both the United
Goals
Nations Secretary General and President Biden calling the climate crisis a "code red for humanity."170 Footnote 170 Biden Remarks to UN, supra note 1.] The
Biden administration has accordingly set robust, science-based climate goals, requiring steep reductions in GHG emissions in both the near-term and by midcentury. Despite the clear science, the New England Journal of Medicine's recent editorial is blunt: "The greatest threat to global public health is the continued
failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5?."171 [Footnote 171 New England Journal of Medicine, supra note 61.] The only way to
meet those goals is to rapidly end the practice of mining, shipping, and burning coal, oil, and gas from public lands and waters. Doing so is well within the
Secretary's authority, and can be accomplished while investing in communities that previously relied on fossil fuels as part of an equitable transition to a cleaner,
sustainable economy.
Shoats
C-42
Al
156 N/A
1 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
The science is clear: Even if we halted all coal production now, oil and gas fields that are already producing - if fully exploited - will push global warming past the
Goals
dangerous 1.5-degree Celsius limit. Our future demands a managed decline of federal fossil fuel production, in line with our country's climate goals, beginning now
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sigrist
Ellie
Organization
Letter # Name
53 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
2 206.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
National Carbon Reductions
Given that coal contributes a significant amount of carbon emissions that would continue climate disruption, I would like to see the US government hold itself
Goals
accountable for contributing to the decrease of carbon emissions on our public lands rather than continue on as we have for decades. Retiring coal leasing would
demonstrate that the federal government is serious about taking action against climate change.
Steitz
Jim
70 N/A
2 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
To keep climate change under 2 degrees C, as the US committed in the Paris accord, requires that our carbon emissions decline by at least half by 2040, and
Goals
continue to decline thereafter. To issue decades-long leases on federal land, supplying subsidized coal that undercuts a true market cost for electricity, renders
this mathematically impossible.
Turner
Lucy
64 N/A
3 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
We need to stop leasing. Period. If we are to reach net 0 emissions by 2050, we need to stop leasing coal altogether.
Goals
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
4 206.0400.00
Resource Council
National Carbon Reductions
The federal coal leasing program, however, undermines efforts by citizens, businesses, and the Administration to reduce carbon pollution. Between 2011 and
Goals
2012, BLM leased over 2.1 billion tons of coal in the Powder River Basin, unlocking nearly 3.5 billion metric tons of CO2 that will be released when this coal is
burned.
While the pace of leasing has since slowed, hundreds of millions of tons remain pending in company lease applications, with the possibility of millions
more if leasing continues unfettered. Additionally, hundreds of millions of tons of coal have already been leased and remain stockpiled by companies ready for
mining and subsequent burning. DOI cannot facilitate these massive extraction projects without undermining President Biden's commitment to address climate
change.
Westkott
Marcia
154 Powder River Basin
10 206.0400.00
Resource Council
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
National Carbon Reductions
Climate change is an urgent problem. President Biden recently called it a "code red" for humanity.
Goals
2 206.0400.00
Resource Council
National Carbon Reductions
We urge you to conduct a comprehensive review of the federal coal leasing program. The Department of the Interior must ensure that coal companies do not
Goals
cheat U.S. taxpayers, existing mines do not endanger our air, water and wildlife and are properly reclaimed, and the greenhouse gas emissions from existing and
pending federal coal leases do not conflict with the Administration's stated commitment to reduce the country's contribution to climate change.
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
3 206.0400.00
Resource Council
White
Woodcock
Woodcock
Ildiko
Charlene
Charlene
163 N/A
89 N/A
89 N/A
1 206.0400.00
3 206.0400.00
4 206.0400.00
National Carbon Reductions
Federal coal remains the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States. As the steward of one of the world's largest coal reserves, DOI can no
Goals
longer ignore the enormous climate impact of new and existing coal leases.
National Carbon Reductions
The Biden Administration needs to act on climate and stop leasing coal on federal lands, which accounts for around 16 percent of the U.S.'s annual carbon
Goals
emissions.
National Carbon Reductions
Fossil fuels from public lands and water produce about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Any commitment to solving the climate crisis without addressing
Goals
coal leasing on public lands is just an empty promise.
National Carbon Reductions
The US government must finally seriously address the climate crisis. BLM can be a part of the solution, instead of a large part of the problem.
Goals
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
21 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Company
Existing coal capacity remains critical to providing a steady, secure and affordable source of power across the United States. At least 37 states currently rely on
federal coal from the Powder River Basin to generate electricity. In fact, as this letter is delivered for submission on October 5, 2021, the real time displays for the
Southwest Power Pool and MISO provide that approximately 40% of the electricity in the middle third of the country is coming from coal. This compared to
approximately 8% from wind, 0.4% from solar and 34% from natural gas.12 (Footnote 12 As of 4pm MST on October 5, 2021 per
marketplace.spp.org/pages/generation-mix andmisoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time-market-data/real-time-displays.)If this Administration and the coalcritics would have their way and eliminate the use of coal for generation of electricity in the near future, a replacement for 40% of current needs is not available.
Without coal, the United States would be in an emergency energy crisis. Further, with the push for a significant increase in electricity needs over the coming 15
years created by the transition to electric vehicles, reliable and relatively cheap coal will be even more essential to keep our citizens alive and our economy
moving forward.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
22 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Company
According to polling conducted by Morning Consult in August 2021, a majority of American are concerned about grid reliability in the face of the timing of the
energy transition, extreme weather, rising gas prices and cyberattacks. Specifically, the polling found: · 72 percent of Americans are concerned that the speed of
the transition to variable sources of power is coming at the cost of grid reliability. · 63 percent of Americans believe that policymakers should proceed with
caution and maintain traditional sources of power as a grid reliability insurance policy, rather than establishing arbitrary timelines for the transition. · When
considering the threat of cyberattacks, 60 percent of Americans support policymakers providing a fuel security incentive to power plants that keep weeks or even
months of fuel on site, such as coal and nuclear power plants. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which oversees the reliability of the
nation's grid, and its CEO Jim Robb have echoed the public's concerns the pace of the transition and the lack of planning to manage it and preserve reliability. In an
unprecedented summer reliability assessment this spring, NERC declared that capacity shortfalls were "almost inevitable" and warned that Texas, much of the
Midwest, parts of the West and New England all face "elevated risk" of energy emergencies, with California facing "high risk." NERC CEO Jim Robb observed,
"The events of this past year and the outlook for summer is a stark reminder that in our hurry to develop a cleaner resource base, reliability and energy adequacy
has to be taken into consideration." He continued, "I know that operators and planners are working very, very hard to preserve reliability, but they're continually
asked to do so and manage your grid under more and more challenging conditions."
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Company
29 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The Federal Coal Leasing Program has been an enormous success by providing a secure supply of energy to generate affordable and reliable electricity, powering
economic growth and job creation throughout the nation, improving the emissions performance of the electricity generation fleet, and delivering above-market
returns to the public.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-43
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
24 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Specific examples from across the grid in the U.S. demonstrate the need for coal. For example, Californians are paying a premium for a less reliable and resilient
Company
system, due to its huge expansion of renewables. In fact, California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the nation from 2011 to 2019. Its
blackouts in recent summers were a direct result of a rush to transition to variable power with real consequences. In an extreme weather example, 70 percent of
Texas lost power during a winter freeze in February 2021. While their frozen pipelines halted the just-in-time delivery of natural gas, the Midcontinent
Independent System Operator (MISO) kept Americans warm with 45GW of coal-generated power across its 15-state grid, with coal supplying more than half of
daily power demand. Similarly, as the same freeze hit Oklahoma, Governor Kevin Stitt noted the role of coal to keep the power on as: renewable sources like
wind and solar dropped to almost zero production. Natural gas wells froze and compressor stations went offline. That left utility companies really scrambling to
buy extra energy on the spot market at skyrocketing prices. . .Wind is normally about 40 percent and it dropped to 10 percent. Coal in Oklahoma is normally 10
percent and it went to 40 percent. I've talked to several other Governors that coal was really bailing us out.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
32 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Company
These weather events have shown that the natural gas delivery system is proving particularly vulnerable when consumers need it most. The Wall Street Journal
reported that "The failure of Texas' gas infrastructure to deliver the expected amounts of supplies exposed a dangerous vulnerability for a fuel the oil industry
claims is more reliable than rival sources." NERC CEO Robb similarly testified during an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing: "The area that
Congress should reflect on, and potentially take action, is to think about how [weatherization] extends into the natural gas and fuel sectors . . .Because having a
great winterized plant with no fuel in front of it isn't very valuable. And that's where our authorities right now stop." Gas shortages during bitter cold are hardly a
problem confined to Texas. In 2014, extreme cold in the northeastern U.S. meant PJM's gas pipeline capacity there couldn't keep up with demand. PJM found that
23 percent of generator outages came from interruptions of natural gas supply. Similarly, ISO New England, which also operates the electricity grid throughout
much of the northeast U.S., warned that 30 percent of its gas fleet could be without fuel during severe winter weather.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
33 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Company
In June 2021, with natural gas prices rising, coal generation on the PJM grid, which is the nation's largest, hit a three-year high. Simultaneously, coal demand on the
MISO grid rose 37 percent and the Southwest Power Pool grid saw a 42 percent increase. The era of cheap natural gas appears to have come to an abrupt end
with major consequences for U.S. consumers and industry - the need for dispatchable fuel diversity is greater than it has been in a decade. According to
Bloomberg, a decade of low natural gas prices - driven by surging production from the U.S., Australia and other nations - has finally been overtaken by demand
from a recovering global economy. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. exports of natural gas -both by pipeline and liquefied natural
gas (LNG) - could reach close to 20 billion cubic feet per day next year, approaching the average daily domestic consumption of gas for power generation.
Considering that the first U.S. LNG export cargoes didn't leave the U.S. until early 2016, the speed of the U.S. gas export boom is remarkable. Fully 10 percent of
U.S. gas production is now going to exports. With global gas demand set to continue to expand by an estimated 3.4 percent annually through 2035, after already
jumping 30 percent in the past decade, appetite for U.S. gas exports is only set to grow, providing further upward pressure on U.S. gas prices. That's deeply
concerning considering this is the fuel that some have ordained to be the bridge that gets the U.S. through the energy transition.
Rising gas prices and increased
connectivity to an overheated global gas market should have policymakers, utilities and consumers deeply worried. As Bloomberg observed, "Surging natural gas
prices means it will be costlier to power factories or produce petrochemicals, rattling every corner of the global economy and fueling inflation fears. For
consumers, it will bring higher monthly energy and gas utility bills. It will cost more to power a washing machine, take a hot shower and cook dinner."
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
34 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Company
Ultimately, energy security should remain a top concern for the administration as it reviews the Federal Coal Leasing Program. The post-pandemic economic
recovery will stall without affordable and reliable sources of energy. As the International Energy Agency recently concluded in its review of the Texas grid crisis:
"Energy is key to our economic recovery... [it's] a reminder that electricity security cannot be taken for granted. It must remain a top priority for policy makers,
especially as electricity becomes more important for the entire energy system with increased electrification of many sectors and threats to energy security evolve
and multiply... Market designs and regulations need to improve to make best use of existing assets and to encourage new investments both in supply and demand
for flexibility and capacity adequacy."
Alper
Dean
Anon
Anon
Anon
Anon
Aron
2 Alper & McCulloch
10 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
No new leases.
138 N/A
3 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
There should be stronger regulations on the production of coal energy.
93 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
NO MORE coal or oil subsidies, assistance, or anything benefitting fossil fuel companies!!
Elaine
133 N/A
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Hence the BLM needs to dramatically reduce coal production by ending coal leases will facilitate the speedy transition from fossil fuels to clean renewables and
Ashman
William
176 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Avett
Isadora
235 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
energy conservation, ending royalty reductions.
It is an outrage that our tax money is going to propping up the coal industry! It would do us more good if we flushed it down the toilet. Which is what we are
doing to our water, land and air when we mine coal.
We already have identified coal as the worst or the fossil fuels and on a course for for discontinuese why invest anymore on this relic of our Industrial Age? Why
invest anything to the detriment of humanity? We need to break ourselves of an addiction. Especially as we have healthier, more economical alternatives.
Ayres
Peter
410 N/A
207.0100.00
1
C-44
General comment on coal
Adding new leases for coal is the very last thing we should be doing to addresss our energy needs and climate. Not a big job producer either and we know the
health issues connected to coal too. Let's not continue to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
31 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Duty of the BLM and DOI to Manage Lands for the National Interest, Safeguard the Public Welfare, and to Obtain Fair Market Value from Resources Extracted
There.
The Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Land Management have a duty to manage federal lands under their jurisdiction for the safeguarding of
the public welfare, the benefit of the US taxpayer (in the national interest), and to obtain Fair Market Value from resources extracted there. The Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires that the United States "receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise
provided for by statute" (43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(9)). The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 in its Section 7 (codified as amended in 30 U.S.C. § 207 et seq.) permits for the
payment of royalties "for the privileges of mining or extracting the coal in the lands covered by the lease." In addition, terms of the lease are permitted to be
included by the Secretary of the Interior that are "for the protection of the interests of the United States, for the prevention of monopoly, and for the
safeguarding of the public welfare" (30 U.S.C. § 187). Furthermore, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 was amended by Congress in the Federal Coal Leasing Act of
1976 to require that bids be competitive, and to articulate that no bid may be accepted which is less than "the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary,
of the coal subject to the lease" ((Pub. L. No. 94-377, 90 Stat. 1083, 1087 (1976), codified as amended at (30 U.S.C. § 207 et seq.)). This set minimum royalty rates
of 12.5% of the gross value of the coal produced from surface mines, and 8% for coal produced from underground mines ((30 U.S.C. § 207(a); 43 C.F.R. § 3473.32), implementing regulations adopted in 1979 and 1982). The Secretary of the Interior and the BLM are frequently failing to meet these statutory duties, as
described in Section 4.5.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
36 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Discretion of the Secretary of the Interior to Ban Coal Mining on Federal Lands
Coal mining on federal lands is not a statutory obligation, rather it is a
discretionary decision of the Secretary of the Interior. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 in 30 U.S.C. § 201(a) states that "The Secretary of the Interior...shall, in his
discretion, upon the request of any qualified applicant or on his own motion, from time to time, offer such lands for leasing and shall award leases thereon by
competitive bidding." Furthermore, in the case of United States ex Rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, the court held that under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Secretary of
the Interior had discretion to grant or deny a prospecting permit for oil and gas mining (283 U.S. 414, pg. 419, 1931). Thus, in our recommending a ban below on
coal mining on federal lands, it is already established that the Secretary has the authority to implement this ban.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
17 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal still had the greatest five year (2015-2019) average production level by weight of these three fossil fuels: 700,780,223 MT (coal), 506,943,888 MT (crude oil),
and 144,744,400 MT (natural gas) (analyzed by author from data in US EIA, August 2021). Documented signs of 2021 coal production have risen dramatically, with
2021 mid-year coal railcar loadings up 9.5% compared with 2020 (US EIA, July 24, 2021). EIA's most recent Short Term Energy Outlook predicted that coal would
make up 24% of electricity generation in both 2021 and 2022 (US EIA, Sept 8, 2021). At the same time, the EIA predicted that electricity generation from natural
gas would drop from 39% in 2020 to 35% in 2021 and to 34% in 2022 (US EIA, Sept 8, 2021). Thus, in reviewing the fossil fuel production trends, it is clear that
coal is still a strategic resource for electricity generation in the US.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
18 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Figure 2 shows the carbon dioxide emission trends of fossil fuel electricity generation in the United States, comparing those of coal, natural gas, and crude oil from
1990 to 2020 by weight (in Metric Tons). Over the last 30 years, coal has been the top source of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation. While
dropping steadily since 2005 as its use in power plants has dropped, as of 2020, carbon dioxide emissions from coal still slightly exceeded those from natural gas.
As natural gas has become more popular for electricity generation, its carbon dioxide emissions have mostly increased over those same years. Emissions from
electricity generation from crude oil are almost at 0, as that resource is scarcely used for electrical generation.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
20 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
From 2003 and 2014, the percent of total US coal production from federal or Native American Lands ranged from a low of 37.2% (2006) to a high of 42.8%
(2010) (Figure 3 and Table 7). For those years, the average coal production from federal or Native American lands was 40.548% of all coal produced in the US
(Table 7). As curators of public lands where extensive coal mining is occurring, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior have an
outsize role in regulating coal production and in bearing responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions from coal.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
41 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Fourth, the regulations surrounding lease modifications were originally intended to insure that coal companies could extract coal in easily recoverable areas
adjacent to their existing mines (Lappen, Feb 2021). Unfortunately, they have been transformed into a way to subsidize coal companies' current operations. Lease
modifications add new acreage- up to half the total size of most federal coal leases-to existing mines at a steep discount (Lappen, Feb 2021). A series of
investigations have found that lease modifications value coal as much as 80 percent below the value if it were set through the standard bidding process (Lappen,
Feb 2021). These lease modifications can no longer be considered to be in the national interest, as they are non-competitive and do not adequately benefit the US
taxpayer.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
3 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal mining and burning have many environmental impacts, including hefty emissions of the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide. Climate change
triggered by these emissions has a multitude of social costs, ranging from negative human health effects and residential property damage due to increased extreme
weather events and fires; to water shortages that harm farm crops and threaten residential water supplies due to changed precipitation patterns; to devaluation of
oceanfront real estate due to sunny day flooding and rising sea levels. The federal government has a responsibility for these costs: From 2003 to 2014, the average
coal production from federal or Native American lands was 40.5% of all coal produced in the US (see Section 3.3, Figure 3, and Table 7). However, the US does
not currently have a mandatory national market on greenhouse gas sources and sinks, and royalty structures on fossil fuels that factor in their social costs have
not been established.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
19 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Even at its depressed levels of 2020, coal accounted for 19% of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions (US EIA, Jan 26, 2021). The EIA expects coal's share of
total emissions to rise to 21% in 2021 and 2022 as the anticipated rise in natural gas prices makes coal more economical for use in electricity generation (US EIA,
Jan 26, 2021). The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior should be seriously concerned about their policies on the production and
greenhouse gas emissions from coal.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-45
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
21 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Figure 4 shows the annual coal production by state on federal and Native American Lands Average from 2003-2014 (Metric Tons). Figure 5 shows each state's
percentage share of total coal produced on federal and Native American Lands. The detailed data analysis is also shown in Table 7. This analysis shows that
Wyoming has the largest role in coal production on federal and Native American Lands, with average coal production on federal and Native American lands from
2003-2014 being 338,153,097 Metric Tons, or 79.76% of all coal production on federal and Native American lands. Montana followed as a distant second, with an
average of 26,761,949 Metric Tons, or 6.31%. Colorado was ranked third, with an average of 18,521,688 Metric Tons, or 4.37%; New Mexico fourth, with an
average production of 14,514,955 MT, or 3.42%; Utah fifth, with an average production of 13,229,777 MT, or 3.12%; Arizona sixth, with an average production of
8,618,255 MT, or 2.03%; North Dakota seventh, with an average production of 2,343,560, or 0.55%; Oklahoma eighth, with 831,586 MT, or 0.2%; Alabama ninth,
with an average production of 755,987 Metric Tons, or 0.18%; and Kentucky tenth and last, with an average production of 75,599 MT, or 0.02%.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
22 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Figure 6 shows those ten states' production of coal on federal and Native American Lands (averaged from 2003-2014), as a percentage of total US Coal
Production on all Lands (averaged from 2003-1014). Together, over those 12 years, the ten states accounted for an average of 40.548% of all coal production in
the US. Wyoming's mining on federal and Native American lands accounted for 32.35% of all coal produced in the US. Montana was second, with 2.56%, with
other states following: Colorado at 1.77%, New Mexico at 1.39%, Utah at 1.27%, Arizona at 0.82%, North Dakota at 0.22%, Oklahoma at 0.08%, Alabama at
0.07%, and Kentucky at 0.01%.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
38 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
First, BLM has decertified the six major coal producing regions as being non-productive regions (US Government Accountability Office, Dec 2013, pg. 6). Even the
Powder River Basin, which is one of the largest coal producing regions in the world, has been decertified (Squillace in Foreword of Howard and Hein, Dec 2015).
This has fundamentally changed the coal leasing processes. The federal government has lost control over when and where coal is produced, and has made the
leasing program less competitive in various aspects (Squillace in Foreword of Howard and Hein, Dec 2015).
Battista
Harry
182 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
All leases on public land should have at least have the public safety and prosperity in mind this land deals cost U.S. Taxpayers more every year. We lose land,
money, and our health for what. There are newer and better ways to do things now, so what better way then starting with the Federal Managed Lands.
Beer
Charles
91 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
End the Climate-Destroying Federal Coal Program!!!!
Benner
Bezanson
Emily
144 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
It is imperative for the survival of humans on our planet to get away from using coal to provide energy.
David
441 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel. It spews more airborne toxic pollutants than the combustion of NG and is less efficient than NG. Lower efficiency means that more
energy input is needed to generate a MW of electricity. In addition, miners are exposed to dust that causes pulmonary disorders like black lung disease and
silicosis.In addition, refuse from coal production contaminates land and water resources with methylmercury which is highly toxic to humans and other species
1
Bezanson
David
441 N/A
of animals and plants.
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Immediately cease permitting of thermal coal extraction and rapidly phase out extraction of metallurgic coal (within 5 years) by cancelling existing permits.
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
In light of the Climate Emergency that the U.S. and the world faces, we should be planning to phase out coal as rapidly as possible as a source of energy and as a
3
Bialy
Fred
136 N/A
means to produce electricity. This means that we should not be planning any new coal mines or extensions of existing mines. The mining of coal should be
stopped ASAP, arranging for the people working in the coal industry a just transition into alternative jobs.
Blank
D.L.
81 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please immediately end coal leasing on public land.
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
15 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
To avoid locking in leases with unfavorable terms that could undermine these goals, BLM should follow its past practice and suspend the issuance of new federal
143 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
50 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Justice
Bovard
Scott
Bruml
William
coal leases until this review is complete.
Please do whatever you can to keep coal in the ground. I believe we need to assist the coal industry employees in their transition to other industries, but climate
change needs to be addressed no matter what.
The market for coal in the US is contracting, and will almost certainly continue to contract. With regulations requiring fairly decent capture sulfur and heavy metal
particulates, but not carbon capture and sequestration, coal is no longer a low-cost fuel in the US. Natural gas and electricity from solar cells is cheaper than
electricity from coal now. This leaves overseas as the only market for coal from new leases.
Brunsvold
Ed
48 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please stop leasing federal lands for coal extraction.
Bullitt-Jonas
Campbell
Margaret
100 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I urge you to end coal leasing on public lands.
Norma
202 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
This is probably one of the most important issues effecting our environment and it is for this reason that I urge you to restore the coal leasing moratorium and
Cassidy
Thomas
481 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
live up to the Biden administration's promises on climate action.
Both economically and environmentally, coal's full costs continue to outstrip it's benefits which have faded in black fogs of misinformation, miasmic fumes, sick
workers and devastated communities. Like fossil fuels, coal has taken us as far at it can go and must be fully retired as either a necessary or sufficient component
1
Chu
Phyllis
483 N/A
of viable energy infrastructure.
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
PLEASE SHOW THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS SERIOUS ABOUT MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE AND SHUT DOWN ALL COAL MINING, NOT
JUST NEW ONES. COAL MINING IS TOXIC TO WORKERS/ THEIR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES, POISONS SOIL AND DRINKING WATER, CAUSES
HEALTH PROBLEMS TO ALL LIVING BEINGS ---IF WE CARE ABOUT THE LIVING BEING HEALTHY THEN NO MORE COAL MINING, AND SHOW
THE WORLD AMERICA IS SERIOUS ABOUT MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
1
Cochran
C-46
Nancy
140 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I would like to see BLM phase out any coal leases on federal lands which it controls.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal is dangerous to mine. It disrupts and disfigures the land, destroys the environment, kills wildlife and poisons ground water. It kills the miners thru cave-ins,
Last Name
First Name
Cohill
Michael
484 N/A
Cooper
Jami
119 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am writing you to request that you stop leasing Federal lands for coal extraction.
Davitt
Kim
105 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
As you review your coal leasing program, I hope you will consider an option that allows no leasing on public lands.
Dillon
John
75 N/A
6 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal extraction, transportation, and burning all bring tremendous deleterious consequences to human and environmental health. Coal extraction locally impacts
Dillon
John
75 N/A
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I urge you to halt subsidizing the extraction of coal from BLM lands and mandate that coal should stay where it belongs -- in the ground.
Dunson
Debra
501 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
1
Comment Text
accidents and black lung.
the land such that natural processes can no longer occur.
I am a concerned scientist, and I am writing today to express my opposition to leasing public lands for coal extraction. The demand for coal is declining and,
therefore, it is an extremely poor investment for our government. Most importantly, coal is one of the worst sources of pollution on our planet
1
Edwards
Paul
150 N/A
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Stop the use of coal in any industry.
Engel
Elena
116 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Morally, and economically, then there is no defense to continue with coal production on BLM lands, and I strongly recommend and request that you stop it. Do
not issue new leases, and re-negotiate the old leases so that they reflect the true cost of coal productions including all the externalities .
Enk
Michael
132 N/A
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
It is unconscionable that coal leases are sold at far below the market rate, the industry has avoided cleaning up the messes it makes
Epperson
Daniel
97 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I urge you to immediately BEGIN new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines.
Fox
Larnie
16 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
End all coal production as quickly as possible.
Fremaux
Charlotte
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please end coal pollution for good. My state of West Virginia has suffered environmental and public health nightmares for decades, and our elected officials will
521 N/A
never do anything about it because they profit directly or indirectly from the coal industry. They do not care about their constituents nor the future health of our
1
Fuller
Evan
117 N/A
1 207.0100.00
state.
General comment on coal
The United States government and the Interior Department as an agent of the US is required to protect the citizens of the US from harm. The use of coal for
energy harms the citizens of the country by: * increasing particulate matter and other forms of air pollution that increase breathing problems, * creating toxic
waste, * destroying habitats for plants and animals, * increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus driving more climate change.
Fuller
Sharon
125 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The use of coal for energy harms the citizens of the country by: increasing particulate matter and other forms of air pollution that increase breathing problems,
creates toxic waste, destroys habitats for plants and animals, and is a primary component of climate change by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Fuller
Sharon
125 N/A
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Fuller
Evan
117 N/A
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Fuller
Sharon
125 a
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
There is no price high enough for a coal lease that will mitigate all the damage that coal causes to the United States citizens. Therefore all coal leases should be
stopped and the coal should not be mined. The US will be forced to pay a steep price in lives and environment damage in the future for the coal that has already
been mined and burned.
There is no price high enough for a coal lease that will mitigate all the damage that coal causes to the United States citizens. Therefore all coal leases should be
stopped and the coal should not be mined.
There is no price high enough for a coal lease that will mitigate all the damage that coal causes to the United States citizens. Therefore all coal leases should be
stopped and the coal should not be mined. The US will be forced to pay a steep price in lives and environment damage in the future for the coal that has already
been mined and burned.
Garcia
Kristie
158 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am writing to you today as you consider the environmental, social, and cultural impacts of the federal coal leasing program. Climate change is having a
tremendous harmful impact on our National Parks and communities and coal combustion is a major culprit. Therefore, as a lover of National Parks, I urge the
federal government not to issue any new coal leases on public lands.
Gassman
David
127 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The BLM should update the Federal Coal Program to dramatically reduce coal production.
Godwin
Nadine
120 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am gratified that no new leases have been issued since President Biden was sworn in. That pause must be permanent.
Gordon
Mark
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
According to BLM, federal coal produced from the PRB in Wyoming and Montana accounts for over 85 percent of all federal coal production.6 (Footnote 6
23 Governor of Wyoming
Federal Coal Leasing Program, Background (available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/coal/background); see also 86 Fed. Reg. at 46874.)
And because "[i]n recent years and on average, approximately 42 percent of the Nation's annual coal production came from federal lands" Wyoming effectively
dominates BLM's federal coal leasing program, and all U.S. coal production generally. Indeed, Wyoming accounts for two-fifths of all coal mined in the United
States, according to EIA.7 (Footnote 7 Wyoming: State Profile and Energy Estimates (available at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=WY). ) Nearly all of
the coal mined in Wyoming is subbituminous, and the state accounts for almost nine-tenths of all U.S. subbituminous coal production.8 (Footnote 8 Id.)
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
5 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Wyoming's coal is also low-sulfur, and thus also delivers environmental benefits consistent with emission control requirements under the U.S. Clean Air Act.9
(Footnote 9 Id.). In additional to its low-sulfur attributes, Wyoming is the Nation's largest and most productive coal region due to: (1) lower production costs due
to the coal's proximity to the surface; (2) world-class recoverable coal seams (varying in thickness from 5 feet to more than 200 feet); and (2) hyper-efficient rail
infrastructure.10 (Footnote 10 Wyoming Mining Association, 2020-2021 Coal Concise Guide.)
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-47
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Gordon
Mark
Organization
Letter # Name
23 Governor of Wyoming
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
6 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Wyoming's low-sulfur coal is shipped to power plants in 29 states, with power plants in Texas, Missouri and Illinois the largest users of the fuel, according to EIA
(Figure 3).11 (Footnote 11 Wyoming: State Profile and Energy Estimates (available at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=WY).)
Up to 60 trains leave the
PRB daily.12 (Footnote 12 Wyoming Mining Association, 2020-2021 Coal Concise Guide)
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
7 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
According to EIA, in 2020 about 4,009 billion KWH of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States, with about
60% of that from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum), 20% from nuclear energy, and 20% from renewable energy sources.13 (Footnote 13 What is U.S.
Electricity Generation by Energy Source? (EIA FAQ) (available at https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3). ) Coal's share of total electricity production
was 19.3% in 2020.14 (Footnote 14 Id.)
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
9 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
According to the International Energy Agency (TEA), "[c]oal remains a major fuel in global energy systems, accounting for almost 40% of electricity generation ..."
in 2019.16 (Footnote 16 Coal 2019 (TEA 2019) (available at https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2019). ) TEA anticipates that, through 2024, coal demand is
forecast to remain stable, in part due to demand from China, which accounts for half of global consumption.17 (Footnote 17 Id)
Indeed, despite passage of the
Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, international coal demand has effectively steadily increased since 2000, according to TEA
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
20 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Decreasing coal supplies from federal lands will not decrease coal usage, and thus resulting emissions. They will merely result in alternate sources of coal stepping
up to fill the void, including non-federal domestic sources and imports from international suppliers. Those alternative sources are also likely to result in the loss of
ancillary environmental benefits associated with PRB's low-sulfur coal.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Wyoming has been the top coal-producing state since 1986, accounting for about 39% of all coal mines in the United States in 2019, and the state holds more than
one-third of U.S. coal reserves at producing mines, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).1 (Footnote 1 Wyoming: State Profile and
Energy Estimates (EIA, Mar. 18, 2021) (available at https://wvvw.eia.gov/state/?sid-WY#tabs-3).
Nation.2 (Footnote 2 Id.)
Wyoming has 10 coal fields and 6 of the largest coal mines in the
Recent estimates from the Wyoming State Geological Survey give Wyoming more than 165 billion tons of recoverable coal.3
(Footnote 3 Wyoming Mining Association, 2020-2021 Coal Concise Guide.)
On average, coal in the Powder River Basin (PRB) is mined at the staggering rate of
12 tons per second.4 (Footnote 4 Id.)
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
3 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
8 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
In 2019, Wyoming produced a Nation-leading 276,912 thousand short tons of coal, with West Virginia (93,279 thousand short tons) and Pennsylvania (50,053)
coming in a distant second and third, respectively (see Figure 1).5 Footnote 5 Wyoming: State Profile and Energy Estimates (available at
https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=WY#series/48). )
According to ETA's 2021 Annual Energy Outlook's reference case, coal remains in the electricity mix for decades to come, plateauing to about 13% of U.S.
electricity generation by 2030 then hovering around 11% through 2025 (Figure 4), in part because EIA forecasts that most coal-plant retirements will take place by
2025.15 (Footnote 15 Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (EIA) (available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO Narrative 2021.pdf). Remaining facilities are
more efficient and/or younger, and thus are anticipated to continue to operate through the projection period.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
10 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Expectations of an imminent coal collapse have come and gone before. The adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 coincided with a three-year decline in global
coal consumption (1997-99), and the imminent end of coal was heralded. But the decline turned out to be the result of some specific circumstances such as the
Asian financial crisis and did not last. Between 2000 and 2013, global coal use rebounded spectacularly. It soared 75%, more than it had done over the entirety of
the previous nine decades. A similar upsurge is not expected in today's context, but neither is a sudden plunge.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
11 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal's importance as a reliable supplier of energy systems continues to grow in importance as events such as water shortages in the western United States
threaten alternative sources such as hydropower. In a society that is eager for improved resilience and reliability for energy systems, coal remains at the watch.
Coal can and should provide baseload backup to intermittent sources of electricity such as wind and solar.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
28 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
It is imperative that the federal coal program explicitly take into account the vital role that federal coal, including coal mined in Wyoming, plays in fulfilling the
energy needs of the United States - a role that will continue for decades to come. Coal will continue to be used for electricity production in the United States in
the coming decades. It is a reliable, reasonably priced source of energy for the production of electricity and through carbon capture technology will continue to
provide 24-hour dispatchable power. This power source is a major factor in preserving grid reliability. Hindering that federal production will deprive the federal
government, and thus Wyoming, of critically needed revenue. It also will result in a degraded environment as coal from less desirable sources fill the void left by a
reduction in production of federal coal. The future is bright for coal on various fronts, from low-emission electricity production (with CCS/CCUS) to non-Btu
uses in coal-based products. Federal coal also holds great promise from the production of materials such as CM/REEs that will be needed in the decades ahead. As
a policy matter, it thus would be counterproductive for BLM to take any actions that degrade what to-date has been a highly successful partnership between the
federal government and the State of Wyoming on these matters.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
8 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The federal coal leasing program has been, and continues to be, a striking success for both federal taxpayers and the citizens of Wyoming. As such, no changes are
necessary.
Burning coal emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy produced than any other widely-utilized means of electrical power generation. [iv] [iv] US Energy
Administration
C-48
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
26 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
14 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
The impacts of coal transport, especially long distance transport, are significant and must be analyzed. These include greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water
pollution, dangerous deposition of coal dust on rail beds, and other impacts such as increased traffic fatalities and delay of emergency vehicles. Special
consideration should be given to vulnerable populations residing in environmentally and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities along railroad tracks and
near terminals and power plants. Analyses cannot be based on combustion by the nearest power plant while allowing any end use and destination Permitted
destinations, modes of transport, fuel efficiencies, mitigating measures, etc. must be specified in the environmental assessments and the conditions for lease
renewal. Export should be disallowed altogether. * The possibility that a different mine would supply the same quantity of coal if the lease being analyzed is not
renewed should never justify a conclusion of no added environmental impact. Recommendations * If leases are renewed, conditions should be readjusted to
specify conditions of mining, processing, storage, handling, transport, and combustion, as detailed in the Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact
Statements. * Export should be disallowed.
Hashe
Janis
83 N/A
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I support NO FURTHER leasing of public land for coal mining
Haywood
Susan
534 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal is no longer a viable fuel source; it is a bad investment because it causes health problems and damage to land, air, and water.
Heffernan
Kathy
46 N/A
1 207.0100.00
Coal mitigation
If any coal leases are continued or sold on public lands, the lease-holder should pay the full cost of the lease, including environmental protections and restoration.
Herr
Jo Ann
148 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please update the Federal Coal Program to stop all lease renewals and do not allow any new leases.
Heston
Vivienne
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Much has changed in the coal market. In 2014, the nation used 918 million tons of coal. In 2020, the nation used 477 million tons, a decline of 48 percent. Some
22 Institute for Energy
Economics and Financial
increases will occur in 2021. The Energy Information Administration's September short-term outlook shows 2021 coal consumption is still expected to be slightly
Analysis
below the 2019 level of 586.5 million tons per year. Coal-fired power plants in the U.S., which form the primary underlying customer base, are expected to
continue to drop dramatically through 2030. The market currently is experiencing a double-edged decline-rapid contraction and continued declines in capacity
rates.2
(Footnote 2: IEEFA. U.S. Power Sector Outlook 2021. March 2021.)
By 2030, IEEFA estimates that coal-unit retirements and declining use at the
remaining plants will cut coal use by another 165 million to 250 million tons, resulting in fewer than 300 million tons being used by the power sector. Coal
production in the Northern Plains states is expected to decline from 320 million tons in 2021 to 194 million tons. With low renewable energy costs expected to
continue, the tonnage will drop below 200 million, and prices are expected to decline in both short- and long-term scenarios.3
Administration. 2021 Annual Energy Outlook. January 2021.)
from 116,010 people to just 57,497 through June 30, 2021.
(Footnote 3: Energy Information
Employment by coal mine operators and contract mining companies has fallen by half since 2014,
These trends tell us there is no need for more coal leases-but there is a need for federal intervention
to smooth the challenges for coal communities.
Hina
Jennifer
537 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
17 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
As society moves toward the future, coal is becoming outdated and dangerous in comparison with other sources of energy. The cost efficiency is minimal as
newer, cleaner, and modern ways of getting energy are developed. With the government tied up in coal, it means that innovation and development are stagnating.
2
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
Sense
From the designation of lease tracts to the reclamation of abandoned mines, the federal coal program creates controversy by failing to ensure a fair return to
taxpayers. Given that backdrop, it is appropriate for the Interior Department to reevaluate the process and to update policies that have not kept pace with
today's energy markets.
Jackson
Lisa
412 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
All projects should go through an expanded Environmental review process to ensure that all the impacts arebeing measured. - Account for all Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) including transportation locally and to destination, during production and during the life cycle (burning) of the product. - Pollution impacts of the water
and air, locally and during the use of the coal. - The impact to the health of local residents of the mines and locations where combustion occurs. - Displacement
of people and industry due to sea-level rise, extreme weather and loss of habitat. - Increased costs from security risks due to displacement, shortage of
food/water etc. - Huge costs to damaged infrastructure due to extreme weather and fires.
4
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
39 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
47 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coordinating Office
The BTU value and sulfur content of each coal source should be considered in the context of measuring and assessing impacts for coal combustion, and different
types of coal should be strategically aligned with their lowest impact end-use.
Coordinating Office
In 2020, 61 percent of the State's net electricity generation was from coal, down from 75 percent in 2015. Since 2015, 97 percent of added electric generating
capacity in the State has been renewable energy. Additionally, the State's per-capita electricity consumption is lower than 3/4ths of the United States.33
(Footnote: 33 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=UT )
Coal Production in the State has generally been declining since 2006. In 2020, the State produced
13,325 short tons of coal, about half of the 2006 production level of 26,131 short tons of coal.34 (Footnote: 34
https://geology.utah.gov/docs/statistics/coal2.0/pdf/T2.10.pdf )
The State's energy use reflects a commitment to efficient and effective use of resources as well as
a transition to clean and renewable energy. However, The State's communities still rely on coal-fired power as a baseload energy source providing consistent
power to offset the intermittent nature of renewables such as solar and wind.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
21 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coordinating Office
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
Utah has low energy costs due to the significant amount of electricity, 60 percent, that is produced by coal fired power plants and an abundant local supply of coal.
Eliminating or restricting this commodity would have serious consequences for at risk communities and people including our numerous Tribal Nations.
24 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The BLM should also help build awareness and understanding of the value the coal industry provides to the overall energy ecosystem on the national level.
31 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The programmatic review of BLM's coal leasing program should consider as an issue the new developments in technology, and the current research and
Coordinating Office
Coordinating Office
development capabilities of the industry. Additionally, the BLM should consider whether its current leasing program and policies are designed to support a climate
for private-sector investment and innovation, that will result in the provision of clean, abundant energy sources for the future, or whether current policies deter
innovation in the industry.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-49
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Johnson
Redge
Organization
Letter # Name
32 Public Lands Policy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
34 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
The BLM should additionally consider the environmental effects, both positive and negative, from reducing or moving away from base load energies such as coal
Coordinating Office
and transitioning into battery storage and renewable energies. Along with the environmental effects of transitioning away from coal produced energy, the BLM
should consider the practicality of doing so. How many batteries would need to be produced to store the required amount of energy to support the grid? How
many critical minerals would need to be mined to produce these batteries, where would they be mined, and what are the environmental consequences of doing
so? Exploring the practicality of such a transition should not be beyond the scope of this analysis, because any reductions in traditional coal powered energy will
need to be replaced by another source and somehow stored.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
33 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coordinating Office
In its review of the federal coal leasing program the BLM should consider the need for base load energies in our energy grid along with the unreliability of certain
renewable energies. The wind does not always blow, and batteries go offline. Recently in Europe, energy prices hit an all-time high. The natural gas and electricity
markets were already surging when "The wind in the stormy North Sea stopped blowing" creating an energy supply problem.18 (Footnote: 18 Joe Wallace,
Energy Prices in Europe Hit Records After Wind Stops Blowing. The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13, 2021. Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-pricesin-europe-hit-records-after-wind-stops-blowing-11631528258?mod=hp lead pos5)
Moreover, at about the same time that the wind stopped blowing in the
North Sea, batteries were malfunctioning in California removing much needed energy from the grid.19 (Footnote:19 Edward Klump, Major Calif. Battery outage
highlights energy storage risks, E&E, Sept. 13, 2021. Available at https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2021/09/13/major-calif-battery-outage-highlightsenergy-storage-risks-280472 )
Not only did this hurt the energy grid, it posed a safety risk for employees and nearby communities.20 (Footnote: 20 Id.)
And
just last month, the "Biden administration issued an emergency order allowing some California natural gas power plants to operate without pollution restrictions
to shore up the state's tight electricity supplies."21 (Footnote: 21 Nichola Groom, U.S. grants California request to run gas plants at maximum to keep lights on.
MSN.com, Sept. 11, 2021. Available at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-grants-california-request-to-run-gas-plants-at-maximum-to-keep-lights-on/arAAOjgmb?ocid=se). These three incidents shed light on the risks of eliminating certain energy sources from the grid. Recognizing the current limitation and risks
of removing traditional energy sources from the grid, the State adopted an "all-of-the-above" strategy when it comes to energy development and believes that
there is a place for coal in its energy portfolio.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
27 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The State Opposes Any Moratorium or Pause on Federal Coal Leases
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please save our planet our people the universe!! Stop the production, excavations and burning of coal!! It killing Mother Earth and all living beings !!!
6 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
NPCA urges the Biden administration to heed the findings of these reports and immediately end new coal leasing through its reassessment of the coal program.
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I urge you to end coal leasing on federal lands now to prevent more injuries and more deaths.
Coordinating Office
Kennedy
Kathy
Kirby
Matthew
126 N/A
13 National Parks Conservation
Association
Lalwani
Taj
Lisella
Maria
Lish
Christopher
Lopez
Carloz
Lovie
Lucas
MacDonald
Ethel
MacKerel
Martin
Maguire
Matt
March
Jane
Matson
Whitney
Maul
Robert
134 N/A
60 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Make permanent the current pause in granting coal leases, and make a plan to phase out all other such leases as soon as legally possible
175 N/A
13 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
As the review proceeds, I urge the Department of the Interior and the BLM to work with other sectors of government to facilitate an equitable transition away
92 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The administration should make an immediate end to coal leasing on federal lands.
Julie
130 N/A
10 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Water and air pollution must be accounted for, including that produced: at the mine, along transport routes, during combustion (including sulfur dioxide,
Mitchell
157 N/A
3 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
End federal coal leasing.
from coal for coal-impacted and dependent communities.
mercury, and particulate emissions), and from coal ash dumps
49 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
We cannot afford to continue coal leases on public lands when climate change threatens our existence. Please opposed any and all coal leases!
137 N/A
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Therefore, the review should examine how to wind down coal extraction as fast as possible, by not putting any more land out to lease, not renewing leases,
8 N/A
5 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The BLM should update the Federal Coal Program to immediately end all coal production.
90 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Public lands should not be leased to business for coal mining, refining and burning.
123 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am writing as a resident of Wyoming to ask that we stop issuing leases to mine coal on federal lands.
11 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
BLM should also consider advancements in coal development, technology improvements, and new products derived from coal when analyzing for future uses.
13 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
According to the ITC website, coal is a significant source of power for the country, accounting for nearly 42 percent of the nation's electricity. The Energy
finding ways to end all existing leases as early as possible, and maximizing fees and royalties for existing leases.
25 Campbell County Board of
Commissioners
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
Commissioners
Information Agency of the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that U.S. electricity generation will increase by .9 percent each year through 2040. Coal is
projected to make up the largest share of fuel for electricity production, although it is expected to decline from its current level to 35 percent in 2040. This
projected decrease is based on federal environmental regulations and low-priced, abundant natural gas. Advancements in coal development, technology
improvements, and new products derived from coal must be considered when analyzing for future uses of coal. In any case, coal development and production
must remain a viable and necessary source of energy in the federal portfolio.
C-50
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Maul
Robert
Organization
Letter # Name
25 Campbell County Board of
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
2 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
In Wyoming, we produce approximately one-third of all coal produced in the United States (Casper Buffalo Resource Management Plan Final Environmental
Commissioners
Impact Statement page 3-18) and according to BLM in the above referenced federal register notice, federal coal produced from the Powder River Basin in
Wyoming and Montana accounts for over 85 percent of all federal coal production. In addition, the BLM Buffalo Field Office administers approximately 800,000
acres of surface lands and 4.7-million acres of subsurface federal mineral estate in Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties in north-central Wyoming. This
includes approximately 4.7 million acres of subsurface federal mineral coal estate. Therefore, it is safe to say that Wyoming effectively dominates BLM's federal
coal leasing program and Campbell County is the largest producer within that space.
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
3 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Commissioners
Furthermore, Wyoming remains a national leader in coal technology development and research and in May of 2018, the Integrated Test Center officially opened
in Gillette, Wyoming. The center provides space for researchers to test Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration (CCUS) technologies using actual coalbased flue gas. Research at the facility will help support jobs, local and state economies and keeps electricity prices low for millions of people around the globe.
Other innovative projects are being pursued in Wyoming addressing CCUS, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and extracting critical minerals from coal,
including rare earth elements (REE) and we remain hopeful that advanced technology will provide longevity for the coal industry for years to come.
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Commissioners
Current Regulatory Framework - The current regulatory framework is a lengthy, cumbersome, highly regulated and costly process and gives ample opportunities
for the public and stakeholders to participate. Unfortunately, the current process can take seven (7) to ten (10) years to complete the leasing phase costing
millions of dollars with no return on investment. In addition, it can take another three (3) to five (5) years to obtain permits to begin the extraction process.
Finally, when estimating for future coal production and demand, BLM should evaluate ways to reduce the timeframe required for the leasing and permitting
processes, which would in turn improve competition in the marketplace. BLM should also consider advancements in coal development, technology improvements,
and new products derived from coal as this will strengthen the need for coal products in the future.
Mccartney
Ward
106 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
STOP leasing our lands to an industry that is out to destroy life on earth!
McClain
Anne
65 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please be sure your standards include ALL the environmental costs of mining and using coal. Even beyond the catastrophic negative impacts of burning coal there
Meissner
Ron
129 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Time to get away from coal. Stop the coal leasing.
Melcher
Jeffrey
115 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
We must have a reinstatement of a coal-mining moratorium on federal property.
Mertz
Robert A.
322 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Land destruction, acid rain and mine drainage, leveling of mountains and filling of valleys and the streams they hold are a few problems the mining of coal causes.
59 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
End the federal coal program. Protect the planet. This is URGENT!!!!
394 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I recently learned that fossil fuel companies can lease our public wildlands for $2.00 per acre. It has also come to my attention that 34 million acres of our public
are the impacts to the environment and to water sources of mining it.
1
Meyer
John
Milkowski
Deborah
lands have essentially been given to fossil fuel companies without bidding through non-competitive lease sales. This is disgraceful. These giveaways to the fossil fuel
1
industry are an affront to every American citizen.
Miller
Kristie
145 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am writing to express my desire to see the coal leasing program come to an end.
Morris
David
101 N/A
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
It's not just the air that's affected- it's also the water, the soil and the health of the human and animal residents of the state which are worsened by coal. Short-
Morris
David
101 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
First, I think the BLM should make shutting down coal production its first priority.
Morrow
Paula
107 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please, please stop the coal mining leases.
Nelson
Scott
34 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal needs to be left in the ground.
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
we write to advise BLM to institute a complete moratorium on all new coal leases, permits, and other approvals as this activity violates the constitutional rights of
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
23 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
As such, we respectfully request that the BLM issue a moratorium on all new coal leases, permits, and other approvals as this activity violates the constitutional
Omole
Michael
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please end coal extraction on federal land.
Pollastro
Carson
14 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Wolverine recognizes that market shifts that are occurring in the U.S. energy supply. The administrative push to shudder coal fired power plants has had a lasting
term cheap energy is no excuse for long-term, possibly irreversible environmental degredation.
youth and the public trust obligations of the Secretary and the BLM.
rights of youth
108 N/A
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
effect on the economy of many rural parts of the U.S. Wolverine recognizes these pushes are not necessarily free market driven, and, that if given a choice, most
consumers will choose the cheapest and most reliable power source. The energy shortage and crisis that occurred in Texas during the winter of 2021 is a prime
example that, when faced with a shortage of supply, it can be crippling and deadly to not have a reliable source of energy and instead rely on intermittent
renewable sources.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-51
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pollastro
Carson
Organization
Letter # Name
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
15 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Even though there has been a decrease in coal-fired power plants (and subsequent decrease in production), Wolverine's customers have made drastic efforts to
improve the operating efficiency of their coal-fired plants, including investing hundreds of millions of dollars in retrofit and scrubber technologies that are designed
around the high-quality coal that the Wolverine mines produce from its' federal leases. Because of this capital investment made by its customers, and the fact that
coal continues to be the lowest-cost form of energy within Wolverine's markets, Wolverine is optimistic about the continued use of coal as a power source.
Wolverine has long-term contracts with its' customers through at least the next decade. This continued commercial obligation affirms Wolverine's reliance on the
federal coal leasing program to maintain and expand its' existing operations. BLM coal leasing is still necessary to continue Wolverine's operations, to keep its'
high paying jobs, and continue to support the local rural economies it operates in. While coal energy production is diminishing, and despite the current
administration's aspirations to be carbon neutral by 2035, EIA projections indicate coal will still be a reliable component of the nation's energy mix through 2050.
By systematically and incrementally increasing the cost to operate, and reducing lands available for leasing, the BLM is essentially "closing-the-door" on coal. Coal
is, and will continue to be, a necessary part of our nation's energy portfolio.The PEIS should evaluate how changes to the Federal Coal Program would impact
reliability and affordability of electricity. If production on Federal lands is decreased because of increased royalty rates or other fees, consumers will be forced to
pay for more expensive forms of power generation, as was seen on a short scale in Texas in February of 2021. Ratepayers across the country have already seen
policies over the past several years that have increased electricity prices and degrade the reliability of the nation's electricity supply, despite the false narrative that
renewable sources are cheaper and still reliable. By administratively inducing the closure of coal baseload power plants, the backbone of our electric grid has been
compromised.
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
4 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Furthermore, this century-old program was created to address a need that no longer exists. The growing accessibility of new, cleaner energy sources, along with a
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
47 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
End your coal leasing program and transition instead to the clean, safe, healthy renewable energy production this country needs. Sincerely,
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
29 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Cease the extraction of coal on federal lands; * Approve no new leases for coal extraction; and
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
33 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
End your coal leasing program and transition instead to the clean, safe, healthy renewable energy production this country needs.
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
34 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
e the undersigned call on the Bureau of Land Management in the strongest terms possible to do its part to clean our air and water, protect our people, and help
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
58 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Cease the extraction of coal on federal lands;
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
59 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Approve no new leases for coal extraction; and
Raynolds
Linda
11 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Now we are facing a larger problem: the bankruptcies and defaults of the coal industry in general, the increasing concern over the long-lasting deleterious
concern for public health and the environment, have greatly reduced the nation's dependence on coal.
curb the potentially catastrophic ravages of climate change.
42 N/A
consequences of adding carbon to our atmosphere, and the economic hardships suffered by former coal mining communities and their workers and families.
Raynolds
Linda
42 N/A
16 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Now we are facing a larger problem: the bankruptcies and defaults of the coal industry in general, the increasing concern over the long-lasting deleterious
Reed
Sam
73 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
There should be no new mines or leases
Richardson
Sarah
39 N/A
3 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I urge the BLM to end coal production
Robinson
Robby
431 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal is the fuel of a century past, it's a filthy choice, coal ash clogs our waterways, destroys the earth's landscape and is terrible for the environment.
Rohrer
K
433 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
RARELY MENTIONED IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT EXTRACTIVE INDUS-TRIES IS THE VIOLENT, IRREPARABLE DISFIGUREMENT OF THE NATURAL
consequences of adding carbon to our atmosphere, and the economic hardships suffered by former coal mining communities and their workers and families.
1
LANDSCAPE AND THE ATTENDANT IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE. THIS SHOULD BE CATEGORIZED NOT ONLY AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY BUT
1
AS A CRIME AGAINST NATURE.
Rosa
Marion
142 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Stopping the use of coal is a no-brainer! It is past time to consider the destruction of our climate and to take action...
Rosin
Lawrence
128 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I ask you to stop leasing public lands to coal companies.
Roth
Susan
76 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Don't just pause on coal leases, END THEM!
Rubin
Laurie
103 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
This is a pubic comment on your review of coal policies. It is imperative that you update the Federal Coal Program to stop all coal production and transportation
Sacerdote
David
38 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
as soon as possible
Given the incredible damage done by climate change caused by both burning coal and the methane which seeps out of coal mines, I urge you to cease all leasing of
coal on federal lands and to cancel existing leases.
at New York University
Coal production causes significant environmental and health impacts, particularly in regard to global climate change, which have been insufficiently considered in
prior leasing decisions.3
(footnote 3 Id. at 46,876. )
School of Law
C-52
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sarinsky
Max
Organization
Letter # Name
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
16 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Consistent with its mandate to serve the public interest, Interior should not approve further coal leasing, renewal, and expansion unless it determines-upon full
at New York University
consideration of all relevant factors, including externalities-that the benefits of that extraction exceed its costs. To better ensure that any future leasing and
School of Law
extraction occurs on terms that are fairer to American taxpayers and more consistent with the public interest, Interior should also institute reforms to the
program including ensuring competitive bidding and raising royalties and fair market valuations to account for externalities.
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
23 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
39 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
at New York University
Savlove
John
costs to society.
458 N/A
1
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Interior should rationally weigh the externalities associated with coal when assessing lease applications and, consistent with its mandate to serve the public
interest, should not approve further coal leasing, renewal, and expansion unless it makes a reasoned determination that the benefits of that leasing exceed the
School of Law
And coal mining has reached the point of diminishing returns ---- at the level of energy and economic return as well as the usual levels of lung cancer, nature
degradation, and related public health problems.
Law Program
ii. Federal coal is not necessary to meet U.S. energy needs. Two recent studies demonstrate the feasibility of meeting U.S. clean energy goals using only existing
technologies - and without making favorable assumptions for unproven carbon capture or removal technologies. In June 2020, modelers at the Goldman School of
Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley found that the United States could generate 90% of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2035, and do
so while lowering consumers' utility bills and maintaining a reliable electric grid.66 [Footnote 66 Amol Phadke, et al., 2035: The Report: Plummeting Solar, Wind,
and Battery Costs Can Accelerate Our Clean Electricity Future, at 2 (June 2020). Attached as Exhibit 28.]
According to the study's authors, during normal
periods of electricity demand, 70% of the electricity would come from wind, solar, and battery storage, hydropower would supply 20%, and gas would account for
the final 10%.67 [Footnote 67 Id. at 20]
Doing so would support more than 500,000 more jobs each year than a business as usual approach, and would avoid
over $1.2 trillion in health and environmental costs, including 850,000 avoided premature deaths between now and 2050.68 [Footnote 68 Id. at 5, 28.]
A
September 2021 meta-analysis by researchers at Energy Innovation reached a similar conclusion regarding the feasibility of rapidly phasing out U.S. fossil fuel
production. In an analysis of 11 different reports published since the start of 2020, including the Berkeley study, Energy Innovation concluded that cost reductions
in wind, solar, and battery storage have made it technologically feasible to generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity from zero-emission sources by 2030, while
raising electricity costs to consumers by only up to 3 percent.69 [Footnote 69 Dan Esposito, Studies Agree 80 Percent Clean Electricity By 2030 Would Save
Lives and Create Jobs at Minimal Cost, at 1 (Sept. 2021). Attached as Exhibit 29.]
The study confirms, however, that ambitious federal policies are necessary to
transform the market in line with these findings. Energy Innovation concluded transforming the electric sector to achieve 80% carbon-free generation by 2030
would avoid 85,000 - 317,000 premature deaths through 2050, and add 500,000 - 1 million net new jobs.70 [Footnote 70 Id. at 2.]
Sigrist
Ellie
Simmons
Patricia
53 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Given the increasing climate disruption that is occurring world wide I would like to see the coal leasing program on federal lands retired by not renewing leases or
462 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
141 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Clearly coal is an energy source from the 19th century. There are much cleaner energy sources today. The US should exemplify best practices. DO AWAY
99 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I strongly propose climate crisis mitigation by an immediate end of coal production.
58 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please reinstate the coal mining moratorium.
463 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
To fight pollution and climate change, and improve environmental quality and human health, we MUST continue to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and
starting new leases.
We need to end coal leasing on our federal lands so save our Planet, to move faster into non-fossil fuels, to save our health for humans, wildlife, all other beings
on the Earth. These lands should be used for wildlife, like bison in Montana, non-mechanic public recreation, scenery, etc.
1
Skufca
Tim
Smith
Thomas
Smith
Corless
Snyder
Brad
WITH COAL (and all fossil-fuel) LEASES
prepare for the Renewable Energy Revolution (which has already started!)!! We are off to a great start - over 300 coal burning power plants have been shut
down in the U.S. since 2010 and that trend will continue, renewable energy facilities (e.g. solar gardens, wind farms) are being developed across the country, the
need for coal has decreased so much that coal companies are going bankrupt, etc. If that wasn't enough, there is only about 100 years of economically available
fossil fuels left in the world so we will have to switch to other energy sources sometime in the near future! Due to the damage caused by burning fossil fuels to
the environment AND human health I strongly suggest we switch sooner than later!!
1
Snyder
Brad
464 N/A
207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Besides, the need for fossil fuels, especially coal, is decreasing and will continue to do so into the future!! For example, over 300 coal burning power plants have
been shut down in the U.S. since 2010 and that trend will continue, coal has decreased so much that coal companies are going bankrupt, etc. Also, the Earth will
eventually run out of fossil fuels!! There is only 50 to 100 years of fossil fuels left in the world so we will have to switch to other energy sources sometime in the
near future! Due to the damage caused by burning fossil fuels to the environment AND human health I strongly suggest we switch sooner than later!! And we
can't forget the 350,000 people in the U.S. who die annually due to fossil fuel pollution (8 million people worldwide who die annually due to fossil fuels!)!!
1
Steitz
Jim
70 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Only a full termination of federal coal leasing will reflect the understanding that no cost-benefit calculation exists, by which the Department of Interior may
conclude that the sale of these fossil fuels is in the public interest, or represents a rational or reasonable allocation of the natural resources under Interior
Department management.
Steitz
Jim
162 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I urge you to permanently cease coal mining from public lands
Stone
Anna
225 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
You must act now! The extremes of weather that our country is experiencing means the land 30-50 years ago had resilience to withstand the assault of mining
and pollution. The land now is so stressed that further mining and pollution will make it uninhabitable once the coal is gone - the coal industry makes profits off
the American citizens land.
Stroud
Jacqueline
226 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal as a source of energy results in the emission of large quantities of atmosphere-heating carbon, air and water pollution, and land destruction in some of the
more impoverished areas of this country. New and different and healthier jobs are needed.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-53
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sweeny
Katie
Organization
Letter # Name
19 National Mining Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
21 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
Federal Coal is Vital to Fulfilling the Nation's Energy Needs Existing coal capacity remains critical to providing a steady, secure and affordable source of power
across the United States. As mentioned above, 37 states currently consume federal coal from the Powder River Basin to provide electricity.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
22 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Specific examples from across the grid in the U.S. demonstrate the need for coal. For example, Californians are paying a premium for a less reliable and resilient
system, due to its huge expansion of renewables. In fact, California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the nation from 2011 to 2019. Its
blackouts in recent summers were a direct result of a rush to transition to variable power with real consequences.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
23 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
In an extreme weather example, 70 percent of Texas lost power during a winter freeze in February 2021. While their frozen pipelines halted the just-in-time
delivery of natural gas, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) kept Americans warm with 45GW of coal-generated power across its 15-state
grid, with coal supplying more than half of daily power demand. Similarly, as the same freeze hit Oklahoma, Governor Kevin Stitt noted the role of coal to keep
the power on as: renewable sources like wind and solar dropped to almost zero production. Natural gas wells froze and compressor stations went offline. That
left utility companies really scrambling to buy extra energy on the spot market at skyrocketing prices. . .Wind is normally about 40 percent and it dropped to 10
percent. Coal in Oklahoma is normally 10 percent and it went to 40 percent. I've talked to several other Governors that coal was really bailing us out.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
26 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Renewable Energy Insufficient to Fill the Void Solutions to reliability concerns associated with renewables - grid-scale energy storage and the addition of highvoltage transmission lines - are years away from becoming a reality while electricity demand, driven by electrification, is poised to surge. Grid-scale energy storage
and a massive expansion of transmission infrastructure are incredibly hard and expensive to do. As the hurdles associated with these solutions are addressed,
there's a real danger of doing away with what works before we are even close to being able to fully understand or manage a grid that leans on variable power. The
remaking of our grid will require a complex federal and state permitting process that will take years to ensure the interconnectivity of transmission lines across
multiple states.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
27 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Analysis from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute shows rising natural gas prices have led to considerable fuel switching and a resurgent
year for thermal coal. Month after month - as gas prices continue to tick up - coal's share of the electricity mix climbs, and it's poised to play a particularly
important role this winter. National coal consumption is expected to rebound 16 percent this year from pandemic lows. The institute further explained that the
main factor is economics: "Since bottoming out in the middle of 2020, natural gas prices have steadily risen over the last 12 months, leading many utilities to shift
back to coal as a lower-cost fuel source . . . On a per megawatt-hour fuel cost basis, natural gas has become over $20 more expensive than coal for the first time
in seven-plus years."
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
28 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Electricity Security Cannot Be Taken for Granted Ultimately energy security should remain a top concern for the administration as it reviews the Federal Coal
Leasing Program. The post-pandemic economic recovery will stall without affordable and reliable sources of energy. As the International Energy Agency recently
concluded in its review of the Texas grid crisis: "Energy is key to our economic recovery, "...[it's] a reminder that electricity security cannot be taken for granted.
It must remain a top priority for policy makers, especially as electricity becomes more important for the entire energy system with increased electrification of
many sectors and threats to energy security evolve and multiply... Market designs and regulations need to improve to make best use of existing assets and to
encourage new investments both in supply and demand for flexibility and capacity adequacy."
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
2 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
In the past decade, however, the Federal Coal Leasing Program has been under a multi-faceted attack - initially from environmental organizations, later from
several members of Congress, and more recently by previous administrations that embraced key tenets of the "Keep It in the Ground" movement. As detailed in
the NMA's 2016 comments and below, these attacks were not designed to improve the Federal Coal Leasing Program but rather were barely disguised attempts
to prevent the development of any federal coal, which would deprive the American taxpayer of any return from the development of publicly owned resources.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
24 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Increases in Gas Prices Show Need for Coal In June 2021, with natural gas prices rising, coal generation on the PJM grid, which is the nation's largest, hit a threeyear high. Simultaneously, coal demand on the MISO grid rose 37 percent and the Southwest Power Pool grid saw a 42 percent increase. The era of cheap natural
gas appears to have come to an abrupt end with major consequences for U.S. consumers and industry - the need dispatchable fuel diversity is greater than it has
been in a decade. According to Bloomberg, a decade of low natural gas prices - driven by surging production from the U.S., Australia and other nations - has
finally been overtaken by demand from a recovering global economy.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
25 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. exports of natural gas - both by pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG) - could reach close to 20
billion cubic feet per day next year, approaching the average daily domestic consumption of gas for power generation. Considering that the first U.S. LNG export
cargoes didn't leave the U.S. until early 2016, the speed of the U.S. gas export boom is remarkable. Fully 10 percent of U.S. gas production is now going to
exports. With global gas demand set to continue to expand by an estimated 3.4 percent annually through 2035, after already jumping 30 percent in the past
decade, appetite for U.S. gas exports is only set to grow, providing further upward pressure on U.S. gas prices. That's deeply concerning considering this is the fuel
that some have ordained the bridge to get the U.S. through the energy transition. Rising gas prices and increased connectivity to an overheated global gas market
should have policymakers, utilities and consumers deeply worried. As Bloomberg observed, "Surging natural gas prices means it will be costlier to power factories
or produce petrochemicals, rattling every corner of the global economy and fueling inflation fears. For consumers, it will bring higher monthly energy and gas
utility bills. It will cost more to power a washing machine, take a hot shower and cook dinner."
Taylor
Charlot
227 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
We do not need coal. It's not good for anyone, the miners above all. It ruins land and water sources. Move past it. People are rocketing themselves into space but
the government is Subsidizing on behalf of taxpayers, coal mining. First of all, the Officers of any and all government subsidized businesses should have salaries
approved by taxpayers. If you cannot make your business profitable without taxpayers' support, you shouldn't be in business or the government should be running
your business top to bottom. No big salaries or Stock Exchange listing. We do not require coal. Shut it down or at least Stop Taxpayer Subsidies.
VanRiper
C-54
Janice
51 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please, for the sake of anyone who is young and has not had a lifetime to enjoy this earth, stop the coal leasing program on federal lands.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Veditti
Karen
Organization
Letter # Name
77 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
2 207.0100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
General comment on coal
BLM and the U.S. government should take every step possible to reduce and eliminate the use of coal as a source of energy, which severely contributes to green
house gases and man's contribution to climate change.This is an urgent time to make changes in our energy sources. And I strongly believe that public lands should
not contribute to the problem.
Verworn
Norman
33 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Stop coal production!
von der Pahlen
Maria C.
82 N/A
6 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
considering what the scientific community at large has long concluded about the industry's contribution to carbon emissions, and their impact on our changing
von der Pahlen
Maria C.
82 N/A
5 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Coal leasing in federal land should stop
Walker
Jerome
95 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The BLM should immediately stop leases for coal mining on the federal lands we all own
Weil
Susanne
218 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
We are out of time to halt climate change. No more fossil fuel extraction, please.
Werblin
Joshua
86 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am imploring that you not only end coal leasing
Wilcox
Tyler
111 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
I am asking for both an end to coal leasing
Win
M
209 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
This country's industry is based on capitalism. That means the companies make it on their own savvy and money. I do NOT want my tax dollars subsiding coal and
Wolverton
John
41 N/A
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
The USA and BLM - on behalf of all citizens, future citizens and flora and fauna - must stop leasing federal lands for coal extraction.
Wright
Benedict
1 207.0100.00
General comment on coal
Please act to put our long-term economic and environmental well-being ahead of short terms profits.
Adams
Matthew
Coal land use planning decisions
These multiple reviews happen at a variety of stages before mining can begin. For example, in cooperation with other federal and state agencies, the BLM conducts
climate, health, safety, and possibly irreversible damage to the natural environment as we know it.
its greedy executives.
213 N/A
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
10 207.0200.00
Company
a rigorous land use planning process to review the public lands for potential coal leasing, incorporating the considerations set forth by statute in the Federal Land
Policy Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments (FCLAA) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). These
considerations include multiple use, sustained yield, protection of critical environmental areas and the application of specific unsuitability criteria. The purpose of
the coal screening stage of the land use planning process is to identify those federal lands that are acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and
development. No other resource on federal lands is subjected to such a far ranging and in-depth assessment for determining what lands should remain open for
use or leasing.
Anderson
Jeanne
366 N/A
Davis
Jarrad
489 N/A
207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
I am opposed to private companies gaining a foothold on public lands for any reason. They are public lands, belonging to all of us, and not to be used for the profit
207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
Also, Public lands are to be managed for use by all Americans. Leasing for coal extraction removes lands for use for decades.
14 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
Considerable wisdom was employed in developing the LBA process. But the basic premise is that the enormity of the leases and the investment required to obtain
1
of a few.
1
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
a lease preclude development without a business plan. Companies showed they were unwilling to invest in leases identified by the BLM for any number of reasons:
too large, too small, uneconomical mining conditions; too distant from coal processing facilities; and so forth. The logic behind the LBA process is that those who
must bear the cost of the mining are best equipped to identify the tracts of land to be mined. Mining companies, not governments, will choose the tracts that will
be most economical to mine and on which they are willing to invest their future. (The wisdom of this will be seen later in these comments when you see how
large the investment is and how long before those who invest see any return on their investment.) But the key to the current process is that the BLM has the right
and obligation to place the value on the lease.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
36 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
WMA believes Federal coal should continue to be leased and produced to meet thermal coal electric generation needs. Arbitrary "budgets" to restrict access to
the resource should be avoided. Coal-fired generation will remain a significant part of America's electricity portfolio for the near future. Utility sales contracts
vary, and customers do as well. Coal producers are in the best position to gauge rate of extraction and sales based on utility needs, as well as planning for
additional reserves. Additionally, the leasing and permitting processes are very time consuming, taking from 7-10 years to complete. Coal producers must be
allowed to plan to accommodate this lengthy schedule. Imposing an arbitrary leasing "budget" will only make planning more difficult. A predetermined "budget"
restricts the ability of utilities and coal producers to react to ever-changing energy needs and is contrary to the Agency's charge of responsible development of
the resource based on the Mineral Leasing Act. WMA believes this approach amounts to unnecessary intervention into the supply and demand of the resource by
dictating volumes. We reiterate our position that federal coal leases should continue based on need and not artificial caps under arbitrary, politically driven
"budgets."
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
Sense
5 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
Coal Production Regions. Federal coal lease sales have little resemblance to the process described in the BLM's own regulations. A principal reason current
practices fail to follow the rules is the BLM's decertification of coal producing regions that form the cornerstone of the regulatory structure. (Footnote 4: 43 CFR
3400.5) Since the BLM concluded that there were no coal production regions in America, it has lost control of the coal leasing process. Decertification of coal
producing regions short-circuited the full competitive system envisioned by Congress, eliminating the first step on which many other regulations depend.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-55
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Kirby
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
13 National Parks Conservation
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
23 207.0200.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal land use planning decisions
Key landscapes surrounding national parks are permanently protected from coal development and all park landscapes are provided heightened consideration and
Association
study during the review process. The natural and cultural resources that national parks protect do not stop at park borders. Rather, parks act as anchors in
interwoven cultural landscapes and ecosystems for wildlife, water, air, and people. As such, management decisions regarding lands outside of park boundaries can
have far-ranging impacts on those resources that exist within the park. The Department must elevate as a priority the protection of park resources within and
outside of park boundaries over the multiple-use mandate to develop coal resources. As the Department considers the coal leasing program's broader impact on
our lands and communities, it must also consider its broader impact to National Parks. This task can be accomplished by including additional layers of analysis, we
offer the following for your review:
* Consideration of the coal leasing program impacts on natural, cultural, and historic resources; visitor use and enjoyment of park resources; and the cumulative
impacts of coal development on National Park Service resources
* Consideration of the coal leasing program impacts on wildlife migration corridors and habitat connectivity
* Consideration of the coal leasing program impacts on tourism and recreational opportunities on and off the applicable Park Service land and water, through
consultation with affected recreational user groups
* Consideration of the coal leasing program impacts on viewsheds with respect to all potential points of view within the affected Park Service land or water
* Consultation with relevant agencies to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of development on the air quality, including visibility impairment, of
affected Park Service land and water to ensure compliance with all applicable air quality requirements
* Consultation with relevant agencies to evaluate the impacts of development on water quality and groundwater resources, including subterranean geologic
resources which lend themselves to groundwater supply and ecological integrity of the park and surrounding landscapes * Compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 306108 of title 54, United States Code, taking into consideration the means by which the coal leasing program may impact historic
property, historic objects, traditional cultural properties, archaeological sites, or cultural landscapes
* Thorough tribal and traditional community consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding Traditional Cultural
Properties, sacred sites, and other traditional-use areas
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
6 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
An additional cost that is borne by a Lease-by-Application ("LBA") applicant is to fund an independent NEPA analysis. DOI agencies are understaffed to efficiently
process these applications, which requires the applicant to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") in order to provide funding for a third-party
contractor to complete the NEPA studies and perform all aspects of the NEPA process. The operator is left at the will of the parties to the MOU to evaluate and
perform the NEPA work. There are no spending or time limits the applicant can require of the agencies and contractor. This additional expense borne by the
applicant is given no consideration in the fair market value ("FMV") process and there is no option for reimbursement if the applicant fails to successfully bid for
the lease. The NEPA process adds up into the millions of dollars that the operator is forced to spend if they want to move forward with the LBA. Even if the
NEPA is completed and the applicant successfully obtains the LBA, oftentimes the NEPA is still appealed by ENGO's and the applicant/lessee is left to spend
additional money defending the same NEPA they paid to get completed.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
33 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
The Secretary enjoys considerable discretion in the management of coal leasing. However, this discretion is not unlimited. The Mineral Leasing Act specifies that
the Secretary "shall" lease federal coal (30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1)). Moreover, federal law has repeatedly directed the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce to examine
methods to increase the development of the nation's coal reserves and to increase the export of coal. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 13571(1); 42 U.S.C. § 13367(a).
Revisions to the leasing regulations that have the effect of curtailing federal coal production and the export of coal would be inconsistent with these mandates. At
a minimum, the scope of the PEIS must include a discussion of how any proposed regulatory changes would advance the federal policies of development of federal
coal resources and the export of U.S. produced coal. Minimum levels of leasing activity should be set as guidelines to ensure that there are adequate coal
resources under lease and actively being mined to keep the nation properly supplied with this key strategic resource and to lessen the possibility of damaging
energy price spikes.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
34 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
BLM must ensure that the future PEIS documents comply with FLPMA's multiple use and sustained yield mandate under § 102(a)(7), and in the land use planning
title of FLPMA at § 202(c)(1), and the directive under § 102(a)(12), to recognize the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals.
Additionally, BLM already
has a process in place for making decisions related to the availability of coal resources through the unsuitability criteria. The purpose of the unsuitability criteria is
to determine through land use planning whether Federal lands are unsuitable for all or certain methods of coal mining (30 U.S.C. 1272 et seq.). As such, any
findings regarding adequacy of the unsuitability criteria during the PEIS is something that BLM lacks authority to change without Congressional action.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
8 207.0200.00
Coal land use planning decisions
Current Environmental Reviews Are Effective These multiple reviews happen at a variety of stages before mining can begin. For example, in cooperation with
other federal and state agencies BLM conducts a rigorous land use planning process to review the public lands for potential coal leasing incorporating the
considerations set forth by statute in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments (FCLAA), and the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). These considerations include multiple use, sustained yield, protection of critical environmental areas and the
application of specific unsuitability criteria. The purpose of the coal screening stage of the land use planning process is to identify those federal lands that are
acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and development. No other resource on federal lands is subjected to such a far ranging and in-depth
assessment for determining what lands should remain open for use or leasing.
C-56
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
31 207.0300.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Additionally, new lease applications, like the West Antelope III lease application, have just started the NEPA process, and could easily be wrapped into a more
Resource Council
comprehensive programmatic review should the applicants for those lease applications still wish to move forward with leasing. We encourage BLM to pause any
action specific to any pending LBAs to allow the agency to have the time and decision space needed to carry out this programmatic review. Because lease terms
are for twenty years or longer, allowing new leases during this process risks locking in for decades the future development of large quantities of coal under
current rates and terms that the agency may ultimately determine to be less than optimal. Since leasing coal is a purely discretionary action, BLM is well within its
power to pause actions on any pending leases until the programmatic review is complete.
Dragoo
Denise
31 Snell & Wilmer
3 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Notably, the leasing of met coal on federal lands has continued under both the Jewell Order and the Zinke Order. Met coal was specifically exempted from the
"pause" of federal leasing of thermal (steam) coal imposed by prior Secretary Jewell. Secretarial Order 3338, Section 5 b. at p. 8. The Jewell Order noted that
"metallurgical coal is required for key applications, such as steelmaking, for which substitutes are not readily available". Id at p. 9. Met coal leasing continued under
Secretary Zinke's order which lifted the pause on the lease of thermal coal on federal lands and terminated the programmatic EIS. Secretarial Order 3348, March
29, 2017. On April 16, 2021, current DOI Secretary Haaland issued an Order revoking the Zinke Order and directing relevant agencies to submit a plan to
reverse, amend or update the policies under the prior order. Secretarial Order 3398. DOI appears to focus its current NOI on the review of steam coal leasing
rather than met coal. For instance, the NOI seeks comment on how federal coal helps to fulfill the energy need of the United States. 86 Fed. Reg. at 46876. Met
coal, as distinct from thermal or steam coal is used in industrial processes including steelmaking.
Dragoo
Denise
31 Snell & Wilmer
1 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
On behalf of CM Energy, LP and its affiliate, Freedom Energy, LP ("Freedom Energy"), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Department of
Interior's ("DOI's") notice of intent to review the Federal Coal Leasing Program published on August 20, 2021, 86 Fed. Reg. 46873 ("NOI"). Freedom Energy is the
applicant of LBA No. WVES 059357, one of four federal coal lease applications ("LBA's") filed after issuance of DOI Secretary Zinke's Secretarial Order on March
29, 2017 ("Zinke Order"). The Zinke Order lifted the pause on federal coal leasing imposed by former Secretary Jewell in January 2016 under Secretarial Order
3338 ("Jewell Order"). Secretary Zinke also withdrew the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ("PEIS") review of the Federal Coal Leasing Program.
The Zinke Order reinstated leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), 30 U.S.C. Section 181 et seq, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing
Amendments Act of 1976 and implemented by regulation at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3400. Pursuant to DOI's August 20, 2021 NOI, review of the Federal Coal Leasing
Program is once again being considered pursuant to current DOI Secretary Haagland Order dated April 16, 2021. Pursuant to this Order, DOI will review and
revise as necessary the Secretarial Orders of previous Secretary Jewell, dated January 15, 2016 and Secretary Zinke, dated March 29, 2017.
Freedom Energy
requests that BLM continue to process the company's pending LBA as DOI proceeds with its NOI.
Dragoo
Denise
31 Snell & Wilmer
2 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
The coal resource targeted in Freedom Energy's proposed federal Lease-by-Application ("LBA") contains as much as 44 million tons of high-value metallurgical
coal, which could be expected to generate over $460 million in royalties paid to the United States and the State of West Virginia. In addition, the proposed federal
lease, throughout the life of the operation, can be expected to support 230 jobs in rural Mingo and Wyoming Counties, at an average annual salary of $89,000.
The LBA is located on lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources within the R.
D. Bailey Lake Project Area, West Virginia.
Dragoo
Denise
31 Snell & Wilmer
4 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Even if DOI undertakes a comprehensive review of the Federal Coal Leasing Program, Freedom Energy urges the Department to consider the unique
characteristics of metallurgical coal ("met coal" or "coking coal") in distinction to thermal coal used for electric power generation. Metallurgical coal is a highergrade coal with low impurities particularly suited for steelmaking. It commands a market price almost three times that of Appalachian thermal coal, and more than
ten times the price of Powder River Basin thermal coal. Metallurgical coal is critical to manufacturing steel, which is in turn critical to the rebuilding the Nation's
infrastructure.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
23 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
BLM granted Wolverine Fuel's two-year Category 3 Royalty Rate Reductions, from 8% to 2%, for its SUFCO and Skyline mines for October 1, 2020 through
October 1, 2022. The identical language in each grant decision states: "The application certifies that Wolverine '... "unsuccessfully" operated, pursuant to the
definitions in the Guidelines, throughout the 12-month period ended May 31, 2020. In addition, the added burden of the Covid-19 pandemic [sic], Applicant is
projecting to operate "unsuccessfully" over the next 24 months.'"[xi]
[xi] Letters from Gregory Sheehan, BLM State Director, to Canyon Fuel Company LLC
/Wolverine Fuels LLC, January 11, 2021. For SUFCO refer to [xi] 3473/UT923 UTU-63214 UTU-84102 UTU-76195. For Skyline refer to 3473/UT923 UTU77114 UTU-044076
However, public data show that Wolverine has operated successfully. The Utah Geological Survey report, "Coal Production in Utah by
Coal Mine, 2002-2020", shows that Wolverine's SUFCO and Skyline mines combined produced 8.456 million short tons in 2018, 8.270 million in 2019 and 8.314
million in 2020. The US Energy Information Administration | Quarterly Coal Report, January - March 2021, shows coal exports through the San Francisco Bay
(i.e., Stockton and Richmond) were 42.3% higher in the first quarter of 2021 vs the first quarter of 2020 (before COVID impact), and they were higher yet in the
last quarter of 2020.
Wolverine's required recertification of necessity is due by October 1 of this year. Contrary to Wolverine's expectation of continued
"unsuccessful" operation due to COVID, the US Energy Information Administration's outlook is for increased demand for coal at least throughout 2021.
5. On
March 25 of this year, Wolverine was approved for a $10 million forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loan. With its high levels of production and export, it is
difficult to imagine how Wolverine could have demonstrated a legitimate need to the Small Business Administration. If the loan will be forgiven based on the
company's not laying off workers, Wolverine's steady production and increased exports have it on course to have the unnecessary $10 million converted to a
grant.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
24 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
President Biden's Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Section 209, directs heads of agencies to identify any fossil fuel subsidies
provided by their respective agencies and take steps to ensure that Federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels. Except for the Paycheck Protection
Program loan, the subsidies to Wolverine detailed above have been provided by BLM. We request, therefore, that the Secretary: · undertake an audit of Mineral
Lease funds that appear to have been illegally appropriated by the Utah Community Impact Board for the benefit of Wolverine and other fossil fuel interests,
starting with two resources: the 2020 Performance Audit of the Permanent Community Impact Fund by the Utah Legislative Auditor General and the 2021 Utah
Oil Slick report and · scrutinize all current Royalty Rate Reductions and rescind them as appropriate.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-57
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
21 No Coal in Oakland
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
20 207.0300.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Federal subsidies to Bowie/Wolverine: 1. $30 million expenditure of MLA funds for a coal mine road. In the fall of 2013, the state of Utah completed the
Quitchupah Creek road connecting the SUFCO mine with State Route 10 a few miles south of Emery. This 11-mile road cuts haul distances to the Hunter power
plant by 46 miles for up to 250 trucks a day and likely was responsible for Bowie's securing the contract to supply Hunter. The road's $30 million cost was
covered by the state's Permanent Community Impact Fund Board (CIB) which is charged with distributing MLA funds to local communities. Instead of addressing
the increased local needs caused by mining operations on federal lands, such as sewers, fire trucks, etc., this large project facilitated lower-priced coal sales and
thus greater mining activity. The Utah CIB has a pattern of diverting MLA funds from local public services and facilities to fossil fuel development projects. This
behavior drew frank criticism in a 2020 performance audit by the State Legislative Auditor General as well as a recent report citing continued abuses after the
audit.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
22 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
With the Hunter purchase contract in hand, SUFCO Mine was able to convince the Forest Service and the BLM to approve a new underground coal lease
(Greens Hollow), with 55.7 million tons of recoverable coal. The various environmental assessments completely avoided assessing the expected global warming
impact of burning the coal, rebuffing many public comments. They also ignored the global warming, water, and air quality impacts of transporting the coal any
farther than the nearby Hunter power plant.[x]
[x] The December 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement by the BLM and the Forest Service in
cooperation with Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). Pages 281-2 address climate change and essentially say that an evaluation of
the impact on climate of the 55.7 million tons of coal added with this lease expansion cannot be performed, and that because most of the coal goes to the Hunter
power plant, which will likely continue burning the same amount of coal yearly either from SUFCO or from an alternative source once SUFCO coal runs out, the
55.7 million additional tons of coal do not increase GHG emissions. 44 public comments were submitted about the need to address the global warming impact. In
response: "Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, there would be no net change on coal production levels. The current production of the mine would
continue" [but for 8.8 to 10 additional years] (p. 351) " There is ... limited scientific capability in Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract 352 Final Environmental
Impact Statement assessing, detecting, or measuring the relationship between emissions of GHGs from a specific single source and any localized impacts. As such,
the impacts of GHG emissions, such as CO2 and methane, are not further discussed in the DEIS." (pp. 351-2) "The BLM does not authorize the burning of coal by
issuing a lease for federal coal. While the BLM recognizes that the burning of coal by potential end users will have indirect impacts, it is beyond the scope of this
EIS." (p. 352) Added to some other responses: "The BLM acknowledges that the burning of the coal is a probable indirect impact that is a reasonable progression
of the mining activity and that there will be greenhouse gases from the burning of coal. However, it is not within the scope of this EIS to address impacts from
ultimate end users." (p. 370) and: "CO2 is not a listed criteria pollutant and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not been specifically associated with threat to
species. While the BLM acknowledges that atmospheric CO2 concentrations may be an indirect threat to species on a broader scale due to its global warming
potential, it is not discussed further than Section 4.13.3.6 in this Final EIS for the reasons cited in the response to Comment GCC-1. "(p. 371)
[x] The February
2015 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Leasing and Underground Mining of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract by BLM, US
Forest Service, in cooperation with OSMRE.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
22(continued) 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
The air quality evaluation included impacts only in the local analysis area (p. 135) and compared leasing the 55.7 million additional tons of coal only with continued
combustion of coal at the same rate at the Hunter Power Plant but hauled in from farther away. (p. 284) There was no consideration of a transition to sustainable
energy sources, despite the statement later in the report that "Utah GHG reduction goal is to reduce emissions to 2005 levels by 2020, which would be a 28
percent reduction." (p. 145) Even the local impacts are evaluated without the benefit of local air monitoring: "The analysis area is classified as attainment for all
criteria pollutants. No state monitoring stations exist near the analysis area, [sic] background air quality levels, therefore, are based on data from surrounding
areas and information provided by the state (Utah DEQ 2008)." (p. 140)For the same reasons cited in the FEIS, "climate change analysis for the purpose of this
document is limited to accounting and disclosing of factors that contribute to climate change," (p. 285) such as that SUFCO is expected to represent
approximately 0.1% of global coal production (p. 145) and that "the end user(s) of the coal produced from the tract would emit 24 million tons of CO2 per year
(21.8 million metric tons). This value represents 0.067 percent of the total CO2 emissions from 2011 global fossil fuel combustion." (p. 286)
[x] The 2015
Forest Service Record of Decision consenting to the lease makes no mention of the climate or air quality impacts of facilitating the mining, transporting, and
burning of "about 55.7 million tons" of coal, stating only, "Analysis indicated that air quality would be minimally impacted".
[x] The January 2018 Supplemental
Environmental Assessment by OSMRE acknowledged that "approximately 50 percent or less" of SUFCO coal was being exported, but, stating that analyzing the
impacts would be "too speculative," assigned zero impact to the global warming, water, and air quality impacts of transporting the coal any farther than the nearby
Hunter power plant despite allowing export to continue without limitation. (p. 6) Each page footer is "December 2017", but the document is "Dated 01/04/2018"
according to the Document Library.
[x] An April, 2018 OSMRE Supplemental EA recalculated SUFCO coal exports to be almost none; Bowie apparently
reassigned the source of its millions of tons of exported coal to its Skyline Mine.
The April, 2018 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE) Supplemental Environmental Assessment addressed public demands to include coal combustion emission impacts, saying, "this dynamic squarely presents
the question whether OSMRE could or would deny the mine plan modification on the basis of the effects of coal combustion....[C]oal supply is fundamentally the
domain of the Secretary in leasing policy rather than OSMRE.... Policy changes should be developed through programmatic changes or rulemakings rather than
individual applications." We urge the Secretary to direct OSMRE and other agencies to include the impacts of combustion as well as transport in all Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements.
Lisella
Maria
60 N/A
6 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Reject the proposed expansion of the Alton coal mine near Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah. The Alton expansion, which was paused under President
Obama and approved under President Trump, is now squarely in the hands of President Biden for further review. Located on public lands just 10 miles from the
iconic landscapes of Bryce Canyon National Park, this is the wrong place and the wrong time for one more coal mine. We can't afford another 72 million tons of
greenhouse gas emissions, and allowing the mine to go forward would have devastating impacts on the southern-most Greater sage-grouse in North America and
on the millions of people who enjoy Bryce Canyon National Park every year.
C-58
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Lish
Christopher
Organization
Letter # Name
175 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
12 207.0300.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Specific Coal Lease Applications
4. Reject the proposed expansion of the Alton coal mine near Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah.
The Alton expansion, which was paused under President
Obama and approved under the subsequent administration, is now squarely in the hands of President Biden for further review. Located on public lands just ten
miles from the iconic landscapes of Bryce Canyon National Park, this is the wrong place and the wrong time for one more coal mine. We can't afford another 72
million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and allowing the mine to go forward would have devastating impacts on the southern-most Greater sage-grouse in
North America and on the millions of people who enjoy Bryce Canyon NP every year.
Lucas
Mitchell
157 N/A
5 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Reject the proposed expansion of the Alton coal mine near Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah.
The Alton expansion, which was paused under President
Obama and approved under President Trump, is now squarely in the hands of President Biden for further review. Located on public lands just ten miles from the
iconic landscapes of Bryce Canyon National Park, this is the wrong place and the wrong time for one more coal mine. We can't afford another 72 million tons of
greenhouse gas emissions, and allowing the mine to go forward would have devastating impacts on the southern-most Greater sage-grouse in North America and
on the millions of people who enjoy Bryce Canyon NP every year.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
22 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Law Program
B. The Secretary Should Cancel Unlawfully Approved Leases. In addition to pausing new leases, the Secretary should use its authority to cancel existing coal
leases that federal courts have remanded to BLM based on inadequate NEPA compliance. See 43 C.F.R. § 3108.3(d) (leases may be cancelled if "improperly
issued"). These include the recently remanded lease for the Alton coal mine in Utah, see Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env't v. BLM, No. 2:19-cv-00256-DBB,
2021 WL 1140247, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 24, 2021), and all leases for which a federal court may in the future find BLM's NEPA review to have been unlawful.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
24 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
In July 2018, by way of a lease by application approval, BLM approved an expansion of the Alton coal mine a few miles from the entrance to Bryce Canyon in
Utah. The approval authorized expansion of an existing mine onto more than 2,000 acres of public land and mineral estate, which would mean an additional
roughly 16 years of strip mining yielding 30 million tons of coal. In March 2021, the Federal District Court in Utah invalidated BLM's EIS based on its
failure to
adequately consider the indirect and cumulative climate impacts of the mine expansion. In particular, the court criticized BLM's failure to provide a balanced
analysis of the cost of the 72 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the additional mined coal, as compared with the purported economic
benefits that were heavily emphasized in the FEIS. On remand, BLM should correct its climate analysis and exercise its authority to cancel the Alton coal lease.
The mine expansion, by BLM's own admission, could result in the loss of the southernmost population of Greater Sage-Grouse in North America. More than
200,000 public comments opposed the expansion - more than any other coal mine (that we're aware of) in U.S. history - and at one time the National Park
Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, and Hopi Tribe all urged BLM to select the No Action alternative. New USGS research, released March 31, 2021, confirmed that
Greater Sage-Grouse leks (breeding grounds), in particular those at the periphery of the range, are at significant risk in the coming decades.37 [Footnote 37
USGS, New Research Highlights Decline of Greater Sage-Grouse in the American West, Provides Roadmap to Aid Conservation (Mar. 31, 2021),
https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-research-highlights-decline-greater-sage-grouse-american-west-provides-roadmap-aid?qt-news_science_products=1#qtnews_science_products. Abstract attached as Exhibit 15.]
On remand, BLM must correct its faulty analysis of costs and benefits, and in doing so should
reconsider the authorization and deny it. Of first order, the Administration is required by the court's decision to replace the skewed and misleading emphasis on
purported economic benefits of the project with a clear-eyed comparison of those limited benefits side-by-side with the enormous economic costs associated
with the project's greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, the Administration should employ the Social Cost of Carbon, which, as Secretary Haaland recently
affirmed "can be a useful measure to assess the climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions changes for Federal proposed actions, in addition to rulemakings."38
[Footnote 38 Secretarial Order 3399, Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-Making
Process, sec. 5(b) (Apr. 16, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 16.]
Using this
Administration's interim social cost of carbon of $52/ton, as listed for 2021 carbon dioxide emissions in the recent interim social cost technical support
document, the 72 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that would result from mining and burning
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-59
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
24(continued) 207.0300.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Alton coal over a 16-year period would cause a staggering $3.7 billion in climate damages.39 [Footnote 39 Interagency Working Group, Technical Support
Law Program
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide (February 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 17.] . Those harms, of course, are paid
by the public - not the mining company. This Administration can and should deny the mine lease authorization to avoid these harms - as well as the severe
potential harm to the affected Greater Sage Grouse population and other significant impacts of putting an enormous strip mine on the doorstep of a popular
national park. In addition to cancelling all unlawfully issued leases, BLM should re-evaluate coal-leasing levels in the Buffalo and Miles City Resource Management
Plans which, under the Trump
administration, failed to consider the reduction or elimination of coal leasing in the Powder River Basin. In 2018, the District of
Montana held that BLM violated NEPA in part by refusing to consider any alternative that reduced the amount of coal available for leasing in the Powder River
Basin in Montana and Wyoming under the Buffalo and Miles City Resources Management Plans (RMPs). WORC v. BLM, No. 16-21-GFF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470
(D. Mont. 2018). "BLM's failure to consider any alternative that would decrease the amount of extractable coal available for leasing rendered inadequate the
Buffalo EIS and Miles City EIS in violation of NEPA." Id. at *9. In particular, the Court directed BLM to go through a revised coal screening process to consider
climate change impacts of alternatives. Id. at *15. In November 2019, BLM finalized Records of Decision for revised NEPA analysis for both the Buffalo and Miles
City RMPs, but again refused to consider reduced coal leasing alternatives, reasoning again that its analysis was constrained to the specific resource considerations
enumerated in the coal screening process, which exclude climate.40 [Footnote 40 BLM, Buffalo Field Office, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, at 314 (2019); BLM, Miles City Field Office, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, at 3-13 (2019).]
BLM's litigation position, if upheld by the court, would
create a significant new legal hurdle to BLM's future revision of RMPs to limit leasing to minimize climate impacts from coal production from public minerals. To
avoid such an unnecessary constraint on BLM's discretion, BLM should request a voluntary remand from the court to re-open the NEPA process to analyze
alternatives that reduce and eliminate federal coal leasing in the Buffalo and Miles City field offices. Such analysis should fully analyze the impacts of coal production
from federally controlled mineral reserves in line with recent direction from the Biden Administration, and Department of the Interior in particular, with respect
to incorporation of social costs of carbon in NEPA reviews.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
23 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
In July 2018, by way of a lease by application approval, BLM approved an expansion of the Alton coal mine a few miles from the entrance to Bryce Canyon in
Utah. The approval authorized expansion of an existing mine onto more than 2,000 acres of public land and mineral estate, which would mean an additional
roughly 16 years of strip mining yielding 30 million tons of coal. In March 2021, the Federal District Court in Utah invalidated BLM's EIS based on its
failure to
adequately consider the indirect and cumulative climate impacts of the mine expansion. In particular, the court criticized BLM's failure to provide a balanced
analysis of the cost of the 72 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the additional mined coal, as compared with the purported economic
benefits that were heavily emphasized in the FEIS. On remand, BLM should correct its climate analysis and exercise its authority to cancel the Alton coal lease.
The mine expansion, by BLM's own admission, could result in the loss of the southernmost population of Greater Sage-Grouse in North America. More than
200,000 public comments opposed the expansion - more than any other coal mine (that we're aware of) in U.S. history - and at one time the National Park
Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, and Hopi Tribe all urged BLM to select the No Action alternative. New USGS research, released March 31, 2021, confirmed that
Greater Sage-Grouse leks (breeding grounds), in particular those at the periphery of the range, are at significant risk in the coming decades.37 [Footnote 37
USGS, New Research Highlights Decline of Greater Sage-Grouse in the American West, Provides Roadmap to Aid Conservation (Mar. 31, 2021),
https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-research-highlights-decline-greater-sage-grouse-american-west-provides-roadmap-aid?qt-news_science_products=1#qtnews_science_products. Abstract attached as Exhibit 15.]
On remand, BLM must correct its faulty analysis of costs and benefits, and in doing so should
reconsider the authorization and deny it. Of first order, the Administration is required by the court's decision to replace the skewed and misleading emphasis on
purported economic benefits of the project with a clear-eyed comparison of those limited benefits side-by-side with the enormous economic costs associated
with the project's greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, the Administration should employ the Social Cost of Carbon, which, as Secretary Haaland recently
affirmed "can be a useful measure to assess the climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions changes for Federal proposed actions, in addition to rulemakings."38
[Footnote 38 Secretarial Order 3399, Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-Making
Process, sec. 5(b) (Apr. 16, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 16.]
C-60
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
23(continued) 207.0300.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Using this Administration's interim social cost of carbon of $52/ton, as listed for 2021 carbon dioxide emissions in the recent interim social cost technical support
Law Program
document, the 72 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that would result from mining and burning Alton coal over a 16-year period would cause a staggering
$3.7 billion in climate damages.39 [Footnote 39 Interagency Working Group, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
(February 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. Attached
as Exhibit 17.]
Those harms, of course, are paid by the public - not the mining company. This Administration can and should deny the mine lease authorization
to avoid these harms - as well as the severe potential harm to the affected Greater Sage Grouse population and other significant impacts of putting an enormous
strip mine on the doorstep of a popular national park. In addition to cancelling all unlawfully issued leases, BLM should re-evaluate coal-leasing levels in the Buffalo
and Miles City Resource Management Plans which, under the Trump
administration, failed to consider the reduction or elimination of coal leasing in the
Powder River Basin. In 2018, the District of Montana held that BLM violated NEPA in part by refusing to consider any alternative that reduced the amount of coal
available for leasing in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming under the Buffalo and Miles City Resources Management Plans (RMPs). WORC v. BLM,
No. 16-21-GFF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470 (D. Mont. 2018). "BLM's failure to consider any alternative that would decrease the amount of extractable coal available
for leasing rendered inadequate the Buffalo EIS and Miles City EIS in violation of NEPA." Id. at *9. In particular, the Court directed BLM to go through a revised
coal screening process to consider climate change impacts of alternatives. Id. at *15. In November 2019, BLM finalized Records of Decision for revised NEPA
analysis for both the Buffalo and Miles City RMPs, but again refused to consider reduced coal leasing alternatives, reasoning again that its analysis was constrained
to the specific resource considerations enumerated in the coal screening process, which exclude climate.40 [Footnote 40 BLM, Buffalo Field Office, Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, at 3-14 (2019); BLM, Miles City Field Office, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, at 3-13 (2019).]
BLM's litigation
position, if upheld by the court, would create a significant new legal hurdle to BLM's future revision of RMPs to limit leasing to minimize climate impacts from coal
production from public minerals.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
23(continued) 207.0300.00
Specific Coal Lease Applications
Law Program
To avoid such an unnecessary constraint on BLM's discretion, BLM should request a voluntary remand from the court to re-open the NEPA process to analyze
alternatives that reduce and eliminate federal coal leasing in the Buffalo and Miles City field offices. Such analysis should fully analyze the impacts of coal production
from federally controlled mineral reserves in line with recent direction from the Biden Administration, and Department of the Interior in particular, with respect
to incorporation of social costs of carbon in NEPA reviews.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
3 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Company
However, while the Federal Coal Leasing Program has reaped significant financial gains for the federal and state governments, it cannot be ignored that under the
significant financial obligations and burdens the program puts on industry nearly every single thermal coal producer in the United States has required bankruptcy
protection in just the last 6 years. The financial stress on the coal industry is in no small way a reflection of the significant imbalance of risk and reward in the
'partnership' between the US government and coal producers on federal land. As discussed further below, the coal producer must purchase the coal at fair market
value through a bid process, pay rental fees on the land after acquisition, and then pay a royalty on the value of the coal sold. That is in addition to the expense
incurred to develop the coal property, mine and process the coal, and sell the coal into the stream of commerce - all expenses which the government does not
incur.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
7 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Company
Surprisingly, arguments related to lease by application process (LBA) continue to be raised to support the contention that the Federal Coal Leasing Program fails
to ensure a fair return to the public. Critics of the LBA method assume, without any explanation, that in the absence of multiple bidders, lease sales are not
capable of producing bonus bids at fair market value. Their premise apparently is that competition among more bidders will bid the transaction value up to what
economists may refer to as the fundamental value. This might be true in theory, but in reality mineral asset and lease sales are successfully transacted for fair
market value with a single buyer. In 2011, groups in opposition to leasing federal coal submitted a petition for rulemaking calling for the abandonment of the LBA
method for lease sales (and for an imposition of carbon fees). BLM's 2011 denial of the petition comprehensively explained how the LBA method is competitive
and ensures receipt of fair market value. There is no evidence or rationale that explains why these factual and legal conclusions are no longer valid. Similarly, the
2014 GAO report did not repudiate its prior finding that the LBA process can achieve the objectives of ensuring fair market value from leases.3 (Footnote 3 See
GAO, MINERAL RESOURCES, Federal Coal Leasing Program, GAO/RECD-94-10. P.44 (Sept. 1994))
It also recognized that the BLM Handbook and guidance
follows generally accepted appraisal practices both in the U.S. and internationally. And it recognized that the diminished number of bidders for lease sales reflects
the maturation of the development of the federal coal basins and consolidation of the industry structure over time.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Company
9 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The environmental impacts from coal leasing and coal mining on federal lands, including impacts related to climate, are subject to multiple-and often redundantstages of environmental analysis before leasing and before mining. These federal and state reviews evaluate all relevant impacts to air, water, land, wildlife and their
habitat, and potential greenhouse gas emissions. The reviews are comprehensive and leave no gaps.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-61
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
11 207.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal leasing process
Additionally, when BLM accepts for consideration a lease application, it begins an analysis under the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) of potential
Company
environmental impacts of the proposed leasing action, including "reasonably foreseeable" direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of leasing coal. Each
Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA evaluates a full range of environmental considerations including: quantity and quality of water resources; aquifer
drawdown; impacts on streams and alluvial valley floors, air quality and associated effects on health and visibility; wildlife; endangered species; other land uses;
reclamation of disturbed lands, potential greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, a lessee must receive approval of a Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) mining plan that
ensures the maximum economic recovery of the coal resource. This review is accompanied by another environmental analysis under NEPA. Finally, a state
SMCRA permit application must be submitted and approved which includes a detailed operation and reclamation plan, monitoring, mitigation and reclamation
requirements. Mining operations must also receive permits related to air and water quality under state corollaries to the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
NTEC strongly believes that the combination of multiple environmental reviews at the federal level, through BLM and the Office of Surface Mining and
Reclamation Enforcement (OSMRE), and at the state level creates a protracted process with unnecessary redundancies and delays. Between the lease sale and
permitting process, federal and state agencies will often conduct three separate environmental reviews under NEPA and any applicable state environmental
review. The agencies need better coordination, cooperation, and joint planning to streamline the process and generate a well-supported environmental analysis.
The delay caused by multiple reviews denies the public of the time value of money from bonus bids, royalties and surface rentals.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
12 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Company
NTEC recommends that environmental review at the leasing stage be streamlined with the goal of simply identifying potential issues and integrating those issues
into the later OSMRE NEPA review at the permitting stage. This coordination and planning will expedite the lease NEPA review when information is scarce and
unrefined, but substantively improve and support later NEPA review processes during permitting when more in-depth investigation and analysis has occurred. By
streamlining the NEPA review process in this manner at the leasing stage, the public will receive the benefit of surface rentals and other consideration from an
approved lease and receive the benefit of thorough environmental review based upon concrete facts at the permitting stage.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
30 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Company
NTEC believes a thoughtful review of the currently structured Federal Coal Leasing Program will demonstrate its effectiveness, including providing a fair return to
the public. NTEC believes efforts need to be made to make the Federal Coal Leasing Program more efficient by reducing redundancies, make federal coal more
competitive and bring in more revenue sooner. These changes include:
- Reducing federal coal royalty rates to bring them closer to parity with the prevailing rates charged on private coal lands.
- Streamlining environmental review at the leasing stage to avoid delaying the payment of lease bonus bids, surface rentals and production royalties. Lease sales are
now taking six to seven years to complete in many cases. The extensive NEPA analysis conducted to date in the various coal regions should allow DOI to deploy
various options under NEPA to rely on and build upon that analysis. Eliminating redundancies in the environmental analysis and review of MLA mining plans and
SMCRA permits.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
8 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Resource Council
The current BLM regulatory scheme for federal coal leasing was developed in the 1970s, with a principal objective "to promote the timely and orderly
development of publicly owned coal resources," and to "ensure that coal deposits are leased at their fair market value." 43 C.F.R. § 3420.02. The scheme
envisioned that most coal would be leased through a regional leasing approach, under which "regional coal teams" would engage in a detailed planning process and
recommend "coal production regions" as appropriate for leasing. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 3400.4, 3400.5. Based on those recommendations and other information
(including, e.g., the "demand for coal and industry interest," "coal production goals," energy needs, and the "potential economic, social and environmental effects of
leasing on the region"), the Secretary would establish regional leasing levels, and areas within the production regions would be made available for leasing. See
generally 43 C.F.R Part 3420.
Unfortunately, BLM has not followed this process or otherwise engaged in a systematic and planned approach to federal coal
leasing. Indeed, the Powder River Basin was decertified as a coal region decades ago, and there are currently no certified coal production regions.6
(footnote 6
While the Powder River Basin (PRB) "Regional Coal Team" still exists, the agency has not relied on its recommendations to engage in regional lease planning in
the PRB.)
Instead, for decades coal leasing has proceeded under an alternative "leasing by application" (LBA) track, whereby the coal companies themselves
identify federal coal they would like to exploit and file coal leasing applications for access to those resources. See 43 C.F.R. Part 3245. This approach was intended
to be the exception, not the rule - in no small part because it largely takes control of federal coal leasing out of the agency's hands and puts it into the hands of the
mining companies.7
(footnote 7 While, in theory, BLM RMPs, provide BLM with an opportunity to evaluate whether areas with mining potential should be open
for leasing, in practice they have not provided a framework for BLM to make affirmative and informed decisions about where, and on what terms, coal leasing may
be appropriate as BLM defers all coal leasing screens to the time of a LBA. The Buffalo (WY) Field Office, for example, did not apply any leasing screens limiting
where coal could be leased when revising its Resource Management Plan in 2015. BLM's Buffalo (WY) RMP and Miles City (MT) Field Office RMP, which cover
federal coal in the Powder River Basin, are the subject of ongoing litigation for this very reason.)
Even in a LBA system, BLM has the authority to determine that
certain areas are unsuitable for mining. See id. § 3461.5. These unsuitability criteria include, inter alia, the presence of protected species or wetlands, wilderness
study areas, and designated scenic or historic areas. Id. BLM's regulations also allow screening out federal coal resources from leasing availability for any reason
the public interest may require, which is broad enough to encompass any number of factors, not the least of which is climate change.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
C-62
8(continued) 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
However, as discussed below, these criteria are woefully inadequate and rarely invoked, and BLM should carefully consider strengthening these criteria to protect
areas from coal development and to ensure prioritization of the public interest in the leasing process.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
105 207.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal leasing process
Changing lease terms
Resource Council
Under this alternative, BLM would consider changing lease terms to control the amount of coal produced by putting annual coal
production limits in coal leasing contracts. Like the carbon budget- measuring standard available to agencies for analyzing the significance of GHG emissions
discussed in previous sections, this would allow BLM to control the upper limit of federally leased coal, and therefore, to begin addressing the GHG pollution
associated with the lifecycle emissions of federally-produced coal. BLM should also consider incorporating into coal leases the authority to increase (but not
lower) rental and royalty fees over time, particularly if leases are going to continue to be given for decades-long periods. Providing additional flexibility in pricing
would allow BLM to ensure that coal leases continue to advance national objectives in the future based on new information that might not be available at the time
of the original lease, and to adjust for inflation over time.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
13 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Prohibit lease modifications in the new rules, by formally recognizing that they are not in the national interest, as not benefitting the US taxpayer.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
8 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Halt any coal lease auction that does not have more than one active bidder, as being non-competitive and unable to obtain the mandated fair-market value of the
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
15 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
coal.
In terms of methodologies, the regional planning process could draw on the policies, strategies and practices called for in Secretarial Order 3330, "Improving
Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of Interior," issued by Secretary Jewell in October 2013, and in the report of Interior's Energy and Climate
Change Task Force of April 2014, "A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of Interior." Landscape-scale approaches to
the development and conservation of resources could be applied as much as possible throughout the regional planning process. In addition, strategies that focus
on natural resources should be supplemented by methods of evaluating how socioeconomic conditions and energy infrastructure in the region are affected by coal
and alternative energy development. Addressing the needs of coal communities and workers and encouraging the efficient common use of energy transmission
facilities by multiple sources of energy are among the topics that could be addressed in this process. The regional planning would be transparent and be assisted by
active public participation throughout.
Interior would need to develop policies and practices around the timing of decisions to offer for leasing planned tracts for
energy development. Timing decisions are significant for securing a fair return for the public as well as effectively implementing mitigation strategies for
development.
Once offered for leasing, Interior should adapt for its use the transparent process used by Montana to lease its Otter Creek coal tracts. An
appraisal process would yield a proposed minimum bid that would be subject to public hearings and comment. After the public process, Interior would decide and
announce the minimum bid it had set for the tract and would proceed to solicit proposals for leasing. Although bids would be submitted in a sealed process, they
would be opened and announced publicly. Decisions by Interior to accept bids, along with their terms and amounts, would likewise be released publicly.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
10 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The BLM established two processes for the leasing of coal in 1979. In the regional leasing process, BLM identifies the coal tracts for leasing. The second process,
known as the lease by application process, is based upon public nominations of potential coal lease tracts. The two pathways are rather different but they touch all
the same points en route to issuing federal coal leases. Each process was designed to accomplish a number of things including, but not limited to assuring fair
market value, promoting competition, eliminating speculative leasing, and promoting diligent lease development. All of these things are still done today in this
"decertified" coal leasing process. By the late 1980's the Department of Interior elected to adopt the lease by application process in many of the major coal mining
regions of the county. This change was made for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most compelling reason was that the regional leasing process was determined
to be inadequate because many lease tracts identified by BLM received no bids at all yet the country was being urged toward energy independence. In moving
from the regional leasing process to the lease by application process, BLM decertified areas for the purpose of introducing the lease by application (LBA) process.
The term "decertified" was an inaccurate and unfortunate choice of words. Apparently, some opponents of federal coal leasing want us to believe this means that
some amount of control, evaluation, or involvement by the government overseers was given up. The fact is that no protections were lost and no opportunities or
control were given away by the Department of Interior when they transitioned from the regional leasing process to the lease by application process. Critics who
make this claim today cannot cite any facts to support their position. In this scoping process, BLM should evaluate and confirm that the two processes have very
similar requirements. Moreover, BLM should evaluate the Wyoming State BLM Office coal leasing program. You will find that this state office has configured their
coal leasing program precisely as the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and subsequent rulemakings intended. If other states have not, this is no
reason to abandon a program which has brought billions of dollars to the American taxpayer.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
12 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Competition in the leasing process is a function of many factors that fall completely outside the purview of the BLM. To believe that BLM can guarantee
competition through rule-making is absurd, suggesting the BLM somehow controls or has sufficient influence over the national and international coal markets, coal
transportation, coal sales and so forth. By definition and rule, the American taxpayer receives a fair return (fair market value or above) on the resource whether
there is one bid or many bids. What the BLM can do in their rules is to assure that the rules governing the U.S. federal coal leasing process do not discourage
competition or coal production.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
13 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Current BLM rules have requirements which were designed to prohibit speculation in the federal coal leasing process. This is seen in the rules at 43 CFR Subpart
3483 which require and quantify diligent lease development. Claims that the United States coal industry speculates with federal coal leases have no factual basis,
and the BLM does not need a moratorium or a 3-year evaluation to reach that conclusion. The BLM's scoping report should confirm this fact.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-63
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Deti
Travis
Organization
Letter # Name
3 Wyoming Mining Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
20 207.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal leasing process
The federal coal leasing program is a rigorous, cumbersome, very lengthy, and therefore a very costly program that sets a high bar for those who would choose to
participate. The federal coal leasing program requires considerable capital to participate thereby discouraging some otherwise interested and qualified companies
from participating. Participation requires up-front investments of millions-to-over a billion dollars for significant periods of time before a return is ever realized.
This severely limits the number of entities interested in or even capable of participating in the program. Leasing federal coal is only one piece of a much larger
program that is designed to provide a financial return on the coal to the American taxpayer. For the American taxpayer to realize the full value of the coal, it must
be not only leased, but also mined and sold. In Wyoming, for example, it can typically take five to seven years to successfully acquire a lease for federal coal. At
the point of being identified as the successful lessee, a bidder on federal coal will have invested millions of dollars with no return on the investment. At least
another three-to-five years are still required to obtain permits and other authorizations before the coal can actually be mined and sold. During those "permitting"
years the mining company will invest many millions more, with no return. By the time the first ton of coal is authorized to be mined, at least ten years will have
typically passed. The coal lessee will have invested a staggering sum of money including the bonus bid on the lease. So the American taxpayer will have begun to
realize a return on the resource, but the coal lessee will not have realized any return on the enormous investment. The size of this investment is critical. On a
lease of 500 million tons of coal (for example), the investment when the final permit is issued could be in excess of $650 million. Most of that is in the form of the
lease bonus bid which gets distributed to the federal government and the affected state. There are not too many companies that are willing to risk an investment
of that magnitude for at least ten years, with no near-term return on the investment. Moreover, the size of the lease, and therefore the size of the investment, is
a function of the time it takes to acquire the next lease. If it takes 10 years to navigate through the leasing/permitting process, a company must always ensure it
has more than 10 years of reserves in order to survive the uncertainties of the program. In other words, because of the length of time it takes to negotiate the
process, few entities can afford to participate.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
22 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The investment in a lease is but a small part of the total investment required to mine coal and places limits on those who would choose to participate. Obtaining
a federal coal lease without having the means to mine, process or ship the coal is like getting all dressed up with nowhere to go. The cost of obtaining a federal
coal lease represents only a portion of the investment required to mine coal. In order to mine coal for commercial purposes, an operator needs access to mining,
processing, maintenance and transportation facilities, equipment and personnel. This means hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in facilities, equipment
and employees. Taken in combination with the cost of the coal, these up-front investments represent the billion-dollar ante required to participate in the federal
coal leasing process. The majority of this ante occurs prior to mining a single ton of the coal in a new proposed lease tract. The significance of this is not only the
sheer magnitude of the investment, but also the risk associated with the investment. This may be the greatest fact that limits the number of entities who may have
the desire to participate in the process. It also discourages speculation in federal coal leases, contrary to claims in recent articles on this subject.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
24 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Finally, the federal coal leasing process is inherently risky even without the long-term investment. At any time in the process, the BLM can conclude on the basis
of public comment or information collected that some or all of the projected lease area is unsuitable for mining. Indeed, we have seen proposed lease boundaries
change during the process. The NEPA process on leasing alone has no less than three opportunities for input or comment and one for appeal. These opportunities
have been used religiously by some and prolifically by others to influence the process and sometimes to delay or obstruct the process. The ultimate leasing
decision may be appealed administratively and through the courts. Again, we have seen this used often, and there are even incentives to collect federal funds for
appealing federal decisions. Appeals delay the process, at a minimum, and may overturn the agency's action altogether. Lastly, the process is a competitive process
and there is no guarantee that the applicant for a lease will be the successful bidder, or that the bid will exceed fair market value. Indeed, several instances of both
of these outcomes have occurred in the Powder River Basin.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
25 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
In conclusion, please consider in your scoping process that there are few if any programs in the United States for which the participant pays a higher price and
takes a more significant financial risk. Acquisition of a federal coal lease, and authorization to mine, is at least a decade-long process and involves the expenditure
of hundreds of millions, sometimes billions of dollars without a guarantee of success. The successful lessee requires millions upon millions of dollars of investment
in mining, processing, storage and transportation facilities, not to mention the ongoing costs of employees, materials and supplies to operate the facilities. And
once successful with a new lease, the lessee earns the right to pay additional royalties, taxes and fees imposed by all levels of government. This is hardly the kind
of program that attracts multiple participants. It is not the kind of process that BLM can, through regulatory changes, suddenly attract multiple participants. And
yet, for the reasons listed above, it is a program that has worked to provide federal coal resources for the American utility industry and revenue for the American
taxpayer for the past 30-40 years.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
37 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Should the Interior Department pursue its review of this vital program, we believe it is imperative to look at areas where actual improvements can be made to
make the program better. We support addressing the lengthy and costly timeframe for acquiring and processing coal leases, determination of fair market value,
and increased transparency. BLM is charged under the Mineral Leasing Act with ensuring the resource is managed responsibly, and we hope that it would take
steps to ensure that political efforts to use the Coal Lease Program to further burden industry and curb coal use are avoided. The BLM Federal Coal Lease
Program creates great value for taxpayers and those who rely on affordable electricity. No one is being shortchanged. While there may be room for process
improvement, continuing the program is certainly in the best interest of Wyoming and the United States.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
9 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The current leasing model accomplishes what it set out to do. While there may be other ideas that will be considered, BLM needs to first evaluate the efficacy of
the charges and allegations that have led to this moratorium and programmatic evaluation. WMA contends that the current model is suitable and flexible enough
to address any legitimate concerns that have been voiced, but that most of the issues and concerns are not legitimate with regard to leasing. They are instead a
smoke screen for those who believe coal extraction and use can and should be eliminated.
C-64
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Deti
Travis
Organization
Letter # Name
3 Wyoming Mining Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
17 207.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal leasing process
BLM must disclose the absurdity of the belief that they can guarantee competition in the leasing process through rulemaking. Instead BLM must assure that the
current rules do not discourage competition. In fact, BLM must reach the conclusion that their determination of an undisclosed fair market value actually works as
competition, driving bids up to ensure this threshold is met or exceeded.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
18 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
BLM must consult their files for compliance with the regulatory citations above to reveal that any attempts to engage in speculation have been properly dealt with.
BLM also needs to review their lease records regarding diligent development to conclude that diligence has occurred in the vast majority of leases, and where it
has not, the proper remedies were applied. In short, the BLM needs to conclude and to publish the findings that the 1976 statutory fixes to speculation were
successful. Further fixes are unnecessary.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
19 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Many of the opponents of the current leasing program have called for increasing royalties and fair market value as the means for increasing competition for federal
coal leases. They allege that the program is broken because, on many occasions, only one bid has been submitted for a lease. They do not recognize that
participation in the program is largely a statement about the cost to participate in the process. It is not a deficiency of the program. Moreover, it is ludicrous to
believe that BLM can or should create rules and a leasing program that will increase competition.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
21 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
If, the BLM concludes that the foregoing explanation requires fixing, then the BLM must also conclude that increasing royalties or fair market value of the coal will
not be the fix to the absence of competitiveness. In fact, the BLM should conclude that increasing royalties or fair market value will further exacerbate the
perceived problem. Instead the agency needs to evaluate ways to dramatically cut the elapsed time between applying for a lease and obtaining all authorizations to
mine the coal. This will have the added benefit of accelerating the full return on the resource to the American taxpayer. To reduce the elapsed time, BLM must
consider the consolidation of leasing and permitting processes into the hands of fewer agencies. They must evaluate means for eliminating the overlapping
requirements and redundant processes. And finally they must consider revising processes that have become attractive as delay tactics by those opposed to coal
leasing and mining. Too much of the process today serves not to enhance the leasing process, but instead to facilitate unending delay to the process at increasing
cost to the American taxpayer.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
29 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The federal leasing process in Wyoming can take five to seven years to complete. Not a single dime is made by an operator on the leasing of coal. Yet leasing is
the single largest cost of the multi-step federal coal program, much of which is administered by the Department of Interior. Leasing is also the single most timeconsuming step of the total process which often consumes a decade or more. Leasing does not disturb the ground, does not remove the coal, does not transport
the coal and most certainly does not burn the coal. The Department of Interior spends a lot of time evaluating the impacts of all of these activities, and very little
time evaluating the cost of the leasing process. This is the opportunity to evaluate the process by asking some of the following questions. During the five to seven
years of leasing, how many employees with BLM get involved, and at what cost, on a per ton basis? What are the secondary and tertiary costs of the program? For
example, what other Department of Interior employees, lawyers and multitudes of people in administrative and management positions become involved in the
program. The American taxpayer pays for them either directly in the form of taxes or indirectly in the form of user fees passed onto the consumer.
Fay
Alexa
85 N/A
3 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
We need to move past leasing lands to coal mining, and should not be approving any more coal projects while in a climate emergency.
Fields
Joshua
155 N/A
3 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Leases are sold at far below the market rate, the industry doesn't have to clean up the messes it makes
Green
Susan
161 N/A
8 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Lease renewal terms should prompt thorough new environmental reviews, as described above.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
12 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
BLM should offer no new leases or lease modifications expanding available coal.
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
8 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Program Direction for Lease Program: The lease program should concentrate on terminating existing leases, issuing no new ones and managing the cleanup
Economics and Financial
process. Moratorium activities should be designed to produce a program that recognizes the U.S. government's ownership of coal reserves on federal lands is
Analysis
entering a new period. The federal government owns these resources at a time when coal demand nationwide is declining. Market forces indicate continued
decline.
As an owner of a resource that is in a state of declining demand, the federal government needs to secure its financial interests and ensure an orderly
management of the reserves and the lease agreements governing coal production and distribution.
The basic program, going forward, should consider this
changing role and realign the partnership between private coal producers and the federal government's ownership interests.
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
9 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
No new leases are required for the foreseeable future.
1 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The administration should not spend any time reforming the coal leasing process because there is no more need for new coal leases.
11 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Early terminations should initially be voluntary, but the Department of the Interior should consider stronger actions in the event of low participation by coal
Economics and Financial
Analysis
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
Economics and Financial
Analysis
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
Economics and Financial
lessees.
Analysis
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
Sense
December 2021
2 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Under the current system, the coal industry has effective control over much of the federal leasing process, leading to a largely opaque process that does not
obtain fair market value. The federal coal program's lack of transparency has led to decades of revenue losses from the sale of federal coal.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-65
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Huang
Mia
Organization
Letter # Name
4 Taxpayers for Common
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
6 207.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal leasing process
Lease-by-Application ("LBA"). The LBA system eliminates the formal process by which the regulations anticipate BLM would set leasing levels - a process that
Sense
involved extensive public participation and directed the consideration of many facets of the coal resource, uses of the public lands, and current and future market
factors. Under the LBA system, the BLM allows coal companies to play a large role in delineating tracts for leasing - a process that typically results in tracts that do
not generate competitive bids. The reason: The location and configuration of a given tract limit its appeal only to the one company that applied for the tract to be
sold.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
1 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Sense
For decades the federal coal program has been riddled with problems that have led to taxpayers losing valuable revenue year after year. TCS has tracked,
monitored, and scrutinized actions of the federal coal program, sounding the alarm in testimony, reports, policy briefs, and in other communications with the
Department of the Interior, Congress, and the public. The bottom line is that in the existing system, our nation's coal has been substantially undervalued and
substantial liabilities have been passed on to taxpayers.
Jackson
Lisa
412 N/A
207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
11 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
2
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
Implement a new lease renewal process that has strong environmental reviews* and ensures production atthe mine is economically viable with true external costs
accounted for.
The BLM should revise the lease renewal process. * Lease renewal terms should prompt thorough new environmental reviews, as described above. * If a
renewal is granted, the BLM should exercise its authority to adjust rents, conditions, and royalties to capture all currently externalized costs. * If continued
production is no longer economical for a company, it should leave the remainder of the coal undisturbed and start the reclamation process.
Maguire
Matt
8 N/A
12 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Any new leases should be for a term not exceeding one year.
Maguire
Matt
8 N/A
8 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
If coal production and leases are not ended, revise the lease renewal process.
Olson
Julia
3 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
As trustee over all federal public lands and the mineral estate beneath those lands, the federal government, through the Secretary, the Department of the Interior
18 Our Children's Trust
and the BLM have no legal obligation to continue leasing coal through the Federal coal program, but you do have a duty to comply with the Constitution and the
Public Trust Doctrine and not knowingly and affirmatively deprive children and future generations of a livable climate and their health and safety, which would
occur through further and ongoing leasing of federal public lands for coal extraction.
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
17 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
9 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Not only must all new coal leasing and extraction cease, all coal fired power plants must also be shut down this decade. BLM must ensure that its coal leasing
program follows the advice of what experts say are needed to decarbonize the national energy system.
The environmental impacts associated with coal mining on water resources, air quality, wildlife, and other land uses such as grazing and recreation are already
addressed under a variety of laws, including those cited in these comments. All of these issues are addressed during the land use planning process and associated
NEPA analysis, again at the lease application and associated NEPA analysis stages and further at the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
("OSMRE") mine plan approval and associated NEPA analysis. Further, if the surface lands are managed by a separate Federal Agency (in most cases the USDA
National Forest Service), that agency also goes through the required NEPA analysis and issues a separate Decision Record on whether or not to consent to
leasing. Any potential inadequacy in analyzing the impacts on these resources is not a result of lack of mechanisms or procedures during the leasing process, but
rather inadequate preparation of NEPA analyses by BLM or other Federal Agencies. These are issues that cannot be addressed or improved through the PEIS.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
19 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Wolverine was encouraged by the NEPA timelines and page restrictions implemented in 2017. Although they have now been dismissed by the current
administration, the limit on the time it takes and pages in a NEPA analysis help to keep applications moving forward. Wolverine proposes reinstating time
limitations for NEPA analysis. Instead of the clock starting from the time a notice of intent is published, the time limits should commence on the day the
application is submitted. Far too often, BLM would sit on an application without starting NEPA analysis until a draft EA or EIS is almost complete, virtually voiding
any effort to keep to the timelines implemented in 2017. Page limitations also need to be implemented similar to the 2017 NEPA guidelines. These limits should be
applied to the entire NEPA document, including the appendices. Having a shorter NEPA document helps to keep the public informed, while keeping the scope of
the analysis to a manageable and reasonable scale. Presently, the only deadlines are various statutory and regulatory minimums. There are very few
maximums.Further, BLM needs to work on imposing strict deadlines for the time it takes to approve publications in the Federal Register. It is apparent that
anytime a publication with the word "coal" requires approval for the Federal Register, it sits in limbo for many months. There should be a [auto-markup:Request
for Comment Extension]30-day[auto-markup end] deadline from the time a publication leaves a state office until it must be submitted into the Federal Register. If
any approval is delayed during this [auto-markup:Request for Comment Extension]30-day[auto-markup end] period, it shall automatically move on to publication.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
20 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Competition for lease bids comes from two options. One is where a tract is located strategically between two existing operations, where the tract could be
economically mined as part of an existing operation. The other option to encourage competitive bids is for greenfield projects. With the current market drive to
utilize renewable energy, and the environmental influence from catastrophic climate change alarmists, there is little interest in the capital-intensive investment for
a greenfield project for the foreseeable future. With the limited expansion of coal as a reliable energy resource, few coal operators are looking to construct
greenfield mines to maintain contractual obligations. The intense capital investment required to construct a new mine facility and to acquire an LBA large enough
to justify the infrastructure investment make greenfield projects uneconomic. As earlier stated, most leasing is for maintenance tracts to maintain production rates
at existing mines. While problems exist in the fair market valuation process, it is still the best tool to ensure a fair return to the American taxpayer for leasing
maintenance tracts.
C-66
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pollastro
Carson
Organization
Letter # Name
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
27 207.0400.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal leasing process
In general, coal operators apply for new leases at roughly their depletion rate. What this means is, they bid or lease only when they need to. Frequently there may
only be one interested bidder. The interested company has already invested in the infrastructure to develop the mine and is now seeking to lease adjacent
reserves; which is why the LBA is the optimal method for leasing coal resources. Creating arbitrary demand through lease timing restrictions, or regional lease
planning, fails to address operator needs in certain leases, and blindly assumes that regional planning and timing restrictions will result in increased competition and
"fair return." For the reasons discussed above, the LBA process must be carried forward.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
29 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
16 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
There is clearly room to improve the efficiency and duration of the leasing process to make it more nimble and less cumbersome for both the BLM and the
applicants.
The current Lease-by-Application ("LBA") system works well and is already defined by law and regulations. The majority of leasing today is for maintenance tracts
intended to sustain production at an existing mine. Starting a greenfield coal mine is far more capital-intensive than continuing an existing operation. It is thus that
a mine's specific status and needs determine the appropriate timing and size of coal leasing, and there is no evidence that such an assessment could be performed
on an aggregate leasing process through the PEIS.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
17 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
One of the biggest failures with the current leasing process is the extensive timeframes it takes from application to lease issuance. One example of this is when
Wolverine submitted the application for the Greens Hollow lease tract in 2005. After multiple NEPA analysis, objections, comments periods, delayed federal
register publications, and two attempts to advertise the sale, it was not until January of 2017, that the lease sale was held. Long leasing times have significant
economic consequences for mining operations. On the economic side, lengthy leasing processes increase administrative costs and require applicants to propose
larger leases to ensure that leased reserves are not exhausted by the time the next round of leasing, permitting, and mine planning can be completed. This
requires greater up-front bonus bid submissions, and longer times before that capital can be recovered. Economic pressure from large capital overhangs is one
significant factor in the distress experienced by the coal industry. Quicker leasing would allow the issuance of smaller, more efficient lease tracts, allowing the
industry to be nimbler in responding to economic trends and the needs of their utility and industrial customers.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
18 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
The PEIS should be expressly designed for tiering, both by BLM in leasing and OSMRE in mine planning. The PEIS itself would thus have a broad cumulative impact
analysis, but individual leasing decisions should have substantially more focused cumulative impact analyses than those urged by ENGO's. This ability to tier off a
cumulative analysis will allow for quicker turnaround on project scale leasing, and likely not require an EIS every time an LBA is submitted.
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
17 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Interior should eliminate "leasing by application."43
(footnote 43 Id. at 6.)
Interior's policy of allowing leasing by application in areas like the Powder River
at New York University
basin has allowed private coal companies to perpetuate an uncompetitive leasing market that fails to account for the environmental costs of coal extraction.44
School of Law
(footnote 44 Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value, supra note 5, at 4.)
Leasing by application permits companies to design their own lease boundaries and
determine where it is privately optimal to locate a mine. Yet in making these applications, companies do not consider important environmental externalities from
their leasing activities. Interior should instead engage in a regional planning process for lease sales that considers the environmental repercussions of coal leasing,
as is called for in the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976.45
(footnote 45 Id.)
This will ensure that the agency exerts more control over whether,
when, and where leasing occurs, which will provide for a more competitive leasing processing and better weigh the tradeoffs between competing land uses.46
(footnote 46 Priorities for Federal Coal Reform, supra note 4, at 7.)
For instance, Interior could identify opportunities to accelerate the transition from coal and
other fossil fuel production to renewable energy production on federal lands.47
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
20 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Law Program
(footnote 47 Id.)
Indeed, BLM must be guided by its statutory mandate to administer federal coal leasing in a manner that protects the Nation's "environmental, air and
atmospheric, [and] water resource[s]," 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8), takes into "account the long-term needs of future generations," and considers "the use of some land
for less than all of the resources" to accomplish these objectives. Id. § 1702(c). To that end, BLM's rules require that, "[a]n application for a lease shall be rejected
in total or in part if the authorized officer determines that ... leasing of the lands covered by the application, for environmental or other sufficient reasons, would
be contrary to the public interest." 43 CFR § 3425.1-8. In other words, coal leasing must not occur unless it is in the public interest.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
30 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
31 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Veditti
Karen
77 N/A
5 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Westkott
Marcia
9 207.0400.00
Coal leasing process
Reducing leasing delays that rob the public of the time value of money by delaying the payment of lease bonus bids, surface rentals and production royalties. Lease
sales take six to seven years to complete in many cases. The extensive NEPA analysis conducted to date in the various coal regions should allow DOI to deploy
various options under NEPA to rely and build upon that analysis.
Eliminating redundancies in the environmental analysis and review of MLA mining plans and SMCRA permits. There does not appear to be any purpose or
objective of the MLA mining plan that cannot be satisfied under the SMCRA permit operation and reclamation plan.
Please take every step possible to end federal coal leases. If that's not possible for legal reasons, at least make sure the leases are fairly costed to include all related
costs down the road.
154 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
December 2021
considering policy options that help to plan and manage the decline of federal coal leasing and development in an orderly, structured way that provides time,
space, and opportunity for a just and equitable transition for workers, communities, and coal-dependent state economies;
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-67
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
18 207.0500.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal bonding
Concerns over reclamation, especially self-bonding for reclamation, are sure to be raised again during the current Federal Coal Leasing Program review despite
Company
the fact that BLM does not oversee coal mine reclamation. OSMRE is the DOI agency with the authority over reclamation efforts and, consistent with SMCRA's
unique cooperative federalism approach, the state regulatory authorities generally have ultimate responsibility to ensure reclamation standards are met. Efforts to
restrict self-bonding conflict with SMCRA's statutory language that explicitly allows for self-bonding. It also disregards the flexibility SMRCA provides to allow
states to use their own expertise when developing their own state regulatory programs. SMCRA is designed to give states discretion to best manage their
regulatory programs in order to ensure reclamation. States are free to use OSMRE's standards, more stringent thresholds, or prohibit the use of self-bonds
altogether. As a result, states are highly invested in the proper implementation of self-bonding programs and best positioned to evaluate and make changes to their
programs moving forward. BLM has no ability to address self-bonding, and OSMRE does not have the authority to end self-bonding absent an amendment to
SMCRA. Additionally, SMCRA requires that reclamation occur as contemporaneously with mining as possible. Removing self-bonding as an option undermines the
contemporaneous reclamation objective of SMCRA, and as a consequence would actually be a net negative for achieving efficient, satisfactory reclamation
projects.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
24 207.0500.00
Coal bonding
Bonds held as part of the existing mining permit are the best and only means to ensure reclamation occurs at mine sites after mining has been completed. A viable
coal industry with support from the BLM and leadership in Washington makes this less of a risk to the taxpayer.Additional stipulations or regulations by the BLM
in this area would only add confusion to the process that already exists to address reclamation, and undoubtedly result in a duplicate set of regulations.
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
10 207.0500.00
Coal bonding
Interior should revise its coal leasing eligibility requirements to mandate that coal companies purchase bonds-effectively, insurance policies-that can be used to pay
at New York University
for reclamation if the company becomes insolvent. 40(footnote 40 Id. at 20.)
School of Law
compliance with bonding and reclamation requirements set out by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977.41(footnote 41 Id.) This greatly increases the
Coal companies currently can apply for leases without proving that they are in
financial risk to taxpayers from coal leasing, as companies can begin operations without posting any surety or collateral, only promising to pay once mining has
concluded. Because the bonds that coal companies post often fall short of what is required for reclamation, Interior should raise the required bond amount and
eliminate exceptions and loopholes in bonding requirements.42(footnote 42 Id. at 19-20.)
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
6 207.0600.00
Company
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue's (ONRR) coal valuation regulations also were frequently cited as justifying the 2016 PEIS efforts. While much has
royalties
transpired on that front, including revisions, repeals, replacements and litigation, inevitably this issue will be raised in comments for the 2021 review. NTEC
believes the currently applicable regulations (the return to the pre-2016 benchmark approach after NTEC's successful legal challenge to the 2106 rule2) (Footnote
2 NTEC continued Cloud Peak Energy's litigation regarding the 2016 coal valuation rule.) have proven effective and provided stable and very significant tax and
royalty revenue to both state and federal governments. The now-overturned 2016 ONRR valuation rule was an effort to punish vertical integration and apply a
coal royalty rate to logistics services. It was developed in response to allegations of royalty evasion and underpayment made by activist journalists and an anti-coal
funded think tank, Headwaters Economics. Subsequent investigations of the Federal Coal Leasing Program by the Government Accountability Office (February
2014) and the DOI Inspector General (June 2013) found no evidence of royalty evasion or underpayment and made no recommendations for changes to royalty
valuation methods. Moreover, a peer review of the Headwaters Economics advocacy pieces by Energy Venture Analysis showed that Headwaters' claims used
faulty data to arrive at very inaccurate and pre-determined conclusions. In reality, the existing regulations work well, earn huge returns for the American people,
and provide ONRR with the means to collect royalties effectively.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
5 207.0600.00
Company
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The suggestion that federal coal royalty rates do not provide a fair return cannot be squared with the substantially higher government take from federal coal as
royalties
compared to private coal. Royalty rates for federal coal (12.5 percent surface coal; 8 percent underground coal) are 30 percent to 65 percent higher than the
prevailing rates for private coal in the East. Moreover, federal coal lessees pay bonus bids and surface rentals, financial features which are rarely found in private
coal leasing transactions. As indicated in BLM's notice, in the last decade, coal companies paid more than $9 billion in federal royalties, bonus bids and surface
rentals. It should not be overlooked that royalties for coal are based on the gross value of the coal at the mine. In other words, there are no deductions for
expenses, fees, or other taxes. The royalty burden is 12.5% of value regardless of whether a mine is profitable or not. In times of widespread economic distress in
the coal industry, the government's take from coal (royalties and rents specifically) does not vary to reflect the economic realities of the producers. In all, PRB
coal producers typically pay no less than 30-40% of their GROSS revenue to government entities.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Company
16 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Moreover, no changes in royalty rate or valuation policy to account for climate change could lawfully be applied to existing leases, as such changes would violate a
royalties
lessee's contractual and property rights in the lease.10 (Footnote 10 See generally, Neely v. United States, 285 F.2d 438, 444 (Ct. Cl. 1961) (allowing recovery for
breach of a federal coal lease). Federal coal leases executed with the Department are predicated on the understanding that royalties owed are based on the "value
of coal," not coal and an unknown additional amount derived from climate change impacts from consumption of that coal. Including climate considerations in the
royalty value fundamentally shifts the foundation upon which such contracts were entered. Applying such changes retroactively, without any support in the
statutory text, runs contrary to established precedent. 11Retroactivity is not favored in the law." Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 264 (1994). See also
Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 693 (2004) ("antiretroactivity concerns are most pressing in cases involving new provisions affecting contractual or
property rights, matters in which predictability and stability are of prime importance") (internal quotations omitted); id. at 696 ("The aim of the presumption is to
avoid unnecessary post hoc changes to legal rules on which parties relied in shaping their primary conduct.").)Further, when federal coal lessees offered bonuses
to obtain their leases, they expected the royalty owed on lease production to be based only on the value of the coal, with no increment for climate costs.
Increasing the royalty value for these amorphous climate change costs upends the economic arrangement the lessees entered into and directly presents breach of
contract claims.
C-68
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
4 207.0600.00
Company
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
A key requirement of the Federal Coal Leasing Program is to provide a fair return to the public from the leasing of federal coal. As explained in the notice, the
royalties
federal government receives revenue from coal leasing in three ways: (1) a bonus that is paid at the time the BLM issues a lease; (2) rental fees; and (3) production
royalties. Over the years, the Department of the Interior (DOI or the "Department") has defended the importance of the Federal Coal Leasing Program and the
regulations, policies and practices the department has in place to ensure a fair return to the public and protection of the environment. Furthermore, the Federal
Coal Leasing Program has been modified over time to ensure these objectives are met.' (Footnote 1 Examples include requirements added in the Federal Coal
Leasing Amendments Act (FCLAA) of 1976 regarding diligent development, logical mining units, competitive lease sales and payment of fair market value (FMV)
for future leases; the shift from regional leasing to leases by application to address competition given declining interest in coal leases and poor coal market
conditions; and BLM 2014 issuance of a new manual, new handbook and seven instruction memoranda.)
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
13 207.0600.00
Company
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
As mentioned above, the MLA provides that a coal "lease shall require payment of a royalty ... of not less than 12 and 1/2 per centum of the value of coal."5
royalties
(Footnote 5 30 U.S.C. § 207(a).) The MLA does not further define the term, but the plain terms of this section and its legislative history demonstrate that
Congress intended royalties to be based on the fair market value of the commodity.6 (Footnote 6 See H.R. 94-681, 18 (noting that the 1976 amendment adding
the 12.5 percent royalty provision was included to ensure a fair price compared to the market value of coal). Including climate change considerations in
determining the value for federal royalty purposes of a ton of coal would be facially inconsistent with the statutory text, and further would be inconsistent with
100 years of Departmental practice and countless administrative and judicial decisions. See, e.g., Black Butte Coal Co. v. United States, 38 F. Supp. 2d 963, 971 (D.
Wyo. 1999) (applying to coal royalties "the general proposition that royalty collection by the Department depends on a link between lease production and money
paid to a federal lessee who produces a commodity subject to royalty.").)
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
14 207.0600.00
Company
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Additionally, the MLA authorizes a lower rate for coal recovered by underground mining, which is currently set by BLM regulations at 8 percent.7 (Footnote 7
royalties
See 43 CFR 3473.3-2.) As such, BLM is responsible for setting the royalty rate under the MLA, while ONRR, rather than BLM, determines the value of federal
coal for royalty purposes. Neither ONRR nor BLM, however, has any authority to consider climate change in setting royalty and revenue management policy
because including such a consideration would contravene the department's statutory mandate under the MLA.8 (Footnote 8 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., as amended)
Determining royalties and revenue policy on climate change impacts is wholly divorced from this concept. Indeed, calculating royalties on a basis dissociated from
the value of the coal extracted was one of the reasons the coal provisions of ONRR's 2016 Rule were enjoined (and later overturned) by the Wyoming District
Court.9 (Footnote 9 See Cloud Peak Energy Inc. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1051 (D. Wyo. 2019).)
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
15 207.0600.00
Company
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Ultimately, a royalty rate that would include a so-called "externality adder" for the consideration of nebulous climate change impacts could no longer be
royalties
considered a royalty; changing the royalty rate to include a "cost" assessed for purported externalities would no longer reflect a share of a portion of either the
minerals or their value, which is the very purpose and meaning of a royalty. As BLM rightly determined in response to the aforementioned 2011 petition for
rulemaking, imposing a carbon or other externality-based fee exceeds BLM's delegated authority under the MLA and FLPMA and would require congressional
action.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
17 207.0600.00
Company
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Finally, including climate change in royalty and revenue management policies would prevent the Department from obtaining "fair market value" for new federal
royalties
coal leases, as is required under the MLA.11 (Footnote 11 30 U.S.C. § 201(a) ("No bid shall be accepted which is less than the fair market value, as determined by
the Secretary, of the coal subject to the lease.").)A prospective lessee's decision regarding how much bonus bid it will offer on a tract inherently involves
determining a tract's value to the lessee. The higher the royalties the bidder expects to pay over the life of the lease, the less it is willing to offer as a bonus bid.
Inflating the otherwise applicable royalties beyond the value of the coal and reducing the bonus bids may result in the United States not receiving fair market value
in the lease sale process, thus contravening the MLA's requirements.
Alper
Alper
Dean
Dean
2 Alper & McCulloch
2 Alper & McCulloch
6 207.0600.00
8 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Ending Royalty reductions. These were originally instituted in response to the energy crisis to maximize domestic fossil fuel production--now, they are the
royalties
antithesis of what the nation needs.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
If a renewal is granted, the BLM should exercise its authority to adjust rents, conditions, and royalties to capture all currently externalized costs.
royalties
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
7 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Rental rates may be as low as $3/acre. 43 C.F.R. § 3473.31. Royalties may be as low as 12.5 % for a surface mine, and 8% for a subsurface mine. Id. § 3473.32; 30
royalties
U.S.C. § 207(a). In addition, as permitted by the statute, BLM's regulations authorize the agency to "waive, suspend or reduce the rental, or reduce the royalty but
not advance royalty on an entire leasehold, or on any deposit, tract or portion thereof," as long as the royalty is not reduced to "zero percent." 43 C.F.R. §
3473.32(e); see 30 U.S.C. § 209 (authorizing rate reductions where the Secretary determines "it is necessary to do so in order to promote development, or
whenever in his judgment the lease cannot be successfully operated under the terms provided therein."). As a result of these reductions and other factors, such as
the use of subsidiary companies to pay royalties on non-arms-length prices, from 2008-2012 the effective federal coal royalty rate was only 4.9%. Executive Office
of the President, The Economics of Coal Leasing On Federal Lands: Ensuring A Fair Return To Taxpayers (2016) (hereinafter, "White House Report") at 8
(emphasis added); see also Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties, Jan. 2015.
In fact, just this year, BLM has approved several
controversial royalty rate reductions, and many more requests remain pending before the agency. As discussed below, these requests should be paused during the
course of BLM's programmatic review.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-69
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
88 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Adequate bonding
royalties
noted, BLM/DOI does not independently evaluate the sufficiency of bonding and leaves such analysis for post-leasing permitting from state environmental agencies
and OSMRE.
While BLM regulations require that operators be adequately bonded to fund eventual reclamation activities, see 43 C.F.R. Part 3474, as
While determination of the amount and type of reclamation bonding may ultimately come from another agency, as part of its leasing decision, BLM
should consider the current bonding status of a mine. As discussed above, one of the bonding methods often allowed is "self-bonding," which poses the risk of
making taxpayers subsidize reclamation obligations should a company financially fail. See, e.g., Patrick Rucker, Arch Coal asks U.S. Bankruptcy Court To Ease Its
Cleanup, Reuters, Jan 11, 2016 (reporting that the company asked the Judge to set aside $75 million for cleanup that is estimated to cost more than $450 million).
BLM should no longer award leases to any company that is self-bonded, regardless of the current financial condition of the company. BLM has this discretion irrespective of federal and state reclamation bonding requirements - to ensure leasing is in the public interest.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
89 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
BLM should also consider raising its own bond amounts in order to ensure adequate coverage of bonus bids, royalties, and other payments. This is especially
royalties
important given the risk of frequently idled mines and current trends of mines laying off workers and decreasing production. In today's market conditions, no mine
is "too big to fail," and BLM must ensure protection of taxpayers.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
96 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Competition, Fair Market Value, And Fair Return Issues
royalties
system to compensate American taxpayers more accurately for the value - and cost - of the coal resources being leased.
The final major issue that must be addressed in the BLM's review is restructuring the lease payment
While it can be accomplished in several
ways, as discussed below, in our view the most important element to be added to these payments is incorporating the costs of environmental harms caused by the
full lifecycle of the GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing. By taking those costs into account, along with other changes, the PEIS provides an
opportunity to explore appropriate reforms in the leasing system.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
98 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Royalty Rate Issues
royalties
provide taxpayers with a fair return and to address the economic externalities of federal coal leasing, including full lifecycle GHG emissions. The PEIS must also
As noted in previous sections, there are several problems with the current royalty rate structure that must be addressed in the PEIS to
explore eliminating the royalty rate reductions, as well as deductions for transportation and coal washing, that have even further reduced the fiscal return on
federal coal leases.
As discussed above, royalties may be the most appropriate place to couple leasing prices to the social cost of carbon, since an operator only
pays royalties for the coal extracted. As the 2016 White House Report explained, "royalty reform [can] provide a fair return to taxpayers while simultaneously
reducing the environmental effects of coal extraction and combustion."163
(footnote 163 White House Report at 3.)
Because the environmental and social
externalities from coal production vary with the amount of coal produced, one sensible approach would be to recoup those costs through royalties that cover:
(1) the cost of production-related, upstream environmental externalities; (2) the cost of transportation-related externalities, including CO2 emissions; (3)
uncompensated infrastructure demand (e.g., water, power, processing facilities); and (4) any foreseeable "waste" of resources, such as vented or flared methane
associated with coal production.164
(footnote 164 See Hein and Howard at 20; see also Gillingham, K. et al, Reforming the U.S. Coal Leasing Program (Science
Dec. 2, 2016) (noting that the average spot price of PRB coal-which is the basis of royalty payments-is many orders of magnitude lower than what the authors
term the "monetized climate damages" of extracting and burning the resource). )
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
99 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Alternatives to Address Fair Return for American Taxpayers
royalties
considered to address climate change impacts, since - particularly within the context of a royalty "adder" - the fees collected will principally compensate the
The alternatives necessary to address fair return for American taxpayers overlap with those
taxpayer for the climate change impacts associated with the produced coal.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
101 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Setting royalties based on price comparisons Under this alternative, royalty payments would be set after consideration of nearby regional coal prices, nationwide
royalties
coal prices, and the price of natural gas,172 which is a close substitute for coal in the electricity market.
(footnote 172 Though natural gas provides a useful
comparison for this exercise, its use for setting royalty payments would need to take into consideration the substantial volatility it experiences in prices vs. coal,
which has seen relatively stable, if declining, average prices per MMBtu over the last decade.)
All three prices would be expressed in terms of dollars per one
million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) to account for differences in heat rates of different types of coal (and natural gas).173
(footnote 173 See White House
Report at 3. )
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
102 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Setting royalties to maximize revenue
royalties
encourage development.174
Under BLM's current scheme the agency charges low royalty rates, and then further reduces royalties as necessary to
(footnote 174 See, e.g., 43 C.F.R. § 3485.2(c)(1)("The authorized officer may waive, suspend, or reduce the rental on a Federal
lease, or reduce the Federal royalty," where doing so serves "the purpose of encouraging the greatest ultimate recovery of Federal coal . . . .").). This approach
served an earlier era where the agency's objective was to maximize the production of federal coal as an energy source and where the pressures of the growing
climate crisis were not well understood or significantly present.
As the foregoing discussion of climate change impacts demonstrates, this should no longer be an
aim of BLM's approach to federal coal leasing. To the contrary, royalty rates should be used both to generate maximum income and to help align any future coal
development with GHG emissions reduction and climate goals. Accordingly, under this alternative BLM would explore the maximum royalty rates it could charge
to obtain the most revenue for taxpayers and consider the extent to which those rates would reduce GHG emissions. It would also consider eliminating royalty
rate reductions. Given that there may be a royalty rate too high to attract coal companies, the rates charged under this alternative are likely to differ from the
rates that would apply by simply incorporating all GHG externality costs into a royalty adder.
C-70
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
24 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The final principal problem that must be addressed in BLM's review is the amounts charged for access to exploit federally leased coal. Outdated federal coal
royalties
revenue policies distort U.S. energy markets and undermine the Nation's climate change goals. They do so because the federal coal leasing program provides an
unfair advantage to companies mining PRB coal, where more than 85% of all federal coal comes from. Coal from the PRB is significantly undervalued and sells for
less than one-fourth of the price of Appalachian coal when accounting for Btu content.
prices Source: EIA, https://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/)
(See attached PDF for table of Average weekly coal commodity spot
Numerous reports and audits have found that the revenue system of bonus bids, annual rents, and
royalties is not securing a fair return to the taxpayer; in fact the American people have been shortchanged by nearly $30 billion over the past three decades. To
date, BLM has relied on an initial bonus bid, lease rentals, and royalties to comprise what little return on the value of the coal accrues to the taxpayer. BLM's
review must explore not only readjusting the amount of compensation for each of these aspects of leasing, but also additional compensation approaches that will
not only ensure a fair return for federally leased coal but will also address the environmental and social externalities - particularly GHG emissions and their
impacts. Coal lease pricing can also be a tool to properly balance our nation's fuel mix, allowing for appropriate levels of coal while ensuring that coal emissions
do not hinder the Nation's ability to meet its GHG emission reduction goals.
One principal issue BLM's review must address is the fact that, in practice, there is
very little competition for coal leases, with almost 90% of lease sales involving only a single bidder - often the operator of the adjacent (or expanding) mine. This
lack of competition poses significant challenges to accurately setting FMV and therefore the initial bid cost. However, even in the absence of a competitive market,
BLM can create policies and procedures that will return a fairer amount of revenue for the public. Because of the amount of federal coal that is leased, recent
government reports have shown that raising bid amounts a mere penny can bring in up to $7 million of additional revenue in the average Wyoming PRB lease sale.
In short, every penny counts.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
25 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
A second issue concerns the royalty rates for coal production, which do not currently either provide a fair return or cover the myriad externalities of coal
royalties
production - including GHG emissions and their impacts. Under existing royalty policies, coal companies also exploit loopholes, and subsidies, deductions, and
royalty rate reductions lower the effective royalty rate to approximately 5% overall. In addition, companies are sometimes selling coal to their own subsidiaries,
paying a royalty based on this depressed price, and then reselling the coal on the market at higher prices.15
(footnote 15 It will also be important to coordinate
with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) in regard to their royalty valuation rule that was recently the subject of litigation in the District of
Wyoming. 81 Fed. Reg. 43,338 (July 1, 2016), as well as ONRR's plans to withdraw a revision to that rule issued in 2020. Regardless of the ONRR rulemaking
process, BLM's review should explore the extent to which companies can continue to exploit these loopholes. Among other concerns, sales may still be
structured to avoid royalty payments.)
Moreover, since this coal represents more than 40% of domestic coal production, artificially low royalty rates bring
artificially low market prices.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
27 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
At a minimum, BLM should consider implementing the following measures: · Raising royalty rates based on rates used for other resources, such as offshore oil
royalties
and gas (18.75%) or onshore natural gas, or to other rates that will maximize taxpayer revenue; · Incorporating an "adder" to account for GHG-related
externalities from all lifecycle stages of the coal process, including the social costs of carbon and methane; · Eliminating the use of royalty rate reductions; ·
Changing the approach to determining FMV, such as: o considering the market price of non-Federal coal in the region or nation-wide o incorporating the "option
value" of leasing coal at a specific time o incorporating the social cost of mining, addressing all externalities o addressing export values o replacing "lease by
application" with an open process of setting minimum bids o raising the minimum bid amount to account for various factors; o eliminating the "comparable sales"
valuation approach, which justifies future undervaluation based off of historically under-priced sales l Raising rental rates to account for externalities, inflation and
other factors; l Limiting leasing to companies with more than ten years of recoverable coal; and l Evaluating whether coal oversupply is leading to reduced
royalties.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
90 207.0600.00
Resource Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Requiring bond release for previously mined lands
royalties
of existing leases - that incorporate bond release requirements. For example, BLM might require that a company may not obtain a new or modified lease until at
Under this alternative BLM would consider management options for new leases - or modification or renewal
least 50% of its current leased acreage has been released from bond. Any increase in the ratio of mined-to-reclaimed lands creates an increased risk to taxpayers
in the instance of abandonment and forfeiture. Therefore, BLM should take prior reclamation status into account when it considers new leases, whether the leases
are for mine expansions or otherwise grant additional coal to already-leveraged coal companies.
BLM might also not permit additional leasing for mines where
reclamation has not been completed after waiting for the required 10-year period, meaning reclamation at that site cannot be demonstrated. Undermined Promise
II at 42. These requirements should be accompanied with measurable and enforceable objectives to ensure contemporaneous reclamation standards are met.
While reclamation of mining operations is regulated by OSMRE under SMCRA, BLM can also play a role in helping to meet SMCRA's commitment to ensure coal
mines are reclaimed in a complete and timely fashion that restores disturbed land, water and habitat features to their pre-mining integrity and productivity. This is
especially important in the context of acreage of federal surface lands, including National Grasslands, occupied by mines, as BLM has a regulatory obligation to
meet a "multiple use" mandate for federal lands and prevent "undue and unnecessary degradation of the lands." 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7), 1732(b).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
December 2021
112 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Stop the subsidization of federal coal resources by implementing the fiscal policies identified above, such as increasing royalty and rental rates and modernizing the
royalties
leasing system
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-71
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
25 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Table 3 and Table 4 work through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the net methane emissions from coal production from underground mines, (Table
royalties
3), and surface mines (Table 4) but are limited to only those states that mine on federal and Native American lands. In contrast to Table 1 and Table 2, which used
the average US mouth-mine price and average US price of coal delivered to the electric power sector to suggest new royalty increases, these two tables provides
suggested royalty increases relative to what are arguably the most relevant prices, the average prices of coal production from only states with mining on federal
and Native American lands. However, what we found shocking was how many of these states were allowed to withhold mouth-mine prices for underground and
surface-mined coal, providing to the federal government only the average between underground and surface-mined coal. Because of this, the royalty increases are
skewed toward average prices between the two types of mining. The recommended royalty increase based on these few states is 26.7% for coal mined
underground, and 2.9% for surface-mined coal. As with Table 1 and Table 2, the suggested royalty increase is much lower for surface mined coal than coal mined
underground, because underground coal production releases much more methane than surface mining.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
34 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
There are long-standing policies and case law indicating that landowners, including the US Government and States, should be compensated for foreseeable social
royalties
and environmental damages from mining, including through royalty payments. The legislative history of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments shows that one of
the purposes of giving states a greater share of royalties was to account for social and environmental damages. Their revenue was to be used "as the legislature of
the State may direct giving priority to those subdivisions of the State socially or economically impacted by development of minerals leased under this Act for (1)
planning, (2) construction and maintenance of public facilities, and (3) provision of public services" (H.R. 15175, 94th Congress, 2nd Session at 13-14 (August 10,
1976). In analyzing the mutual benefit covenant for lessor and lessee in oil and gas mining activities, John Burritt Mcarthur explains, "The idea that the lessee
cannot feather its nest by soiling the royalty owner's is a fundamental principle of oil and gas law and, as such, has been acknowledged by a wide array of existing
cases" (Mcarthur 2001, pg. 882). This issue is further analyzed in Hein and Howard (2015, pg. 10-11 and footnotes 66-75).
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
33 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Duty of Secretary of the Interior and BLM to be Compensated for Damages from Mining. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments directs the Secretary of the
royalties
Interior to consider environmental and other impacts before issuing any coal lease. 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3)(C) states, "Prior to the issuance of any coal lease, the
Secretary shall consider effects which mining of the proposed lease might have on an impacted community or area, including, but not limited to, impacts on the
environment, on agricultural and other economic activities, and on public services." The US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases has
indicated that climate change can have negative impacts in all the described arenas, and has established the framework to account for these damages. In addition,
the Secretary has the discretion to raise royalty rates to reflect these damages. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments states, "[a] lease shall require payment of a
royalty in such amount as the Secretary shall determine" (30 U.S.C. § 207(a)). The Secretary has other discretion to set lease terms that are appropriate to the
level of mining's impacts. The act allows that "the lease shall include such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine." (30 U.S.C. § 207(a)).
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
12 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Do not allow for deductions from these royalties and fees by incorporating these into rules as mandatory floors. In this rule, formally recognize that these
royalties
royalties and fees are in the national interest, are in keeping with Executive Order 13990, and are to ensure that greenhouse gas costs are not bourn by the US
taxpayer.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
40 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Third, the minimum royalty rates are often discarded through discretionary royalty rate deductions, undercutting the whole royalty regulatory structure.
royalties
Currently, BLM has the authority to grant royalty rate deductions if (1) it encourages the greatest ultimate recovery of the coal resource; (2) its in the interest of
conservation of the coal and other resources, (3) if it's necessary to promote development of the coal resource, or (4), if the federal lease cannot be successfully
operated under its terms (43 C.F.R. §§3473.3-2(e), 3485.2(c)(1)). Royalty rate reductions are so frequent though that they undermine the whole royalty structure
of coal: they have been granted on approximately 36% of leases offered for sale since 1990 (Haggerty, Jan 2015). In some regions, the issuance of royalty rate
reductions has become so routine that the effective rates paid have periodically dropped to less than half the legal minimum (Lappen, Feb 1, 2021). Just in the first
seven months of this administration, the Department of the Interior granted royalty rate reductions three times for coal mining operations on federal lands, and in
at least one of these cases making a huge 75% royalty rate reduction for underground coal, from 8% to just 2% (Marshall, Aug 25, 2021).
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
42 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Fifth, royalties are often set based upon the mouth-mine price, which is subject to easy distortion by the coal companies by making sales to subsidiaries that they
royalties
own, and making other types of "captive sales". This issue is of real concern, given the frequency and size of captive sales. In 2017, 88 percent of federal coal was
produced in Wyoming and Montana, home to the Powder River Basin. The EIA reported that 135 million tons, or 38 percent of all coal produced from those
states in 2017, was sold in captive sales (Taxpayers for Common Sense, Feb 27, 2019). In 2016, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue introduced a rule that
changed how coal sold in non-arm's-length transactions would be valued for royalty purposes (Taxpayers for Common Sense, Feb 27, 2019). The rule was
subsequently repealed in 2017, however, leaving the issue of federal coal valuation unaddressed (Taxpayers for Common Sense, Feb 27, 2019).
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
44 207.0600.00
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
54 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Make the royalty calculations on coal produced on federal lands fully transparent and manipulation-proof, by making a rule that these shall be based upon the fair
royalties
market price of coal, defined as the US national average price of coal delivered to the electric power sector.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
We do recommend that there be no deductions for transportation in establishing royalty rates for coal companies, if royalties are calculated using the market
royalties
price of coal delivered to the electric power sector. Surprisingly, current regulations allow for unlimited transportation deductions (30 C.F.R. §1206.261 (a)). This
is an inappropriate subsidy, as again the costs of emissions and other impacts of transport should not be paid by the US taxpayer, but by the industries providing
the service.
Bass
Bass
Margot
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
45 Essential Information, Inc.
9 207.0600.00
10 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Make the royalty calculations on coal produced on federal lands fully transparent and manipulation-proof, by making a rule that these shall be based upon the fair
royalties
market price of coal, defined as the US national average price of coal delivered to the electric power sector.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Establish royalty increases on coal production on federal lands that account for the social costs of the greenhouse gases from the mining itself, specifically: 4(a)
royalties
Increase the royalty for underground coal due to methane gas release from mining by 22.5%, and by 0.3% for carbon dioxide release from mining, to a total
royalty of 30.8%; 4(b) Increase the royalty for surface-mined coal due to methane gas release from mining by 2.1%, to a total royalty of 14.6%.
C-72
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
23 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Table 1 works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the net methane emissions from US coal production from underground mines, and the
royalties
emissions per Metric Ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per Metric Ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty
increases based on these costs. Based on the US national average mine-mouth price, the suggested royalty increase on underground coal production is 15.1%.
Based on the US price of coal delivered to the electric power sector, the suggested royalty increase on underground coal production is 22.5%.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
24 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Table 2 works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the net methane emissions from US coal production from surface mines, and the emissions per
royalties
Metric Ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per Metric Ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty increases based on
these costs. Based on the US national average mine-mouth price, the suggested royalty increase on surface-mined coal production is 3.9%. Based on the US price
of coal delivered to the electric power sector, the suggested royalty increase on surface-mined coal production is 2.1%. This suggested royalty increase is much
lower than that on coal mined underground, because underground coal production releases far more methane than surface mining.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
27 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Social Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Power Plants, and Suggested Royalty Increases. Table 6 works through five years of recent data (2015
royalties
to 2019) on the US carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the emissions per Metric Ton of coal mined, and the social cost of those emissions
in dollars per Metric Ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty increases based on these costs. The suggested royalty increases are based on three different
prices, the price of coal mined underground using the average US underground coal mouth-mine price (Column 16), to be levied on coal mined underground; the
price of surface-mined coal using average US surface-mined coal mouth-mine price (Column 17), to be levied on surface-mined coal; and the price of US coal
delivered to the electric power sector (Column 18), to be levied on both coal mined underground and surface-mined coal. These suggested royalty increases are
159.74%, 234.33%, and 221.40%. The reason that these recommended royalties are so high is that, per Metric Ton of coal burned, twice as much carbon dioxide
emissions are produced (Column 5). We were surprised that this was physically possible, and thought the data potentially erroneous. We queried Glenn McGrath
and Rosalyn Berry, who manage this data for the US EIA, about how this could be. Dr. Glenn McGrath, the Leader of the Electricity Statistics Uranium Statistics
and Product Innovation Team at the US Energy Information Administration, responded. The reason is "found in the chemistry of fossil fuel combustion. Burning 1
lbs. of coal will emit just over 2 lbs of CO2 of which carbon accounts for 0.56 lbs."(Email communication of Glenn McGrath of Sept 8, 2021, to M. Bass).
Because this royalty is higher than the market price, we recommend in Section 4 to allow the market price of coal to float, and to incorporate the social costs of
carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal by levying a fee rather than a royalty. This fee would be the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions per metric ton of
coal, or 2.002550927 (Table 6, Column 5, Average 2015-2019) multiplied by the social cost of carbon dioxide per metric ton ($51.00 in 2020 dollars), or a total
of $102.13 in 2020 dollars. This would be levied on all coal produced on federal lands, because the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are the same
whether that coal was obtained from underground or surface-mined coal.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
29 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Table 8 compiles all the forgoing data on suggested royalty increases and royalty totals. The royalty totals are a minimum of 183% to 256.2%, for coal mined
royalties
underground, and 235.8% to 250.7% for surface-mined coal. These are so high, that in fact they are over the market price of coal by up to more than double. The
reason for this is that the royalty rates we reached for carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are 159.7% to 234.3% (see Table 6), because the social costs of
these emissions are currently around double the current market price of coal facing the electric power sector. Our first conclusion leading from these findings is
that the costs are so high that it is untenable for any coal mining to continue on federal lands. Companies would obviously go bankrupt if they had to pay more in
royalties than they could receive from the coal market. Banning coal mining on federal lands where the numbers lead, and best protects US taxpayers from the
damages from greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to recall that the US taxpayer is the ultimate landowner of public lands, as the government holds these in
trust for the public. Furthermore, as presented in Section 4.3 of the Discussion, there are longstanding policies and case law that landowner lessors should be
compensated by lessees for damages incurred from mining.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
30 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
A second potential conclusion is to allow the price of coal to float and incorporate these costs. In that case, we recommend that the costs of the methane and
royalties
carbon dioxide emissions from the mining itself be combined into a royalty appropriate to whether the coal were surface-mined or mined underground, and then
an additional fee be levied on that coal to incorporate the damages of burning coal. We recommend that these be based upon the market price of coal to obtain
fair market value for the coal. Thus, these fees would be for underground coal, the base fee of 8%, plus 22.5% (Table 8, Column 5, Row Underground Mining), plus
0.3% (Column 7, Row Underground Mining), for a total of 30.8%. Similarly, the fees for surface-mined coal would be the base fee of 12.5%%, plus 2.1% (Table 8,
Column 5, Row Surface Mining), with the fee for carbon dioxide from mining activities unknown (Column 7, Row Surface Mining), for a total of 14.6%. Then, the
additional fee would be the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions per metric ton of coal burned, or 2.002550927 (Table 6, Column 5, Average 2015-2019)
multiplied by the social cost of carbon dioxide per metric ton ($51.00 in 2020 dollars), or a total of $102.13 in 2020 dollars. This fee would be levied on all coal
produced on federal lands, because the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are the same whether that coal was obtained from underground or surfacemined coal.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
47 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Prior to the three-year ban on coal production on federal lands, BLM needs to implement royalties that cover the costs of upstream greenhouse gas emissions
royalties
(methane and carbon dioxide) from the coal mining activities themselves. We based our royalty totals in Recommendations 4(a) and 4(b) on the national average
price of coal facing the electric power sector. We think this is the most appropriate price to use, because it is a fair market value price that is not manipulated by
captive sales (which the mouth-mine prices are, as discussed in Section 4.5. It also factors in the price of coal across all states on public and private lands. Using
the average prices from only those states where federal lands are used to produce coal is already influenced by the subsidies BLM has been giving, and therefore is
not a fair market value either. The recommended royalty rates are high enough that they will ensure that coal production takes into full account the social costs
of greenhouse gas emissions produced from coal mining. Again, if those costs are not taken into account, the US government is subsidizing US coal production at
the direct and costly expense of the US taxpayer.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-73
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Last Name
First Name
Blank
D.L.
81 N/A
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
2 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Any coal sold should be at a rate that covers the damage to the land and our climate.
royalties
13 207.0600.00
Justice
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Moreover, BLM's failure to properly account for the significant environmental impacts of federal coal leasing, and the resulting costs both of avoiding and then
royalties
mitigating and/or adapting to those impacts, has led to a program that fails to provide a fair return from the sale of these resources and is not serving the public
interest. This disparity is readily apparent from climate change impacts alone. In February 2021, the U.S. Government's Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases ("IWG") priced the social cost of carbon-the monetary value of net harm to society associated with adding GHGs to the atmosphereat $51 per ton emitted (using a 3% discount rate). (Footnote 104:IWG, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (Feb. 2021), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.)
Yet under the current system of determining the "fair
market value" of coal leases, BLM recoups approximately $2 per ton of coal, despite the fact that each ton of coal produced generates approximately 1.8-2.8 tons
of CO2 emissions (Footnote 105: Executive Office of the President of the United States, The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return
to Taxpayers (June 2016) at 8 (finding an average royalty collection of $1.70 per ton of coal from 2008 to 2012), available at:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf; see Scoping Report at ES-1 (noting that during the past decade,
BLM-administered leases have produced over 4 billion tons of coal and generated $10 billion in federal revenue).)
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
14 207.0600.00
Justice
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
As part of BLM's review, the Attorneys General urge BLM to analyze such alternatives in light of current information regarding the full impacts and costs of the
royalties
federal coal leasing program, including the costs of carbon pollution discussed above, other environmental harms arising from the program, and any
nonenvironmental costs to the nation. In addition, the Attorneys General urge BLM to ensure that any return on lands leased for coal production also include an
accurate valuation for the coal removed or other activities undertaken, through reform of the selection and bidding process and any other appropriate changes, so
that the leases do not provide an unfair subsidy for coal extraction. In sum, BLM should work to ensure that any future leasing provides a fair return to the nation
and serves the public interest.
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
20 207.0600.00
Justice
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Furthermore, BLM has at least two distinct legal obligations to ensure that the fair market value it charges for leasing reflects the actual costs of coal production,
royalties
so that the public receives appropriate compensation when these resources are extracted and produced from our public lands. For many years and continuing
today, the outdated structure for the management of federal coal has artificially depressed the amount of royalties received from the development of these
resources, leaving the States to bear the direct and indirect costs and impacts of this program without adequate and required compensation.
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
11 207.0600.00
Justice
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
As discussed above, changes in the coal industry and a grossly outdated environmental review have resulted in a federal coal leasing program that fails to properly
royalties
account for its negative impacts or achieve a fair return for the American public. Since 1990, almost all federal coal leasing has been the result of industry
application. (Footnote 100: Scoping Report at 5-7.) Reliance on leasing by application substantially impairs the efficacy of competitive lease auctions. (Footnote
101: Id. at 5-8)
13)
Existing lease holders have a financial incentive to submit applications that propose tracts adjacent to their existing leases (Footnote 102: Id. at 5-
Since coal mining operations are capital-intensive and mining equipment is logistically difficult to move, bidders closest to a proposed lease can generally
outbid all other parties. The result is that leasing by application auctions frequently have only one bidder and are effectively noncompetitive, which in turn ensures
that the public will not receive fair value on these leases. (Footnote 103: Id.)
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
9 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
However, increases in royalty rates will also increase the incentive for coal companies to undervalue coal. Unless the system of self-assessment is replaced with a
royalties
system that ensures the integrity of the royalty base, the objectives to be served by higher royalty rates or added royalty fees will only be undermined by more
aggressive efforts to underreport coal values in the calculation of the royalties. That is true even if higher royalties take the form of physical fees per ton. While
these fees might not be avoided directly, they will be undercut indirectly by companies "compensating" themselves for the higher fees through increased
underreporting of the "percentage of value" portion of royalties. Any effort to compensate or protect the public for the impacts of climate change or other
environmental factors with higher royalties will only be significantly undermined by the system of corporate self-assessment of royalties.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
17 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Through the PEIS, Interior should adopt a transparent process of setting royalty rates, directly valuing and collecting royalties on coal production, and regular
royalties
reporting to the public royalty payment by lease in order to achieve a fair return for the public and ensure the integrity and accountability of the royalty process.
Further, the PEIS should reevaluate the deduction for coal washing.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
18 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Interior is to be commended for its recent strengthening of coal royalty rules to eliminate some sources of producer underreporting of coal values. However,
royalties
those rules do not eliminate other sources of underreporting associated with inflated deductions and exclusions from coal value. More importantly the entire
structure of the self-assessment system used for royalties-patterned after income taxes-is vulnerable because it encourages companies to underreport royalties
and invites continuing efforts to import income tax avoidance strategies into the royalty arena. In addition, the system of self-assessment is secret, so the public is
denied knowledge of what it is paid for coal in royalties on each lease and is unable to assist with ensuring that it receives a fair return on federal coal.
All of
these problems could be remedied by Interior directly valuing the coal for royalty purposes as the Mineral Leasing Act clearly authorizes.8 (Footnote: 8 The
Mineral Leasing Act specifies that "a lease shall require payment of a royalty in such amount as the Secretary shall determine of not less than 12 1/2 per centum of
the value of coal as defined by regulation.. ." A plain reading of the law is the it charges Interior with the duty and responsibility of determining the value of coal.)
Such a system would be modeled after property tax administration and would not be subject to the kind of defects inherent in the income tax-style, selfassessment system. Moreover, the final values, as established by Interior based on statistical analysis of market price data, would be public, even while proprietary
data received from companies would remain confidential.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
5 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Interior should adopt a transparent process of setting royalty rates, directly valuing and collecting royalties on coal production, and regular reporting to the public
royalties
royalty payments by lease in order to achieve a fair return for the public and ensure the integrity and accountability of the royalty process. Further, the Interior
should reevaluate the deduction for coal washing.
C-74
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bucks
Dan
Organization
Letter # Name
27 Public Revenues Consulting
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
7 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Through the PEIS, Interior should develop new public management systems to replace the coal lease by application and royalty self-assessment systems. Secretarial
royalties
Order 3338 raises a number of vital issues affecting the public that can be successfully resolved only within a framework where decisions are based on maximizing
the welfare of society overall. Whether it be ensuring a fair return to the public for the coal they own, harmonizing coal production with climate change,
reclaiming mined lands, preventing adverse effects on public health or helping coal communities and workers adapt to changing energy markets or other issuestheir effective resolution requires public action in the public interest. In analytical terms, the purposes of the coal PEIS as described in Secretarial Order 3338 fall
into three categories: 1. Ensuring a fair return to the public on federal coal as required by law, 2. Reducing the external costs and impacts of coal production,
including climate change, but also a host of other environmental and socio-economic concerns, and 3. Determining the future role of federal coal in relation to the
nation's energy supply. None of these purposes can be achieved through the existing structures for administering the coal program: the coal lease by application
(LBA) process and the coal producer self-assessment method of collecting royalties. Both these systems are the source of the problem of the American people
being denied the fair return on coal required bylaw. The sources of the problem will not be its solution. The LBA system allows companies to determine when,
where and in what amounts federal coal can be leased. The companies propose small tracts adjacent to existing operations, resulting in more than 90% of leases
having only one bidder. These non¬competitive bids combined with company control of the timing of the leases, and the completely closed nature of the bid
process produce lease payments consistently below fair market value, shortchanging the public by tens of billions of dollars over several decades.1 (Footnote: 1
Tom Sanzillo, "The Great Giveaway: An Analysis of the United States' Long-Term Trend of Selling Federally Owned Coal ro Less Than Fair Market Value, Institute
for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 20, (June 2012).). The long-term failure of the LBA system to achieve the fair return required by law is sufficient by
itself to justify including in the scope of the PEIS the development of a new leasing process to replace it. However, it becomes absurd to leave in question the need
to terminate and replace the LBA process given that it is incompatible with the full and effective consideration and mitigation of the public costs of coal
production.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
7(continued) 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The LBA process allows coal companies to drive the leasing process based upon their own narrow calculus of private costs and private benefits-effectively
royalties
disregarding public costs or benefits. Further, despite court orders directing broad NEPA analysis of LBA tracts, the company-nominated tracts are simply too
small to evaluate properly the cumulative external effects of coal mining on the broader environmental, social and economic landscape. Thus, in both conceptual
and practical terms, lease by application excludes the proper consideration of large-scale issues of climate change, public health and other external costs of coal
production imposed on society. Taking external costs into account adequately will require a new and fundamentally different system of lease decision-making,
controlled by Interior but informed by active public participation and designed from the outset to weigh fully the public costs and benefits of coal production. For
similar reasons, lease by application is also an obstacle to determining on a public policy basis the extent to which federal coal should be supplied in response to
the nation's energy requirements. The Secretarial Order suggests the PEIS should examine the role of coal in the nation's energy supply.2 (Footnote: 2 Secretary
of Interior Order No. 3338, Section 4, Subsection f. "Energy Needs," p 8.)
It is difficult to see how that task could be accomplished if the current system were
left in place because LBA effectively allows coal companies to answer energy supply issues on their own terms separate from public policy considerations.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
8 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
In the same vein, the PEIS should also prepare for a fundamental change in the royalty system. The current system, administered like an income tax, allows coal
royalties
producers to self-assess the value of coal for royalty purposes. Historically, some producers have used sophisticated methods to underreport coal values. Recent
rules adopted by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) requiring valuation of coal at the first arms-length sale will help reduce producer
underreporting of coal values arising from below market sales to captive affiliates. There is no doubt that these new rules represent a major step forward in
improving the current royalty process, and Interior is to be commended for making these changes. However, despite those improvements, the royalty system still
does not reliably guarantee a full and fair return to the public. Substantial loopholes remain that allow coal producers to underpay royalties through inflated
deductions or exclusions.3(Footnote: 3 Isaiah Peterson, "Devaluing Coal: Reasons for Restructuring How Federal Coal is Valued," Georgetown Journal of Law and
Public Policy, 2015, 13(1): pp 165-180.). As long as coal producers are allowed to self-assess coal values, they have a financial incentive to understate those values.
The companies will find ready assistance in these efforts from the large industry of experts who help corporations avoid income taxes by shifting profits among
national and state taxing jurisdictions through complex transactions and legal structures. Accountants and attorneys well-versed in profit shifting readily translate
those methods into royalty avoidance techniques. Indeed, the royalty avoidance through below market coal sales of coal to captive affiliates is a simplified version
of methods corporations have long used to shift profits earned in the United States to tax havens overseas-a problem the IRS has failed to solve after 50 years of
trying. As long as companies self-assess values for royalties, Interior will never catch up to the ever more creative royalty avoidance strategies that spread from
the world of taxation to infect royalty administration. No amount of selective loophole closing will ever overcome the incentives for and ingenuity of companies
to avoid full and fair royalty payments. Thus, royalty self-assessment is inherently incapable of guaranteeing the public the fair return on coal required by law.4
(Footnote 4: Certainly, audits of royalty returns can correct a number underreporting problems. But audit resources are often always too scarce and even under
the best of circumstances will not correct all the shortcomings in the original reports. Further, audits may come several years after returns are filed, leaving some
facts difficult to determine, producing conflicts with producers over ambiguities and resulting in partial settlements. Self-assessment combined with return auditing
is "a second best solution" compared to the system recommended in this report.)
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
8(continued) 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
As long as companies can undercut the proper valuation of coal for royalty purposes, the self-assessment system will prove ill-suited to the goal of adjusting coal
royalties
production to the realities of climate change. Several experts have proposed raising royalty rates or adding per ton royalty amounts to compensate the public for
the cost of climate change and other environmental effects.5
(Footnote 5 U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, "The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands:
Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers," Executive Office of the President, June 2016. (Reeder & Stock) (Vulcan Philanthropy) (Hein and Howard) more?)
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-75
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bucks
Dan
Organization
Letter # Name
27 Public Revenues Consulting
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
10 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Secretarial Order 3338 contains all the reasons why the current systems are deficient and need to be replaced. The programmatic reviews in the 1970s and 80s
royalties
set precedents for using the PEIS process to develop new practices and procedures. Interior's pause in leasing while the coal review is completed implicitly
confirmed that the leasing process was flawed and could not be continued. Indeed, if the scope of the PEIS does not include work on improved administrative
systems, Interior will undermine the credibility of the leasing pause. Critics will ask, "If the PEIS is simply an academic, analytical exercise of no consequence to
operational policy and practice, why then was the pause imposed on leases? Surely, analysis can proceed while we get on with the real business of leasing and
producing coal." The rationale for the leasing pause is reinforced if the scoping document makes an explicit commitment to develop through the PEIS a new
leasing system to replace lease by application.
By ceding substantial control of the pace and degree of coal leasing to coal producers and allowing them to self-
assess royalties, Interior has denied itself the ability to guarantee a fair return to the public, to minimize and mitigate the external cost of coal production, or to
fulfill other public purposes. The existing administrative systems are obstacles standing in the way of the goals of the PEIS. They are too infected by private control
serving private interests to yield results that serve the public interest. These systems need to be replaced, and that vital work should be accomplished through the
PEIS, with new systems ready to be implemented at its completion.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
20 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Only a brief note will be made here of the issue of royalty rates. The PEIS should consider whether discretionary royalty rate reductions, which subsidize the
royalties
production of marginal coal that impose external costs on society, is justified. Further, if discretionary rate reductions are allowed, the decision-making
surrounding such reductions should be made fully public. The PEIS should be used to evaluate the details of transparency for selective rate reductions if such
reductions are not eliminated entirely.
Cooper
Jami
119 N/A
5 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
maintaining or lowering coal royalty rates because: (1) the coal industry already pays more than its fair share and existing Federal rates are too high given current
royalties
market conditions; (2) raising rates will lower production and revenues; and (3) raising rates will cost jobs and harm communities. The coal industry is literally
killing our citizens. There is no rate too high in this regard. If raising rates lowers revenues, that is not the Government's problem. It is not your job to keep a
company afloat. And there are currently millions of unfilled jobs in the labor market. People are going to have to adapt and change careers. No other industry gets
considered this way. Restaurants close all the time. Retail stores have almost evaporated. However there was no outcry regarding keeping them open with
taxpayer money for the jobs they provide.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
26 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Under today's market conditions, WMA does not believe that an increase to the royalty rate is justified for current or future leases. In fact, recent efforts in
royalties
Congress to increase royalty rates appear to be punitive with the intention of making the resource non-economical to develop. This will in effect take the coal
resource off the table for the future with the inevitable result being no royalty revenue at all. If an adjustment to the royalty rate is considered by BLM, WMA
recommends a downward adjustment to keep the coal resource viable and keep revenues flowing.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
28 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
In addition to data or analyses that justify a change to the royalty rate, BLM must also consider information that justifies no change to the royalty rate. As part of
royalties
the review process, consider that duplications, redundancies and delays in the current leasing process, as described earlier are all very costly and serve to erode
the return to the American taxpayer. BLM should evaluate how the true cost of the typical ten-year leasing/permitting process compares to the return from
royalties, bonus bids and taxes. Is the American taxpayer spending more to administer a program when all agency costs are included, than the coal resource brings
in? We know how many billions of dollars have been generated in royalties and should be appalled that the process might cost as much. BLM must seriously
consider introducing true efficiencies into the process.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
30 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Finally, any increase in royalty rate further reduces competitiveness for the American coal industry. At a time when the federal government is actively supporting
royalties
preferred energy sources, such as wind and solar, with massive subsidies, tax exemptions and favorable regulatory treatment, any hike in royalty rates for federal
coal serves only to further burden the coal industry, increasingly skewing the energy market and depriving taxpayers of important revenue from the federal coal
program.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
27 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Under today's market conditions, WMA does not believe that an increase to the royalty rate is justified for current or future leases. In fact, recent efforts in
royalties
Congress to increase royalty rates appear to be punitive with the intention of making the resource non-economical to develop. This will in effect take the coal
resource off the table for the future with the inevitable result being no royalty revenue at all. If an adjustment to the royalty rate is considered by BLM, WMA
recommends a downward adjustment to keep the coal resource viable and keep revenues flowing.
Deveny
Christine
159 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Coal companies should pay their own way. That means that they should not get below cost coal on public lands. Taxpayer subsidies to coal companies must stop.
royalties
The price paid for public resources on public lands should cover the harm caused to those lands and to the climate. It's time to stop the free ride this destructive
industry has enjoyed for decades
Fay
Alexa
85 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I am also asking for an inflation-indexed amount of at least $500/tonne of CO2-equivalent emotions plus a revenue percentage beyond that.
royalties
Frasure-Wieselman
Gary
520 N/A
2
royalties
Gassman
David
127 N/A
2 207.0600.00
207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonds bids, rents,
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Godwin
Nadine
120 N/A
2 207.0600.00
I urge you to immediately end new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines.
Issue no new leases or lease expansions and end all royalty reductions
royalties
Gollomp
Golonka
Everett
Maryann
104 N/A
1 207.0600.00
525 N/A
207.0600.00
1
C-76
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Second, at the first legal opportunity, existing leases must be ended. And, where leases cannot be canceled, plan to take every opportunity to increase the fees
royalties
charged to mining companies to match market rates and/or compensate for environmental damage, until all leases have expired.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I am asking for both an end to coal leasing, and an increase in the fees charged to lessees from 8% to 12% of revenue to an amount commensurate with the
royalties
damage that coal extraction and use cause.
Fair Return/ bonds bids, rents,
Public lands are for use by us, the citizens of the United States and our guests. It is wrong for a handful of persons to make money that actually belongs to the
royalties
populous. In addition, haven't you heard that we are looking toward renewable energy sources? Please end new coal licensing now and the royalties actually
belong to the people of this country.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Gordon
Mark
Organization
Letter # Name
23 Governor of Wyoming
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
19 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Fair Return Bonus bids, rents and royalties received under the federal coal program are successfully securing a fair return to the American public for federal coal.
royalties
As BLM notes, "[o]ver the last decade (2011-20200, the BLM sold 17 coal leases and managed leases that produced approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and
resulted in $9.2 billion in revenue collections by the United States."25 (Footnote 25 86 Fed. Reg. at 46874; see also Office of Natural Resources Revenue (DOI)
(available at https://revenuedata.doi.gov/).
The federal coal program has been and remains a success story on both energy and economic grounds. Aside from the
revenues referenced above:26 (Footnote 26 The Future of the Federal Coal Program, Testimony of Hal Quinn, President and CEO, National Mining Association,
before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, p. 2 (available at
https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Hal-Quinn-Federal-Coal-Program-Testimony-July-11-2019-Copy.pdf).
States where federal coal is produced have
historically exceeded the job and wage growth experienced in the remainder of the United States. Since 1970, the coal basins with significant federal coal
production experienced sharply higher employment growth, often 2.5 to 3 times the growth in the U.S.2 Personal income growth far outpaced- often by twicethe growth of total U.S. personal income growth. For example, the employment growth in Campbell County, Wyoming was 460 percent while the personal
income growth was 740 percent. Coal wages are 60 to 115 percent higher than the average industrial wages in western states with federal coal production.
Green
Susan
161 N/A
6 207.0600.00
Grey
Becky
160 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
No new leases or lease expansions and an end to all royalty reductions.
royalties
Griffin
Harvey
Evelyn
Ann
110 N/A
21 No Coal in Oakland
1 207.0600.00
18 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Ensuring a fair return to the American public for the leasing and mining of our publicly owned mineral resources by increasing royalty rates, and closing loopholes
royalties
in coal valuation processes, and ending royalty rate reductions
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Please ensure a fair return to the American public for the leasing and mining of our publicly owned mineral resources by increasing the royalty rates and closing
royalties
loopholes in code valuation processes.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
BLM should adjust royalties upward if and when current leases are renewed to fully account for currently externalized costs. Royalty adjustments should be
royalties
calculated in conjunction with the Department of Interior's newly created Climate Task Force (DOI Order 3399, 4/16/2021), drawing upon deliberations and
revised standards of the Interagency Working Group on the Social Costs of Greenhouse Gases that was resurrected by Executive Order 13990 (1/20/2021).
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
19 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The Secretary should ensure that no MLA funds are diverted from their intended use - i.e., to provide public facilities and services for extraction impacted
royalties
communities - to instead support fossil fuel development projects such as coal export infrastructure. To this end, we suggest that the Secretary begin with an audit
of the Utah Community Impact Board. (See below.)
Case study: Wolverine Fuels, LLC vs Richmond, CA and Oakland, CA. Federal subsidies and unduly
favorable environmental assessments have enabled Bowie Resource Partners, LLC, aka Wolverine Fuels, LLC, to profitably mine and export Utah coal since 2013
and to spend millions burdening our two cities with expensive lawsuits in pursuit of its "right" to export coal. The subsidies include $83 million in misdirected
MLA community impact funds and tens of millions in questionable royalty rate reductions.
In the early 2010s, as domestic coal use was in decline, Kentucky-
based Bowie Resource Partners, LLC bought up mines in Utah and quietly began exporting coal to Asia in 2013, building up to an average of around 3 million
tons/year by 2016-2 million loaded at the Port of Stockton and the last third added at a deeper private terminal on the San Francisco Bay in Richmond. Bowie also
sought a terminal that could handle around 10 million tons per year from the Port of Oakland. Turned down by the Port, Bowie secretly contracted with a local
developer to sublet city-owned land to a Bowie subsidiary for a coal terminal. The local developer had a contract with the City to build a multicommodity
terminal. He publicly denied any intention to allow coal shipments, and Bowie's ownership of the nominally local terminal builder was kept secret from the city
and the public.
Utah's Deseret News broke the news of the planned coal export terminal while covering a 2015 meeting of the Utah Community Impact Fund
Board during which the Board considered allocating $53 million in MLA funds for the project. Oaklanders rallied against construction of a coal terminal. In
addition to global climate and pollution impacts, such a terminal would have particularly severe health impacts on the adjacent, formerly redlined West Oakland
neighborhood, which is burdened by industrial toxic waste sites, the nearby Port of Oakland, and freeways. The community has high rates of child asthma
emergency room visits, cancer, heart disease, and stroke and has a life expectancy almost 10 years shorter than residents of the Oakland hills. After reviewing
ample input, including public health assessments[ix],
[ix] Letter from Earthjustice to the Oakland City Council dated 9/2/2015, supported by extensive health and
safety reports by veteran environmental analyst and consulting engineer Phyllis Fox, Ph.D. and University of California Davis professor of civil
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
19(continued) 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
and environmental engineering Deb Niemeier, Ph.D.No Coal In Oakland's letter to the Oakland City Council dated September 18, 2015 which includes analyses
royalties
by Dr. Bart Ostro, former chief of the Air Pollution Epidemiology Section of the California Environmental Protection Agency, and Paul English, Ph.D., a public
health epidemiologist with over 25 years of experience in assessing public health impacts of environmental exposures
the Oakland City Council enacted a ban
on storage and handling of coal and applied the ban to this project. Bowie poured millions into lawsuits against the city. The matter is still tied up in court.
Meanwhile, residents near the Levin-Richmond Terminal, also disadvantaged communities with high pollution and chronic disease burdens, began to notice coal
dust on their cars and windowsills and worsened breathing problems in their children. Residents of Richmond also organized, and in January of 2020, a land-use
ordinance went into effect, banning storage and handling of coal in Richmond after a three-year grace period. Bowie, since relocated to Utah and renamed
Wolverine Fuels, LLC, is now suing Richmond.
Millions in federal subsidies give Wolverine an enormous advantage as it forces both Oakland and Richmond to
spend millions defending ordinances to protect their residents. These are two cities that already struggle to fund essential city services.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-77
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
26 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
11 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
BLM should end the practice of Royalty rate reductions. Congress passed 30 U.S.C. § 209[10] (Footnote [10] 30 U.S. Code § 209 - Suspension, waiver, or
royalties
reduction of rents or royalties to promote development or operation; extension of lease on suspension of operations and production) in 1982, in response to the
energy crises of the 1970s, at the peak of international oil prices[11]
(Footnote11]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg#/media/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg) , giving BLM the authority to reduce
coal royalties beyond the reduction to 8% for underground mining. It reads: "The Secretary of the Interior, for the purpose of encouraging the greatest ultimate
recovery of coal, oil, gas, oil shale ... and in the interest of conservation of natural resources, is authorized to waive, suspend, or reduce the rental, or minimum
royalty, or reduce the royalty... in order to promote development, or whenever in his judgment the leases cannot be successfully operated under the terms
provided therein." While 1982 was an all-hands-on-deck moment for developing domestic energy resources, 2021 is an all-hands-on-deck moment for developing
greenhouse gas-free renewable energy, employing energy conservation measures, and ending fossil fuel use. Coal has particularly severe impacts on the
environment and human health through greenhouse gas production and air and water pollution. The Secretary must heed the IPCC's Code Red and serve "the
interest of conservation of natural resources" by putting a rapid halt to coal mining rather than "encouraging its greatest ultimate recovery". The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized but not obliged to grant royalty reductions. Per the appellate court decision PEABODY COAL CO. IBLA 84-380 Decided. September 11,
1986:[12] (Footnote [12] https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/093IBLA/093IBLA317.pdf. ) "The provisions of 30 U.S.C. § 209 (1982) specify no
circumstance in which BLM is required to reduce the royalty of a coal lease. Under that statute, no entitlement to a reduction can ever arise." Granting relief
from federal coal royalty rates in order to allow otherwise nonviable mines to continue production subsidizes and keeps on life support the most climate
warming, polluting energy source. This practice goes counter to Interior's mandates to serve the interest of conservation of natural resources, the protection of
the interests of the United States, the safeguarding of public welfare, and President Biden's Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad.[13] (Footnote [13]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-homeand-abroad/)
Harvey
Ann
26 N/A
11(continued) 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The Rate Reduction process also appears to be rife with abuse. Rate reductions vary greatly by BLM Field Office, indicating likely excess field office discretion and
royalties
inappropriate reductions. For example, every federal lease in North Dakota from 1992 through 2013 received a royalty rate reduction. The average royalty rate
for all 11 leases was 2.33 percent![14] (Footnote [14]https://www.taxpayer.net/wpcontent/uploads/ported/images/downloads/Royalty_Rate_Reductions_Fact_Sheet.pdf)
One current example of an excessive and suspect reduction is Arch
Resource's royalty relief for its West Elk mine in Colorado and its Coal Creek mine in Wyoming, granted this May. Arch received a reduction from 12.5% to 2%
for two years for its open-pit Coal Creek mine, which Arch Resources is planning to shut down in fall 2022. The BLM spokesperson's justifications: "the reduced
rate allows for the recovery of ore that would not otherwise be economic, and thus encourages the greatest ultimate recovery" and allows this otherwise
nonviable mine slated to close during the rate reduction period to stay open "for time to see if potential technological advances, such as methane capture, will
work."[15] (Footnote [15]https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-administration-coal-royalty-cuts-climate_n_61094c17e4b0552883e59cd3) This outrageous
royalty rate reduction for an open pit mine is highly suspect and should be reviewed at the earliest possible date. In addition to fueling the climate Code Red,
royalty rate reductions slash the MLA funds available to support local communities impacted by coal mining on federal lands--half of 2% is a paltry and completely
inadequate amount. Recommendations * Grant no new coal Royalty Rate Reductions. * Scrutinize existing Royalty Rate Reductions when their review or
recertification terms arise, with the expectation that many will be rescinded. If information submitted by a lessee is found to have been false or misleading, BLM
should rescind the reduction immediately and require repayment of the rate reduction savings to date. * Make all Royalty Rate Reductions transparent to the
public. Although Royalty Rate Reductions appear to be frequently abused, they are granted based on financial and geological/engineering data provided to the BLM
by the lessee to which the public has no access. The BLM does not even provide the public with reasonable access to aggregate information. * Post all Royalty
Rate Reductions currently in effect, including their respective applications and approval letters, in an easily searchable database within the BLM website. Any new
or pending applications, changes to reductions, and new reductions, should they be granted, should be posted in real time. Every person and organization should
have the right to opt in to receive notices by email, text, or US Postal Service of all applications and decisions. BLM should make public the basis for each Rate
Reduction. Any reductions in rents or fees, should they exist, should likewise be transparent to the public.
Harvey
C-78
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
17 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
BLM should grant no new royalty reductions and should scrutinize all Royalty Rate Reductions when they come up for recertification, including those of
royalties
Wolverine Fuels, LLC which must recertify this October 1
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
26 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
9 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The use of coal is currently promoted by numerous subsidies. One of these is the externalization of substantial social and environmental costs. The royalty rate
royalties
for each mine should be the sum of the fair market value plus following inputs. * Social and environmental costs due to every phase of the coal's "life cycle". For
combustion, the greatest single cost input, all mines have a minimum per ton greenhouse gas and air pollutant emission cost based on cleanest available
combustion technology and cleanest coal, adjusted to account for the nature of the coal and the combustion and emissions control technologies employed by the
end users. BLM should then add the estimated monetary value of costs related to additional impacts such as those discussed in the environmental assessment
section above. They should be based on the amount of coal that is permitted to be mined and handled in each specified manner. Royalty rates based on tonnage
rather than price have strong precedents: this was BLM's practice from 1920 to the mid-1960s.* Social and environmental addends to the royalty rate should
include funds to be distributed to communities impacted locally by coal processing, transportation, storage, handling, and combustion, such as the transportation
impacts discussed above. The costs of these impacts are not determined by the price of coal but by factors such as tonnage of coal; modes of transport; sizes of
coal piles as well as local meteorological conditions; processing and combustion technologies; mitigation strategies; levels of ambient air pollutants from other
sources; population densities and characteristics such as vulnerability to health impacts; and local prices of resulting costs such as medical care, emergency child
care, attendant care, etc. Social and environmental addends should also include contributions to federal disaster relief funds and to funds to assist localities with
adaptation to global warming including sea level rise. * Funds to be distributed to states for mining-impacted communities to provide public services and to build
and maintain public facilities as under the current program. However, federal coal belongs to the people of the United States as a whole, not to the counties or
states where it is located. Thus, these distributions are a cost of mining, and should not be deducted, even in part, from federal revenues but should be covered by
additions to royalty rates. The impacts of mineral development on counties are proportional to the amount of coal mined, not the sale price, so this portion of
the royalty should be calculated per ton. The Secretary should exercise her authority to revise royalty rates and other fees and conditions of ongoing leases at
specified intervals. Because the dire impacts of climate change and pollution due to coal and other fossil fuels are continually becoming better understood, the
Secretary should reserve the right to adjust terms and conditions, including royalty rates, periodically as a condition of each lease renewal. Recommendations *
Royalties should be determined by the sum of fair market value plus all currently externalized social and environmental costs. BLM will estimate these costs using
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases standards plus detailed information about the coal's fate included in environmental assessments and lease conditions.
Harvey
Ann
26 N/A
9(continued) 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
* The funds distributed to states for mining impacted communities should not be partially cut out of fair market value but added to it.
royalties
Heffernan
Katherine
114 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Please reform coal leases by ensuring a fair return to American taxpayers.
royalties
Heffernan
Katherine
114 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
7 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Lease-holders should pay market rate and pay for all restoration costs.
royalties
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
the coal industry has for decades been subsidized by U.S. taxpayers through various means including deflated royalty rates, thereby placing the development of
royalties
renewable energy at a competitive disadvantage and leading utility ratepayers and taxpayers alike vulnerable to future losses from stranded coal 'assets'; [see info
at www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs]
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
5 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
the system of federal coal lease royalties --long overdue for an update-- does not offset, or offer fair compensation for, coal's actual upstream and downstream
royalties
costs to society and the environment and, as such, is not adequately structured to ensure that taxpayers receive "fair market value," as the law requires; [see info
at www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/federal-coal-leasing-fair-market-value-and-a-fair-return-for-the-american-t/]
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
10 207.0600.00
Sense
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The industry has argued at times that the taxes that coal companies pay to local, state, and federal governments should offset the royalties they pay for the right to
royalties
mine and sell federal coal. Just because the coal industry pays taxes, like every other industry, does not mean it should not pay fair market value for federal coal.
Private landowners charge royalties on the market value of private coal, in addition to whatever taxes the companies might pay. Taxpayers, the owners of federal
resources, should also charge market-based royalties.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
11 207.0600.00
Sense
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Royalty Valuation The process used to determine the value of federal coal for calculating a royalty is also done in secret and is largely controlled by industry. The
royalties
Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) released its final rule governing the valuation of federal coal in June 2016. (footnote 6 : Office of Natural Resource
Revenue, Final Rulemaking: "Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform," 81 FR 43338 - July 1, 2016) The updated rule was
certainly an improvement, but TCS was disappointed that well-documented problems with coal valuation were not eliminated. Numerous studies, including a
recent report by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), (footnote 7 : White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), "The Economics of Coal Leasing on
Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers," June 2016) have demonstrated how coal companies manipulate the current valuation system to reduce
royalty payments.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
Sense
12 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The Trump Administration tried and failed to repeal the 2016 rule before publishing a rule in its final week that largely reverted the non-arm's-length valuation
royalties
system to its pre-2016 form. After the change in administration, ONRR delayed the effective date of that January 2021 rule and requested public comments. TCS
submitted comments urging ONRR to rescind the Trump Administration's rule and strengthen protections for taxpayers. In June 2021, ONRR formally proposed
to withdraw the 2021 valuation rule. On September 30, 2021, ONRR withdrew the rule. (Footnote 8 : Office of Natural Resource Revenue, ONRR 2020
Valuation Reform and Civil Penalty Rule: Final Withdrawal Rule. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/30/2021-20979/onrr-2020-valuation-reformand-civil-penalty-rule-final-withdrawal-rule)
If the 2016 rule remained in effect, ONRR would be using the gross proceeds from the first independent, or "arm's-
length," sale of the coal to calculate royalties owed to the federal government. The change would have improved the system by ensuring that the royalty value of
coal in a non-arm's-length transaction is rooted in prices set between unrelated parties - the economic gold standard for establishing value in the market. ONRR
must try again to revise valuation method for non-arm's-length coal sales to better capture its value for royalty purposes.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-79
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Huang
Mia
Organization
Letter # Name
4 Taxpayers for Common
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
15 207.0600.00
Sense
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
BLM should review its guidance and application of standards for the approval of royalty rate reductions. Reductions in royalty rates should be the exception, not
royalties
the rule. According to ONRR data, almost half of the federal coal lease sales in the last 25 years received a royalty rate reduction. Between 1990 and 2010,
roughly 200 requests for royalty relief were filed by federal coal lessees, about nine each year. In 2014, the Bureau issued an Instruction Memorandum specifying
how relief requests should be evaluated. From 2015 to 2019, coal companies submitted eight requests per year, on average. In 2020, BLM received 58 requests
for royalty relief. The surge is at least partly due to the BLM's invitation to submit requests under the guise of COVID-19 related economic relief. Some of the
requests approved at the 11th hour of Trump Administration were highly questionable.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
3 207.0600.00
Sense
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the fiduciary responsibility to manage all natural assets, including federal coal, on behalf of nation's taxpayers. We urge
royalties
you to review the program with special attention to Fair Market Value calculations, Royalty Rates, Royalty Valuation, Royalty Rate Reductions, and Reclamation
and Bonding Requirements as these are all areas where taxpayers lose.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
9 207.0600.00
Sense
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Royalty Rates. The BLM should consider increasing the royalty rate to 18.75 percent for federal coal production, as this royalty rate would ensure that the
royalties
taxpayers are recovering a fair share of the market value of the resource and not favor one energy source over another. The federal government currently
charges a royalty rate of 18.75 percent for offshore oil and gas production, and many states charge similar or higher rates for state-owned oil and gas.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
16 207.0600.00
Sense
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Two essential MLA elements must both be met to qualify for a rate reduction: 1) the royalty rate reduction must encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of
royalties
coal; and 2) the royalty rate reduction must be in the interest of conservation of natural resources. Even if these elements are demonstrated, a rate reduction may
be granted only when it is necessary to promote development or if the lease cannot be successfully operated under the lease terms. Royalty rates may be reduced
to as low as two percent.
Huskinson
Lynne
24 N/A
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Climate change has to be part of the scenario. Doubling the royalty would be a start to addressing the problems caused by the use of coal.
royalties
37 207.0600.00
Coordinating Office
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
In analyzing whether the BLM is getting a fair return on its investment, the BLM must consider the additional burdens and fewer benefits that lessee/applicants
royalties
assume when leasing coal on federal land and resist the pressure from anti-mining non-governmental organizations to create a coal leasing program that makes
mining on federal lands uneconomical.22 (Footnote:22See Kristiana Faddoul, Biden administration allows coal leasing on public lands to continue, re-opens
analysis of program, Sierra Club, August 19, 2021. "An honest review of the federal coal program should lead to a permanent ban on new coal leasing on our
public lands." Available at https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/08/biden-administration-allows-coal-leasing-public-lands-continue-re-opens)
Specifically, the amount of time an applicant must wait before they can begin operating on federal land is several years longer than what that same applicant would
wait to operate on private land or even on state School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) parcels. Additionally, applicants for BLM leases
generally bear the cost of preparing the required environmental impact statements (EIS), and the litigation costs for defending those analyses in federal court
because anti-mining organizations always challenge BLM's record of decisions (ROD) regarding coal leasing. With these obstructions in mind, the BLM should not
presume that it is entitled to the same royalty rates as the private sector. The BLM should also consider the benefits or returns it derives from leases that are not
monetary. Often lease holders do such a good job with their reclamation projects that the health of the rangeland is in better shape after the mining and
reclamation than it was prior to the lease. In Southern Utah at the Alton Coal Mine, sage-grouse habitat and sage-grouse populations have increased because of
the reclamation projects completed by the mine. Additionally, based on its fiduciary obligations to maximize revenues from leasing, the BLM should recognize that
a 'fair return' to the American people is the 'best return.' In reviewing bonus bids, rents and royalties, BLM revenues will be maximized by ensuring the
competiveness and long-term viability of the U.S.'s coal industry. In determining how to maximize the 'best return' for the American people, the BLM should
consider more market-sensitive approaches, including the increased tax revenue that might be generated from decreasing royalties, as well as determining bonus
payments on actual production rather than coal reserve amounts. Recognizing that coal currently faces severe regulatory and market challenges, as reflected in
the bankruptcy filings of several major coal companies, it is misleading to suggest that increasing production costs will result in additional net royalty or tax
revenues. The reality is that increasing the cost of leasing coal on federal land will very likely result in lower royalty and tax revenues through accelerated
decreases in coal production and investment.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
36 207.0600.00
Coordinating Office
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The BLM seeks comments on whether the bonus bids, rents, and royalties received under the federal leasing coal program are successfully securing a fair return
royalties
to the American public for federal coal, and, if not, what adjustments could be made to provide such compensation. This is a complex issue with numerous
stakeholders and implications to be considered. Further discovery needs to be undertaken before any regulation changes are implemented. An impartial group
should be convened to assess the current structure of bonus bids, rents, and royalties; determine potential impacts of any proposed adjustments; and make
recommendations to State and federal entities that address impacts to economy, resiliency, and environment.
Johnson
Carolyn
476 N/A
Knight
Dennis
74 N/A
Fair Return/ bonds bids, rents,
I urge you to immediately end new coal leasing and reverse the recent royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines like the one for the West Elk mine in
3
royalties
Colorado.
3 207.0600.00
207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Enable the pricing of coal to reflect the true costs of mining and burning it. Coal is not and should not be considered a "cheap alternative."
royalties
Konkar
Surabhi
124 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I request you to end new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines.
royalties
Lechtman
Bronya
20 Northern Plains Resource
3 207.0600.00
Council
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Finally, we need reforms that ensure a fair return to the American public for the leasing and mining of our publicly-owned mineral resources by increasing royalty
royalties
rates and closing loopholes in coal valuation processes. The Biden administration's continued granting of royalty rate reductions for coal companies conflicts with
the stated priority of tackling climate change. Communities throughout the west have dealt with the devastating impacts of coal mining for decades. With the
dramatic rise in affordable renewable energy, there is no excuse for the continued subsidization of coal by the federal government.
Lisella
Maria
60 N/A
4 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I urge you to immediately end new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines
royalties
C-80
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Lisella
Maria
Organization
Letter # Name
60 N/A
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
7 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Force coal companies to pay for their climate damage. President Biden pledged to end fossil fuel subsidies. BLM should live up to that promise by: A. Ending
royalties
royalty relief, which allows coal companies to pay less than the agreed-upon amount on already-approved coalmines, and B. Incorporating social costs into coal
royalties for every coal lease renewal. Initial coal leases last 20 years, and while coal companies can opt to renew them in 10-year increments, BLM can
renegotiate the terms when leases come up for renewal. Hundreds of leases will come up for renewal in President Biden's first term, and BLM should incorporate
the social cost of carbon, currently around $51/ton, into the cost of fossil fuel companies leasing taxpayer-owned resources. Otherwise, the rest of us bear the
full cost of that climate pollution, the companies and fossil fuel executives receive windfall subsidies.
Lisella
Lish
Maria
Christopher
60 N/A
175 N/A
8 207.0600.00
6 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
As for existing leases: Ensure a fair return to taxpayers by increasing the amount that private corporations pay to lease federal lands and waters for fossil fuel
royalties
development, including by setting royalty rates that account for the true social and environmental costs of the carbon produced on these leases.
Fair Return/ bonds bids, rents, royaThe BLM should live up to that promise by: 1. Ending royalty relief, which allows coal companies to pay less than the agreed upon amount on already-approved
coal mines, and 2. Incorporating social costs into coal royalties for every coal lease renewal. Initial coal leases last 20 years, and while coal companies can opt to
renew them in 10-year increments, the BLM can renegotiate the terms when leases come up for renewal. Hundreds of leases will come up for renewal in
President Biden's first term, and the BLM should incorporate the social cost of carbon, currently around $51/ton, into the cost of fossil fuel companies leasing
taxpayer-owned resources. Otherwise, the rest of us bear the full cost of that climate pollution, the companies and fossil fuel executives receive windfall subsidies.
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
9 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonds bids, rents, roya* Ending Royalty reductions. These were originally instituted in response to the energy crisis to maximize domestic fossil fuel production-now, they are the
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
7 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonds bids, rents, royaThe BLM should issue no new leases or lease expansions and put an end to all royalty reductions.
Lopez
Carloz
92 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Lucas
Mitchell
157 N/A
6 207.0600.00
antithesis of what the nation needs.
I am also asking for an inflation-indexed amount of at least $500/tonne of emitted CO2-equivalent emissions, plus a percentage of revenue beyond that.
royalties
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Ending royalty relief, which allows coal companies to pay less than the agreed upon amount on already-approved coal mines,
royalties
Magidson
Jason
Malek
Sue
164 N/A
3 207.0600.00
44 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
For any coal leases that remain, we should end royalty relief and incorporate the social costs of producing coal into the price.
royalties
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
5 207.0600.00
Commissioners
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Coal companies operate with little or no financial oversight. They pay $1 per ton while earning more than $12 per ton. They are allowed to pay royalties on the
royalties
price at the mine so they sell to subsidiaries at low prices before selling the coal for substantial profit to end users. American taxpayers are being robbed.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Fair Return - Bonus bids, rental payments and royalties received under the coal program are successful and are securing a fair return to the public for federal coal.
royalties
7 207.0600.00
Commissioners
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Specific to royalty rates, the current rate structure is adequate and any efforts to increase the royalty rates will put the resource off limits as it will be uneconomic
royalties
to develop and will decrease competition in an already fragile market. Campbell County is opposed to any federal royalty rate increases and BLM must promote
ways to encourage competition in the private sector and not discourage competition by mandating increased costs making projects uneconomic and unattractive
to pursue.
Mesford
Morris
Olson
Mike
David
Julia
63 N/A
101 N/A
18 Our Children's Trust
3 207.0600.00
5 207.0600.00
22 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
If there must be a phase-out period then the fees should be increased to cover the costs that coal extraction and use cause. This should be at least $500/tonne of
royalties
emitted CO2-equivalent emissions.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
shut down those which already exist by taxing the hell out of those programs to cover the real cost of extraction which is currently subsidized by the taxpayers
royalties
of this nation.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
In conducting your analysis of the coal leasing program, a discount rate should not be applied in any cost benefit analysis. Discounting at 2.5, 3, 5 or 7%
royalties
discriminates against children and future generations. Given the enormous danger and high risk posed by coal extraction and combustion for generations to come,
intergenerational equity and foundational economic principles dictate that no discount rate be used when assessing costs and benefits of stopping coal production
from federal public lands.
Omole
Michael
108 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
In addition I urge that the lease fees be high enough to cover the significant mortality and other damage caused worldwide by coal burning.
royalties
Payne
Pollastro
Mark
Carson
69 N/A
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
3 207.0600.00
5 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
It appears that the BLM has actually reduced the price of some coal leases at a time when climate change is greatly impacted by burning fossil fuels. Please review
royalties
the BLM's coal leasing process to make sure it is not excessive and is not at the expensive of tax payers (i.e. 'giving away the farm to coal companies').
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
In addition to the already over-market rates to obtain and operate a lease, operators on federal lands also face two more federal taxes levied on every ton of
royalties
federal coal produced. The Abandoned Mine Land ("AML") tax of $0.12 per ton and the Black Lung Excise Tax of $1.10 per ton. At today's U.S. Energy
Information Administration ("EIA") spot price for Uinta Basin coal of $30/ton, that is an additional 4% fee levied on every ton of coal. When combined with
production royalties and bonus bids, the effective rate paid to the American taxpayer by operators in the Uinta Basin ranges between 13% and 16%, depending on
sales price.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
7 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Because of the high costs a company must bear while operating on federal lands, it is imperative that BLM maintain its discretion to reduce royalty rates. Many of
royalties
the federal coal leases in existence today are extensions of existing mines where the reserve base is on the outer margins of once highly productive mines.
Without the ability to reduce royalty rates to a more favorable market rate, it could make extraction of marginal or bypass federal coal resources uneconomical.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-81
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pollastro
Carson
Organization
Letter # Name
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
21 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
If BLM wanted to truly examine fair market royalty rates, it should encourage anonymous submittal of private royalty rates in order to compare current market
royalties
rates on private lands to the codified royalty rates required on federal coal. Many private landowners are hesitant to provide confidential financial information to
the BLM, providing an anonymous, confidential way for the BLM to obtain this data would better allow BLM to compare current market royalty rates. It is
Wolverine's position that federal lease rates are significantly higher than private lease royalties. There are also added costs required with obtaining a federal lease,
as have been previously refenced that make acquisition and operation of a federal coal lease tract even higher.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
22 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Bonus bids were an effective tool in the 1970s when there were more frequent greenfield coal mine starts, and remain useful for any future greenfield proposals.
royalties
However, the majority of leasing is to expand existing operations and sustain their depletion rates. The Secretary should evaluate abandoning bonus bids for
maintenance tracts, and instead employ an adjusted revenue-neutral royalty schedule for those tracts.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
30 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
There has been a continual push by Environmental Non-governmental Organizations ("ENGO's") to encourage the BLM to change the royalty rates on federal
royalties
coal. However, this is not a change that can be made at the discretion of the BLM. Royalty rates are established under the MLA, as amended (30 U.S.C. 207 (a));
therefore, BLM does not have the authority to raise royalties above 8 percent, only Congress does. Also, under Office of Management and Budget's (hereinafter
OMB's) Circular No. A-4, Guidelines for the Conduct of Regulatory Analysis, regulatory analysis of proposed rules that may have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more requires approval by OMB. As such, BLM would need to first seek approval and coordinate with OMB throughout the PEIS, and then go
through the legislative process for any change to the current royalty rates.
The misconception that federal royalty rates are below market value is another
fallacy being driven by ENGO's. If anything, the current federal royalty rates are above market rates, and if increased will only result in decreased production and
overall return on investment for taxpayers. Generally, rates with private owners have been around 4% and rarely are there large upfront bonus bids required for
obtaining private leases. In Utah, the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration ("SITLA") leases coal lands at the same royalty rate as the
BLM, but generally allows a "pay as you go" bonus bid. This bonus bid strategy allows operators to delay upfront capital costs, while allowing them to invest in
additional exploration and development of a resource to achieve maximum economic recovery. In any case, the length of time to obtain and begin operating in a
SITLA or private tract is years shorter and more reliable than leasing on BLM lands.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
31 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Several policies can only be modified by congressional action. These include potential changes in federal royalty rates and the potential imposition of carbon-
royalties
related fees or taxes. The PEIS should expressly identify which alternatives and actions it considers will require legislative authorization. This is not a change that
can be made at the discretion of the BLM nor through a PEIS. Royalty rates are established under the MLA, as amended (30 U.S.C. 207 (a)); therefore, BLM does
not have the authority to raise royalties above 8 percent, only Congress does.
Ruffing
Scott
71 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I would prefer an end to coal leasing, and in the meantime an increase in the fees charged to lessees to 12% in line with the damage that coal extraction and use
royalties
cause according to studies published in Nature:
Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K. et al. Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Clim Change 8, 895-900
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y
Bressler, R.D. The mortality cost of carbon. Nat Commun 12, 4467 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
021-24487-w
Sacerdote
David
38 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Sacerdote
David
38 N/A
4 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I ask that leasing fees be set to cover the actual damages done plus a percentage of revenue.
royalties
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Setting leasing fees above an inflation-indexed $2000/tonne of CO2-equivalent on a 20-year basis, including scope 3 emissions associated with the mining, use of
royalties
product, incidental methane release, and support operations for the mine, plus 20% of revenue beyond that, would be a reasonably appropriate model for the rare
situations in which leasing coal can be morally justified.
These fees need to cover not only damage from new mines, but damages from the historic extraction
and emission conducted in the United States since the country's founding, as well as ongoing emissions of methane from decommissioned mines, and emissions of
CO2 from ongoing fires inside now-abandoned mines.
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
2 207.0600.00
at New York University
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
To ensure that any future coal leasing and extraction occurs on terms and in volumes that are fairer to American taxpayers and more consistent with the public
royalties
interest than has been the case until now, Interior should institute additional programmatic reforms including raising royalties and fair market valuations to
School of Law
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
account for externalities, and ensuring competitive bidding that offers a fairer return to taxpayers.
3 207.0600.00
at New York University
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
We have attached Policy Integrity's report titled Priorities for Coal Reform, which lays out twelve reforms for the federal coal program4; Policy Integrity's report
royalties
titled Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value, which describes how outdated policies, longstanding loopholes, and environmental externalities keep American
School of Law
taxpayers from receiving their fair share of value from federal coal leases5; and Policy Integrity's report titled Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal, which
summarizes how Interior can modernize the federal coal program through royalty rate increases and other fiscal reforms.6
(footnote 4 Jayni Foley Hein,
Priorities for Federal Coal Reform: Twelve Policy and Procedural Goals for the Programmatic Review, INST. POL'Y INTEGRITY (2016) [hereinafter "Priorities
for Coal Reform"].) (footnote 5 Jayni Foley Hein & Peter Howard, Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value: The Social Costs of Coal Production and the Need for
Fiscal Reform, INST. POL'Y INTEGRITY (2015) [hereinafter "Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value"]. ) (footnote 6 Jayni Foley Hein & Peter Howard,
Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal: Summary for Policymakers, INST. POL'Y INTEGRITY (2015) [hereinafter "Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal"]. )
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
at New York University
School of Law
18 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Interior should eliminate, or at least amend, its regulation on royalty rate relief. Independent economic experts as well as the Government Accountability Office
royalties
have determined that Interior reduces the already low royalty rate in a significant portion of leases, which distorts the market by subsidizing coal production even
when it is uneconomical.37
(footnote 37 Id. at 18-19. )
This practice contravenes the Mineral Leasing Act's intent that such reductions be permitted only
when the current royalty rate imposes economic hardship that would otherwise result in abandoning the lease or in less than full recovery of leased coal.38
(footnote 38 Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value, supra note 5, at 12.)
It also acts as a subsidy for the coal industry at the expense of American taxpayers.39
(footnote 39 Priorities for Federal Coal Reform, supra note 4, at 19.)
C-82
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sarinsky
Max
Organization
Letter # Name
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
22 207.0600.00
at New York University
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Interior should increase coal royalty rates to sufficiently account for coal's environmental and public-health effects. As Policy Integrity explained in a 2015 report,
royalties
consideration of monetized production and transportation externalities alone supported the imposition of a 70 percent royalty adder.30
School of Law
Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal, supra note 6, at 3.
(footnote 30
At a minimum, Interior should raise coal royalty rates to at least match those used for offshore oil and
gas leases in order to better account for the environmental and human health effects of coal production and thereby better ensure that taxpayers receive fair
market value.31(footnote 31 Id.)
Sexton
Trenton
131 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I am writing to voice my support of both an end to coal leasing, and an increase in the fees charged to lessees from 8% to 12% of revenue to an amount
royalties
commensurate with the damage that coal extraction and use cause. I am also asking for an inflation-indexed amount of at least $500/tonne of emitted CO2equivalent emissions, plus a percentage of revenue beyond that.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
25 207.0600.00
Law Program
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
BLM has an opportunity to eliminate the coal royalty subsidy on a large number of existing leases and, at the same time, reduce climate emissions from federal
royalties
coal production.42 [Footnote 42 Id. at 6-15 (noting that initial analysis demonstrated that increasing federal coal royalty rates would reduce overall coal
consumption).] More than 100 federal coal leases will come up for a 10-year renewal during President Biden's
first term, including 15 between June 1 and the
end of 2021 and another 35 in 2022.43 [Footnote 43 See list of federal coal leases and renewal dates. Attached as Exhibit 18.]
BLM should exercise its
authority to modify royalty rates in renewed leases by incorporating the social cost of carbon and methane to account for climate externalities and the true cost
of such leases to the American public.44
[Footnote 44 30 U.S.C. § 207(a) ("royalties and other terms and conditions of the lease will be subject to readjustment
at the end of its primary term of twenty years and at the end of each ten-year period thereafter if the lease is extended."); Accord 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1 ("All leases
issued after August 4, 1976, shall be subject to readjustment at the end of the first 20-year period and, if the lease is extended, each 10-year period thereafter.").
BLM recognized the significant environmental, health, and climate externalities of the federal coal program in its 2017 PEIS Scoping Report, at 5-46 to 5-52.]
BLM has clear authority to adjust royalties for renewed leases. Federal regulations require the Department to provide prior notice to the lessee of any
adjustments, but do not otherwise limit BLM's authority to adjusts lease terms.45 [Footnote 45 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(c)(1)-(2).]
In April 2016, researches at
Harvard University and Vulcan Philanthropies released a paper that utilized the Integrated Planning Model to analyze the market and climate impacts of
incorporating a "carbon adder" into federal coal royalties.46 [Footnote 46 Todd Gerarden and James Stock, Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean Power Plan,
and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate Policies (April 2016). Attached as Exhibit 19.]
Their findings indicated that, in the absence of
downstream regulation of coal-combustion carbon emissions, incorporating the Interagency Working Group's social cost of carbon into federal coal royalty rates
could achieve roughly three-quarters of the emissions reductions that such downstream regulation may accomplish. The analysis also finds that in a scenario
where downstream regulation is effected, incorporating the social cost of carbon into federal coal royalties would result in a slight up-tick in mining non-federal
coal reserves, but this substitution would be tempered by a shift to electricity generation by gas and renewables.47 [Footnote 47 Id. at 3.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
25(continued) 207.0600.00
Law Program
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Under both scenarios (with and without downstream regulation), the modeling conducted as part of the study revealed that adding the social cost of carbon into
royalties
federal coal royalties would increase revenue to the federal government and states even while reducing the total amount of coal mined and GHGs emitted from
the electric sector.48 [Footnote 48 Id.]
Further, as the White House Council of Economic Advisors recognized, even if carbon dioxide emissions from coal
combustion are completely internalized through downstream regulation on coal combustion (which remains to be seen), BLM may achieve additional emissionsreductions benefits by requiring coal producers to internalize the climate costs of coal-bed methane emissions that are released during mining.49 [Footnote 49
White House, The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Land: Ensure a Fair Return to Taxpayers, at 28 (2016). Attached as Exhibit 20.]
Royalty adjustments
are essential to meeting climate goals and avoiding ongoing subsidies of coal mining that contravene this Administration's announced policy, and need not await the
broader reviews of fossil fuel royalty policies currently ongoing at the Department of Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) and in the ongoing
review of the oil and gas leasing process.50 [Footnote 50 See Executive Order No. 14008 (directing the Department of Interior to examine whether to
incorporate climate damages into fossil fuel royalties); ONRR, 2020 Valuation Reform and Civil Penalty Rule: Delay of Effective Date; Request for Public
Comment, 86 Fed. Reg. 9288 (Feb. 12, 2021) (seeking comment on whether to "consider science on the source and impacts of climate change in setting royalty
and revenue management policy."). Attached as Exhibit 21.]
Thus, we urge BLM to incorporate the appropriate climate costs into royalties for renewed coal
leases.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
26 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
D. Deny Requests for Coal Mine Royalty Rate Reductions. BLM must also deny all pending requests for federal coal lease royalty rate reductions in accordance
royalties
with new federal climate policy and existing BLM regulations that strictly limit the availability for these requests. Rejection of royalty rate reduction requests is
necessary under Executive Order 14008, which instructed federal agencies to identify and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies to the extent allowed by federal law.51
[Footnote 51 Executive Order No. 14008, sec. 209 (directing agencies to identify existing subsidies and to "take steps to ensure that, to the extent consistent with
applicable law, Federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels.").]
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-83
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
27 207.0600.00
Law Program
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Royalty rate reductions are permitted under BLM's regulations.52 [Footnote 52 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(e); see also id. § 3485.2(c)(1) (same).]
royalties
Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and implementing regulations amended the Mineral Leasing Act to require a royalty rate of not less than a 12.5% royalty rate on
The Federal Coal
the sale of coal from surface mines, and not less than 8% for coal from underground mines.53 [Footnote 53 30 U.S.C. § 207(a); 43 C.F.R.§ 3437.2-2(a)(1)-(2).]
However, in 2013 the Government Accountability Office found that actual rates are far lower in many states: 12.2% in Wyoming, 11.6% in Montana, 11.6% in
Utah, and 5.6% in Colorado, reflecting significant reductions below the statutory rates.54 [Footnote 54 Government Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: BLM
Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information, at 25 (Dec. 2013). Attached as Exhibit 22.]
BLM
may reduce royalty rates "for the purpose of encouraging the greatest ultimate recovery of Federal coal, and in the interest of conservation of Federal coal and
other resources, whenever in [its] judgment it is necessary to promote development, or if he finds that the Federal lease cannot be successfully operated under its
terms."55 [Footnote 55 43 C.F.R. § 3485.2(c)(1).]
However, such discretionary rate reductions contradict the Biden Administration's policies regarding fossil
fuel subsidies and stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from federal fossil fuels. Nonetheless, BLM has in recent months contravened the
Administration's climate policies by reducing royalty rates for several large coal mines on federal land. BLM reduced royalty rates for two Arch Resources coal
mines in Colorado and Wyoming and for Desert Power Electric Cooperative's Deserado mine in Colorado, apparently without any environmental review.56
[Footnote 56 Chris D'Angelo, "Team Biden Quietly Approved a Fat Subsidy for One of America's Top Coal Suppliers," Mother Jones (Aug. 6, 2021),
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/08/biden-administration-interior-subsidy-arch-resources-coal-mining/. Attached as Exhibit 23.]
As a result,
these mining companies are now paying lower royalties than they were under the Trump administration based on apparent findings that such royalty rate
reductions were appropriate to foster greater coal development. While the Biden Administration has unfortunately already granted these requests, numerous
requests for royalty rate reductions are currently pending before BLM, including some for the largest mines reliant on federal coal in Wyoming's Powder River
Basin. We understand that royalty rate reduction requests are subject to review by the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management's office.57
[Footnote 57 Letter from Laura Daniel-Davis to Bureau Directors (Mar. 19, 2021) (stating that Directors "shall continue to provide" royalty requests to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management for review "prior to taking a final action" on such requests). Attached as Exhibit 24.] Given
the clear direction from Executive Order 14008 to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, BLM and the Department of the Interior should deny all requests for coal mine
royalty relief.
Shoats
Al
156 N/A
3 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
I urge you to immediately end new coal leasing and royalty rate reductions for existing coal mines.
royalties
Sigrist
South
Ellie
Eric
53 N/A
153 Wyoming Coalition of Local
3 207.0600.00
6 207.0600.00
Governments
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Finally, it is widely known that the federal government has for some time leased coal on public lands at a below market value. If we are truly concerned about our
royalties
federal deficit then we should not be allowing subsidies to the corporations that lease coal in federal lands.
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
But without the existence of a market for coal with the continued early closure of coal-fired power plants across the mid-west, the federal coal production and
royalties
revenues received from the production will only continue to drop. The BLM increasing the royalties, bonuses or rents developers and producers would have to
pay under the Federal Leasing Coal Program will only accelerate this decline.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
5 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Lease-by-Application Process Ensures Fair Return Surprisingly, arguments related to lease by application process (LBA) continue to be raised to support the
royalties
contention that the Federal Coal Leasing Program fails to ensure a fair return to the public. Critics of the LBA method assume, without any explanation, that in
the absence of multiple bidders, lease sales are not capable of producing bonus bids at fair market value. Their premise presumably is that competition among
more bidders will bid the transaction value up to what economists may refer to as the fundamental value. This might be true in theory, but in reality many mineral
asset and lease sales are successfully transacted for fair market value with a single buyer.
In 2011, groups in opposition to leasing federal coal submitted a
petition for rulemaking calling for the abandonment of the LBA method for lease sales (and for an imposition of carbon fees). BLM's 2011 denial of the petition
comprehensively explained how the LBA method is competitive and ensures receipt of fair market value. There is no evidence or rationale that explains why
these factual and legal conclusions are no longer valid. Similarly, the 2014 GAO report did not repudiate its prior finding that the LBA process can achieve the
objectives of ensuring fair market value from leases5. (Footnote 5 : See GAO, MINERAL RESOURCES, Federal Coal Leasing Program, GAO/RECD-94-10. p. 44
(Sept. 1994).) It also recognized that the BLM Handbook and guidance follows generally accepted appraisal practices both in the U.S. and internationally. And it
recognized that the diminished number of bidders for lease sales reflects the maturation of the development of the federal coal basins and consolidation of the
industry structure over time.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
9 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
The NMA notes that the combination of multiple and often redundant environmental analyses results in a protracted and inefficient process. The lease sale
royalties
process alone often spans six to seven years. Ironically, these delays deny the public of the time value of money from bonus bids, royalties and surface rentals. If
BLM is genuinely concerned about a fair return to the public, the agency should seek ways to reduce leasing delays that rob the public of the time value of money
by delaying the payment of lease bonus bids, surface rentals and production royalties.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
10 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Neither ONRR or BLM, however, has any authority to consider climate change in setting royalty and revenue management policy because including such a
royalties
consideration would contravene the department's statutory mandate under the MLA. (Footnote 10: 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., as amended). Determining royalties
and revenue policy on climate change impacts is wholly divorced from this concept. Indeed, calculating royalties on a basis dissociated from the value of the coal
extracted was a reason the coal provisions of ONRR 2016 rule were enjoined (and later overturned) by the Wyoming District Court. (Footnote 11: See Cloud
Peak Energy Inc. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1051 (D. Wyo. 2019). )
Ultimately, a royalty rate that would include a so-called
"externality adder" for the consideration of nebulous climate change impacts could no longer be considered a royalty since changing the rate to include a "cost"
derived for purported externalities the royalty would no longer reflect a share of a portion of either the minerals or their value which is the very purpose and
meaning of a royalty. As BLM rightly determined in response to the aforementioned 2011 petition for rulemaking, imposing a carbon or other externality-based
fee exceeds BLM's delegated authority under the MLA and FLPMA and would require congressional action. Moreover, no changes in royalty rate or valuation
policy to account for climate change could be applied to existing leases as such changes would violate a lessee's contractual and property rights in the lease12.
(Footnote 12: See generally, Neely v. United States, 285 F.2d 438, 444 (Ct. Cl. 1961) (allowing recovery for breach of a federal coal lease).
C-84
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
Last Name
First Name
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
29 207.0600.00
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
3 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Reducing federal coal royalty rates to bring them closer to parity with the prevailing rates charged on private coal lands.
royalties
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Current Royalty Rate Provides More than Fair Return The suggestion that federal coal royalty rates do not provide a fair return cannot be squared with the
royalties
substantially higher government take from federal coal as compared to private coal. Royalty rates for federal coal (12.5 percent surface coal; 8 percent
underground coal) are 30 to 65 percent higher than the prevailing rates for private coal in the East. Moreover, federal coal lessees pay bonus bids and surface
rentals; these financial features are rarely found in private coal leasing transactions. As indicated in BLM's notice, in the last decade, coal companies paid more than
$9 billion in federal royalties, bonus bids and surface rentals. Federal coal carries more than its fair share. A ton of Powder River Basin Coal selling for $12.63
bears $4.54 in federal, state and local taxes, fees and royalties. In other words, 36 cents of every dollar in coal sales goes to the government.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
4 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Coal Valuation Regulations Are Effective The Office of Natural Resources Revenue's (ONRR) coal valuation regulations also were frequently cited as justifying the
royalties
2016 PEIS efforts. While much has transpired on that front, including revisions, repeals, replacements and litigation, inevitably this issue will be raised in comments
for the 2021 review. The NMA believes the currently applicable regulations (the return to the pre-2016 benchmark approach after the NMA's successful legal
challenge to the 2106 rule) have proven effective and provided stable and very significant tax and royalty revenue to both state and federal governments. The nowoverturned 2016 ONRR valuation rule was an effort to punish vertical integration and apply a coal royalty rate to logistics services. It was developed in response
to allegations of royalty evasion and underpayment made by activist journalists and an anti-coal funded think tank, Headwaters Economics. Subsequent
investigations of the Federal Coal Leasing Program by the Government Accountability Office (February 2014) and the DOI Inspector General (June 2013) found
no evidence of royalty evasion or underpayment and made no recommendations for changes to royalty valuation methods. Moreover, a peer review study by
Energy Venture Analysis of the Headwaters Economics advocacy pieces showed that their claims used faulty data to arrive at pre-determined and inaccurate
conclusions. Existing regulations work well, earn huge returns for the American people, and provide ONRR with the means to collect royalties effectively.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
11 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Federal coal leases executed with the Department are predicated on the understanding that royalties owed are based on the "value of coal," not coal and an
royalties
unknown additional amount derived from climate change impacts from consumption of that coal. Including climate considerations in the royalty value
fundamentally shifts the foundation upon which such contracts were entered. Applying such changes retroactively, without any support in the statutory text, runs
contrary to established precedent. "Retroactivity is not favored in the law." Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 264 (1994). See also Republic of Austria v.
Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 693 (2004) ("antiretroactivity concerns are most pressing in cases involving new provisions affecting contractual or property rights,
matters in which predictability and stability are of prime importance") (internal quotations omitted); id. at 696 ("The aim of the presumption is to avoid
unnecessary post hoc changes to legal rules on which parties relied in shaping their primary conduct.").
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
12 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Further, when federal coal lessees offered bonuses to obtain their leases, they expected the royalty owed on lease production to be based only on the value of the
royalties
coal, with no increment for climate costs. Increasing the royalty value for these amorphous climate change costs upends the economic arrangement the lessees
entered into and directly presents breach of contract claims.
Turner
Lucy
64 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
On TOP of that, we also need to increase the costs of fees to current leasees. Right now, it is at 8% to 12% of revenue, but this is not enough. The harms done by
royalties
coal extraction and burning cause far too much harm, and thus the fees need to be risen DRASTICALLY to account for the many people who are being displaced,
sickened and killed as a result, as well as the destruction tp the environment caused by this. Raising it to above 70% is still far too low, but it is the LEAST that
should be done to account for the cost of human lives and the environment that extraction and burning causes.
Welch
Ray
84 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Coal leases on federal land should account for all costs of pollution and public health effects caused by the production, transportation, combustion, and disposal of
royalties
coal and its byproducts. This includes especially greenhouse gas pollution.
The lessees should be required to pay for all such costs contemporaneously with
extraction, as a condition of leasing. The revenue should be directed to the Federal government or to tribal authorities, as appropriate. Revenue to tribes is
particularly important to help them transition from coal dependency. The US shouldn't be treating tribal lands as a third-world colony, useful only for its
resources.
Werblin
Joshua
86 N/A
3 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
change the lessee fee structure to charge them more than just 8% or 12% but instead charge an amount commensurate with the extreme damage that coal
royalties
extraction and use causes and has caused. The science is unquestionable (sources below): coal is horrible for the planet and the people who live there and has a
clear cost that is not being put on the lessees and should. That said, there should be a baseline inflation-indexed charge of at least $500/tonne of emitted CO2equivalent emissions, plus a percentage of revenue.
Westkott
Marcia
113 N/A
1 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Increase royalty rates and close loopholes in coal valuation processes
royalties
Westkott
Marcia
154 Powder River Basin
White
Ildiko
163 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Resource Council
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
ending subsidies on federal coal production by implementing new fiscal policies, such as increasing royalty and rental rates, as well as discontinuing royalty rate
royalties
reductions; and
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Federal prices are lower than the market average. In fact, three times so far this year the BLM has actually reduced the price of existing coal leases.
royalties
Wilcox
Tyler
111 N/A
4 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
increase in the fees charged to lessees from 8% to 12% of revenue to an amount commensurate with the damage that coal extraction and use cause.Sources:*
royalties
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y*
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932773/* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620305369I am also asking for an inflationindexed amount of at least $500/tonne of emitted CO2-equivalent emissions, plus a percentage of revenue beyond that.
Woodcock
Charlene
89 N/A
2 207.0600.00
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
Coal companies should pay their own way. That means that they should not get below cost coal on public lands. Taxpayer subsidies to coal companies must stop.
royalties
The price paid for public resources on public lands should cover the harm caused to those lands and to the climate. It's time to stop the free ride this destructive
industry has enjoyed for decades.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-85
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Last Name
First Name
Woodcock
Charlene
89 N/A
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
6 207.0600.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Fair Return/ bonus bids, rents,
guarantee that any future leases are required to pay their fair share and to protect air, water and the climate.
royalties
97 207.0700.00
Resource Council
Pre-sale fair market value
Minimum Bid and Competitive Bidding Issues. As noted elsewhere in these comments, many concerns have been raised about whether BLM is obtaining accurate
estimate
fair market value (FMV) in leasing federal coal.160 (footnote 160 BLM determines FMV with one of two, or a combination of both, methods: the comparable sales
approach (in which sale prices from similar properties in prior transactions are used to determine value) and the income approach (in which an estimate of annual
costs and revenues is used to determine value). See U.S. Dept. of Interior, BLM Manual Handbook 3073 (Oct. 2, 2014) at Chapter 5. ) Although BLM endeavors to
determine FMV, as outlined in previous sections there are numerous factors, including an accounting for GHG externalities, that could and should be considered
to set an accurate FMV for a given lease. On top of this important determination is the more complicated reality of bidding, where the Government
Accountability Office has found that 90% of leases offered since 1990 involved only a single bidder. Gov't Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance
Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information (Dec. 2013) at 15. This is directly counter to BLM's statutory
mandate, which requires the awarding of "leases [through] competitive bidding." 30 U.S.C. § 201 (emphasis added). Indeed, in one extraordinary example of the
problems with the current lack of competition in the bidding process, it is estimated that U.S. taxpayers lost more than $1 billion of potential revenue through a
single lease sale.161 (footnote 161 "U.S. Taxpayers Lose More Than $1 Billion With BLM OK of Peabody's Low-Ball Bid for Powder River Basin Coal," IEEFA
(June 29, 2012), available at https://ieefa.org/u-s-taxpayers-lose-more-than-1-billion-with-blm-ok-of-peabodys-low-ball-bid-for-powder-river-basin-coalbasin-coal/.)
We strongly urge BLM to consider the regulatory framework guiding the bidding process and how it can be modified to achieve this statutory directive.
Addressing these various deficiencies will better ensure that the losses historically borne by taxpayers are addressed while also ensuring that coal producers are
not only paying for the public resources they access, but also for the significant external costs the extraction of these resources exact on federal public lands and
the global climate.162 (footnote 162 See, e.g., Tom Sanzillo, The Great Giveaway: An analysis of the costly failure of federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin
at 9 (stating the U.S. Treasury has lost roughly $28.9 billion in revenue from coal leasing below FMV). )
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
103 207.0700.00
Resource Council
Pre-sale fair market value
Increasing leasing transparency and public disclosure
estimate
process. The procedural steps in desperate need of greater transparency include the FMV determination process, the bid process itself, and the establishment of
BLM should amend its regulations to provide for transparency and public disclosure throughout the leasing
rent and royalty rates. By forcing BLM officials to "show their work," the public will be able to both monitor BLM decision-making and ensure that the public
receives a fair return for coal resources.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
26 207.0700.00
Resource Council
Pre-sale fair market value
Finally, BLM's review must address the transparency issues that have repeatedly arisen in the coal leasing context, where the leasing process, including the
estimate
determination of Fair Market Value, is all conducted behind closed doors without public input or access. Ensuring an open and fair leasing process is a critical step
necessary to provide the American people with the necessary confidence that they are being fairly compensated for this public resource.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
100 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
Basing lease sales on a holistic and rigorous FMV analysis
estimate
collect coal leasing income commensurate with the value of the coal and its myriad externality costs. Leases with a single bidder, market manipulations,
As noted above and in numerous investigations, BLM fails to obtain FMV for coal leases or otherwise
unreasonable deductions, royalty and rent reductions, and other factors have led to hundreds of millions, or more, in lost income. For example, one report found
that, had coal valuation been based on market value, the royalty collections for just the five-year period from 2008 - 2012 would have been $850 million higher,
an average of $170 million per year.165
(footnote 165 Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties: Current Royalty Structure,
Effective Royalty Rates, and Reform Options (Jan. 2015) at 3.)
To address this concern, BLM should make fair return a threshold criterion for when and
whether to offer new leases and accept bids. Achieving a fair return will require that new leases be offered only when FMV can be achieved and royalty and rent
reductions are not required to make the lease economical or commercially viable. Protecting a fair return will also require allowing leasing only when the federal
coal brought to market will not reduce the price of coal on the national market, will not contribute to overproduction, and will not lead to resource hoarding or
speculation. Approaches to consider include:
l Establishing minimum bids for each coal region that consider regional economic, geologic, and engineering
variables and assessing the projected income from each individual lease to be offered based on unique variables. l Eliminating the "comparable sales" valuation
approach, which justifies future undervaluation based off of historically under-priced sales. l Raising the minimum bid to at least $1 per ton.166
(footnote 166
Nidhi Thakar, Modernizing the Federal Coal Program, Center for American Progress 5 (December 9, 2014), available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/FederalCoal.pdf )
l Considering the market value for coal based on the sale prices of coal with similar characteristics, from both
Federal lands and non-Federal lands.167 Where it is difficult to find such comparative prices, prices could alternatively be calculated on an energy-equivalent basis
to reflect the fact that the heat content of the coal is a determinant of its value in the marketplace. Pricing coal this way would permit comparisons to the
payments collected from Federal leases for natural gas and oil on public lands.168
(footnote 167 White House Report at 18.) (footnote 168 As the 2016 White
House Report on these issues explains: After adjusting for the heat content of coal, the royalty rate being paid by surface PRB coal is roughly one third of the
royalty rate paid for natural gas on Federal lands (on an energy-equivalent basis), even though they are both subject to a 12.5 percent royalty rate on their
respective reported sales prices (before deductions).
C-86
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
100(continued) 207.0700.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Pre-sale fair market value
It could be appropriate to adjust the royalty rate directly to reflect an adjustment for heat content, or to include a Btu-adjusted royalty "adder" on top of the base
estimate
royalty rate. In other words, the royalty owed would be 12.5 percent of the revenues plus an additional payment in dollars per Btu. Similar adjustments would be
possible for sulfur content and other characteristics, but the heat content adjustment is likely to be among the most important. White House Report at 19; see
also id. at 4 ("If royalty payments are based on the price of nearby regional coal on a per-Btu basis, after it is fully phased-in, this would add up to $290 million
more to State and Federal coffers annually. Maximizing royalty payments would bring in as much as $3 billion more to State and Federal coffers annually once fully
phased-in").) l Creating an inter-lease bidding process in which BLM makes multiple sites available for bidding simultaneously, and then subsequently decides which
bids to accept based on site location and the amounts bid. l Incorporating "option value" into the bid amounts - i.e., the informational value of delay associated
with federal leasing. As the D.C. Circuit has explained in considering option value in another context, "[t]here is therefore a tangible present economic benefit to
delaying the decision to drill for fossil fuels to preserve the opportunity to see what new technologies develop and what new information comes to light." 169
(footnote 169 Center for Sustainable Economy v. Jewell, 779 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2015). ) As outlined by Hein and Howard, under this approach, at the bidding
stage, BLM-and thus taxpayers-would be compensated for both the estimated market price of the coal to be leased, as well as the option value of mining coal, as
both are fixed costs. The option value of coal leasing includes not only the uncertainties associated with future coal prices, but numerous other factors about
which BLM may obtain additional information. Key uncertainties for BLM to carefully consider include:
l the magnitude of risk from externalities, such as
methane emissions, particulate matter emissions, and potential aquifer overdraft; as a recent example of unaccounted for externalities, methane leakage from
natural gas distribution pipelines was found to be five times greater than the most recent EPA estimates;170
(footnote 170 Weller, Z. et al, A National Estimate
of Methane Leakage from Pipeline Mains in Natural Gas Local Distribution Systems (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020). )
l the development rate of pollution-
prevention technologies, as well as technologies that may better protect worker safety; l the cost of externalities, including the social cost of carbon and the
social cost of methane; l the competing uses of federally-owned lands, such as for renewable energy siting, biodiversity conservation, and climate adaptation and
resilience; l the coal reserve estimates, which may affect the long-term availability and price of accessible coal; and l the climate sensitivities, such as climate
conditions that may exacerbate the damaging effects of air or water pollution, or consequences for land values near production sites171
(footnote 171 Hein and
Howard at 18. )
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
39 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
Second, the coal lease bidding happens through a secret, largely non-competitive process with little public information given in the BLM Justification of Decisions
estimate
(Sanzillo, 2012). Between 1991 and 2011, the BLM issued 26 coal leases; of these, only four had more than one bidder, and these had only two bidders each
(Sanzillo, 2012). Thus, according to the US Government Accountability Office (Dec 2013), approximately 90% of coal lease sales since 1990 had only one bidder.
It is well known among industry officials that the BLM's common practice is to allow lease applicants to specify their coal tracts to inhibit competition (Sanzillo
2012). In 2012, an analysis by the independent Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis estimated that over the past 30 years, the consistent
undervaluation of federal coal has cost US taxpayers $28.9 billion in lost revenue, as measured in 2011 dollars (Sanzillo, 2012).
Cooper
Deti
Jami
Travis
119 N/A
3 Wyoming Mining Association
3 207.0700.00
11 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
Any pre-sale market value estimation must include the value of natural capital. If you are unfamiliar with natural capital please see this website:
estimate
https://www.conservation.org/projects/valuing-and-accounting-for-natural-capital
Pre-sale fair market value
Despite claims to the contrary, BLM rules require the agency to develop fair market value estimates prior to each proposed lease sale. Over nearly three decades
estimate
the fair market value was not challenged as being deficient until certain organizations determined that coal mining and use were no longer acceptable to them.
Because the true fair market value figures are held confidential by the agency, it is curious that some organizations can claim that fair market value has been too
low and that they can actually calculate how much the American taxpayer has been short-changed. These claims are clearly based on assumptions and should not
be interpreted by the BLM to be factual.
Deti
Deti
Travis
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
3 Wyoming Mining Association
16 207.0700.00
32 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
BLM's scoping evaluation must reveal that the claim made by detractors that the fair market value is not providing an adequate return on the resource, cannot be
estimate
substantiated. The results of the evaluation will verify that the fair market value issue needs to be put to rest. And the rules do not need to be fixed.
Pre-sale fair market value
WMA believes calculation of Fair Market Value (FMV) should reflect the current market for the commodity given the realities of the economic conditions. Pre-
estimate
sale FMV should allow for extraction costs so that the final cost for the generation of electricity is reasonable and affordable. FMV should also be calculated with
the goal of ultimately finding a qualified lessee for the coal tract. Artificially increasing the FMV and raising costs above what is economical to mine is counterproductive and contrary to the Agency's charge of managing the responsible development of the resource as mandated by the Mineral Leasing Act. WMA is
concerned about possible artificial inflation of FMV through the use of arbitrary "social cost of carbon" standards. Attempts to artificially increase the FMV on
these grounds appear political with the intent of making the resource uneconomical to develop in violation of the Mineral Leasing Act. The cost of excessive
manipulation in determining FMV will fall on American consumers. If the agency does choose to pursue this, we would surely recommend the inclusion of a much
more empirical "social benefit" standard to include not only the positive economic realities of vital jobs and revenue, schools and infrastructure, but the
measurable positive contribution of reliable, low-cost electricity to our country and the world. WMA supports efforts to increase transparency in the calculation
process, and encourages the Agency to draw on the considerable experience and expertise of Wyoming State BLM office staff in studying all of the factors
relevant to a FMV determination.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-87
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Heston
Vivienne
Organization
Letter # Name
22 Institute for Energy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
7 207.0700.00
Economics and Financial
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Pre-sale fair market value
Moratorium Research Protocol: Establish a working model of coal production in the United States that accurately reflects current market conditions and projects
estimate
production through 2050, with specific emphasis on coal reserves currently under active leases.
Analysis
IEEFA's initial report and subsequent investigations and studies
by third parties showed that the government has not obtained fair market value for coal leases since the early 1980s. This served several critically important
development goals for the United States at the time. In the process, however, the U.S. government adopted policies and procedures that systematically avoided
basing leasing decisions on actual market conditions and trends. IEEFA proposes that the moratorium policy should use methods and analyses that are supported
by current market trends. Those trends would be illustrated in large measure by addressing the following information needs and questions:
continued trajectory of coal use in the United States through 2050 by type, region, state and amount of federally owned coal.
1. An estimate of the
a. Assuming current number of
existing coal plants. b. Adjusting current list for announced coal plant closures. c. Adjusting current list of likely coal plant closures based on: i. Low renewable
energy costs ii. Low oil and gas prices iii. Low and moderate economic growth iv. Declining capacity auction prices.
2. A current list of all mines under active
leases including: a. Reserves at time of original lease signing: total, 8,800 and 8,400 b. Current reserve levels as of June 2021: total, 8,800 and 8,400 c. Estimated
annual production and reserve levels through 2050: total, 8,800 and 8,400 d. Current ownership: total, 8,800 and 8,400 e. Ownership over the last 10 years:
total, 8,800 and 8,400.
3. A current list of all mines under active leasing including: a. Coal plants served by the mine and annual consumption by plant, current
and last 10 years b. Coal plant capacity factors, current and last 10 years.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
7 207.0700.00
Sense
Pre-sale fair market value
The DOI Inspector General (IG) examined 45 lease sale modifications since 2000 and concluded that $60 million had been lost by those adjustments. (footnote 5
estimate
: Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012,"Coal Management Program," June 2013) The BLM faulted that
conclusion because the IG had valued the coal in the additional lease areas at the same rate as the main leases to which additional deposits were added. This
conflict highlights the need for further review and guidance on valuing coal deposits, both for lease modifications and for maintenance tracts. The BLM argued that
the coal should be valued at a lower rate because there was no competitive interest - one choice for valuation. If coal is being added to an existing lease because it
is by definition coal for which there is no competitive interest, determining its value to the company requesting it might be appropriate - a second valuation
alternative. The IG proposed yet a third alternative- valuing the coal at the same rate as the lease being modified.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
8 207.0700.00
Sense
Pre-sale fair market value
Fair Market Value. Because lease modifications and most LBA lease sales are not competitive, it is imperative that the BLM establish the correct Fair Market Value
estimate
("FMV") for federal coal. The process of determining the FMV for a lease tract is shrouded in secrecy. The data and methodology the BLM uses to determine FMV
are not publicly available. Bids are sealed. The public has no idea what the coal is worth or how it was valued.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
4 207.0700.00
Sense
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
6 207.0700.00
Commissioners
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
23 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
The leasing process generally used by the BLM does not obtain fair market value for taxpayers. Competitive bids are seldom generated, and studies indicate that
estimate
the resulting losses for taxpayers are substantial.
Pre-sale fair market value
Furthermore, the calculation of the Fair Market Value (FMV) evaluation should reflect the current market conditions and should not be artificially inflated through
estimate
the use of arbitrary "social cost of carbon" (SCC) standards.
Pre-sale fair market value
In determining fair market value under the existing lease process, BLM has already implemented reforms to improve and standardize the valuation process,
estimate
including the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department's Office of Valuation Services ("OVS") to conduct a financial analysis of the
adjacent active mining operation. In this case, a study is conducted to estimate the mining cost, realization and capital expenditures for the mine to complete
mining in their existing reserves and this is used as a "Base Case" analysis from which an incremental analysis is conducted estimating the mining cost, realization
and capital required to develop into the proposed lease. All of the advertised reserves are assumed to be mined, and an "Alternative Case" is developed. An
incremental analysis is conducted with a discount rate of 10% and the amount of the "fair market value" of the Bonus Bid is determined by the amount that will
result in an NPV10 of zero. The current process is a formula for the mining operator to go out of business. There are several reasons this process is flawed and
over-exaggerates the fair market value of the coal reserves being leased. 1) There is a big risk that the advertised reserves will be not mined. It is common to
discover geologic interferences or hazards in the reserve as it is developed that result in less than advertised reserve recovery. This can be somewhat offset so
long as the administrative process for royalty reduction in the BLM regulations is continued. 2) There is no guarantee that the mining company will be able to
operate at the costs assumed in the analysis or receive the realization for their coal that is assumed in the analysis. Inflation plays a big part in both of these factors
as well as the demand for the product. Applying a contingency of 10% to the expected mining costs would more accurately reflect the future cost to mine a
resource. 3) There is significant risk that the mining company will need more capital than is assumed in the analysis. It is rare to know up front all of the
equipment and facilities that will be necessary to fully recover the reserves. Applying a contingency of at least 10% is recommended to more accurately reflect the
capital expenditures in the analysis. This matches the approach used by many coal companies. 4) No credit is given to a mining company for the value of the
assets that are already employed at the existing operation when this method of analysis is used. The operator must recover their investment in the existing plant
and equipment to remain viable. The BLM should grant the operator the value of their existing plant and equipment as an investment in the case where the
additional reserves are mined as part of the process to determine fair market value. The Operator can and would transfer assets away from the mine if they are
not successful in obtaining a lease and this value should be recognized. 5)
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
23(continued) 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
The 10% discount rate is below most mining company's cost of capital. For economic analysis purposes a discount rate of 15% to 20% would better reflect the
estimate
return necessary for a mining company to successfully operate on federal coal lands. Increasing the discount rate in this analysis would help to ensure healthy
mining operations and thus the greatest income to the BLM and the maximization of recovered reserves on their coal lands.
These changes will enhance the
likelihood that a mine operator will be able to continue operations and continue to pay royalties to the BLM, wages to its employee, property taxes to the
surrounding counties and the other expenses and fees that are the normal cost of mining. A viable mine will return the best economic value to the taxpayer in all
circumstances. Any criticism regarding fair market value and the valuation process has to do with internal BLM and OVS valuation metrics and formulas, not a lack
of bidders.
C-88
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sarinsky
Max
Organization
Letter # Name
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
11 207.0700.00
at New York University
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Pre-sale fair market value
Interior should follow recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to increase oversight of BLM state offices in appraising the value of coal
estimate
leases, and reduce instances where BLM accepts bids below the presale estimate of fair market value. Some BLM state offices have perpetuated uncompetitive
School of Law
lease sales by determining price through comparisons to prior sales or bids, which has led to a pattern of accepting improperly low bids. Other methods for
determining lease sale price that look to future projected revenue from a leasing site may provide a fairer return, but still fail to account for the environmental
effects of leasing.48
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
13 207.0700.00
at New York University
(footnote 48 Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value, supra note 5, at 4.)
Pre-sale fair market value
Federal law requires Interior to obtain "fair market value" for the leasing of public lands, which should include not only a competitive market price of coal
estimate
resources but also the environmental externalities caused by coal mining, such as increased pollution. This broader definition is consistent with Interior's dual
School of Law
mandate to earn a fair return on development of energy resources and to preserve and protect the environment. To determine what would constitute "fair
market value" for taxpayers, Interior should quantify the externalities associated with coal extraction, transportation, and combustion, which would provide a
baseline for Interior to measure the adequacy of the agency's minimum bid for coal leases.32 (footnote 32 Priorities for Federal Coal Reform, supra note 4, at 3-5;
see also id. at 12-13 (recommending that Interior "evaluate whether the current coal program earns 'fair market value' for taxpayers, by conducting a cost-benefit
analysis of the coal program").) Failure to account for the external costs of coal production amounts to a subsidy for coal producers, as the public bears the
burden of mitigation and adapting to such costs, including greenhouse gas emissions-the effects of which will continue to be felt decades from now. In other
words, failure to account for the environmental costs of coal production prioritizes short-term coal company profits over long-term taxpayer welfare. Interior's
mandate to ensure "fair market value," which requires the agency to obtain fair returns for both "the use of the public lands and their resources,"33 naturally
encompasses these external costs.34 (footnote 33 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(9).) (footnote 34 Priorities for Federal Coal Reform, supra note 4, at 3.) Interior should
evaluate bidding reforms that can help sure fair market value for taxpayers. For instance, the minimum bid for coal leases has not been changed since 1982 and has
failed to keep pace with inflation, which alone would double the minimum bid from its current rate of $100 per acre.35 (footnote 35 See also Reconsidering
Coal's Fair Market Value, supra note 5, at 8.) Interior should increase these bids to account for inflation as well as other externalities and market failures not
reflected in the price for coal but that should factor into the agency's assessment of fair market value.36
(footnote 36 Priorities for Federal Coal Reform, supra
note 4, at 19.) In addition, minimum bids should include the "option value" of delaying a lease sale, i.e., the benefit of waiting for more information on energy
prices and extraction risks. These reforms to the bidding process will further ensure that taxpayers receive fair market value for coal leasing on federal lands.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
13 207.0700.00
Pre-sale fair market value
Finally, including climate change in royalty and revenue management policies would prevent the Department from obtaining "fair market value" for new federal
estimate
coal leases, as is required under the MLA 13. (Footnote 13: 30 U.S.C. § 201(a) ("No bid shall be accepted which is less than the fair market value, as determined
by the Secretary, of the coal subject to the lease.").) A prospective lessee's decision regarding how much bonus bid it will offer on a tract inherently involves
determining a tract's value to the lessee. The higher the royalties the bidder expects to pay over the life of the lease, the less it is willing to offer as a bonus bid.
Inflating the otherwise applicable royalties beyond the value of the coal and reducing the bonus bids may result in the United States not receiving fair market value
in the lease sale process, thus contravening the MLA's requirements.
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
5 207.0700.00
Resource Council
Pre-sale fair market value
A study from the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis revealed that BLM's inaccurate assessment of the "fair market value" of coal has cheated
estimate
taxpayers out of almost $30 billion over the last thirty years, a massive subsidy to the coal industry. After the release of this report, the Government
Accountability Office launched an investigation at the request of then-Representative Markey. Following a Reuters investigation and the requests of Senators
Wyden and Murkowski, former Secretary Salazar created a task force to investigate whether coal companies are cheating royalty payments by selling coal to inhouse affiliates before selling it to foreign markets. DOI's Inspector General conducted an investigation of both fair market value and royalty valuation.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Company
19 207.0800.00
Coal exports
BLM appears to be considering arguments that current leasing and royalty valuation regulations do not capture the true value of coal exports. This argument
suffers from the same fundamental error as the arguments for using the total delivered cost to domestic consumers as the market price for the commodity. In
reality, the substantial costs of transporting coal to the terminal, having it loaded on a vessel and shipped overseas can be six times the mining cost. Coal exports
have never comprised a significant share of coal production from western states with federal coal lands. During the height of U.S. coal exports, exports from
Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming were four percent of the total production in those states. In general, Western U.S. coal is at a significant disadvantage in
the seaborne coal market. The four largest importers of coal - China, Japan, India, and Korea - are geographically closer to the two largest exporters of coal,
Australia and Indonesia, both of which enjoy low mining costs. Currently, the vast majority of exports of western coal must go through Canadian, U.S. Gulf Coast,
or U.S. Great Lakes ports, which represent significant transportation and logistics costs and place western mines at a competitive disadvantage. In addition, coal
burning power plants along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Ocean sometimes find it cheaper to import coal from other countries than to obtain coal from U.S. coalproducing regions. Future western coal exports are dependent on the development of port capacity on the U.S. West Coast, which could be beneficial to
western coal exports by increasing market access. However, the outlook on increasing port capacity on the west coast is grim - not based upon business or
economic analysis, but rather on political decisions by western state governors. The states of Montana and Wyoming recently sued the state of Washington for
denying a critical permit that would have built a coal export dock to send coal to Asia. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in June of this year, leaving
Washington state's permit denial in place and preventing coal exports in the state.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-89
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
20 207.0800.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal exports
The relatively small portion of western coal exported precludes the use of potential exports as a basis to value new coal leases. The value of increased coal
Company
exports would be captured in the royalty, which is based upon the price of the coal sold at the mine. Charging federal royalties on the total cost of exporting coal
will shift exports to private coal, and thus decrease return for taxpayers on the development of federal coal. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution specifically
prohibits the imposition of duties on goods by reason of exportation to an international country. Any law specifically addressing an increase in tax or royalty
based upon the fact that the coal is exported would be an imposition of an export tax, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 9, clause 5
("No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."). Courts have recognized that fees or taxes that apply to the sale of coal into export markets
violate the Export Clause. See Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States, 528 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that if the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act reclamation fee was calculated based on the extraction and sale of coal, such that it applied to coal exports, it would be an unconstitutional
violation of the Export Clause as a tax on exports); see also Ranger Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 467, 469 (E.D. Va. 1998) (holding an IRSimposed coal excise tax unconstitutional and in violation of the Export Clause).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
106 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Resource Council
Coal exports With domestic demand for coal shrinking because of aging coal plants, concerns about air pollution and the global climate along with low natural gas
prices, the coal industry continues to eye Asian power markets as a way to dramatically boost their bottom lines. There are existing exports of Powder River
Basin coal through Canada, and recent years have seen export proposals along the West Coast as well. Last month, the North Coast Railroad Company LLC filed
an offer with the federal Surface Transportation Board to redevelop a stretch of rail near Humboldt, California for high-volume coal shipments from the Powder
River Basin to Humboldt Bay for overseas export175.
train/ )
(footnote 175 https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/lawmakers-gearing-up-to-battle-toxic-coal-
The review should disclose impacts associated with exporting federal coal. This includes increased rail traffic and corresponding traffic congestion
impacts (and the associated costs to local communities), the necessary construction of port facilities, and the corresponding impacts those facilities create. The
BLM should also assess the financial impacts of coal exports, including increases in energy costs for domestic consumers and depletion of strategic federal energy
reserves.
The review should also consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts that come with exporting federal coal. For example, exporting
millions of tons of coal from the Powder River Basin, or even a small fraction of that amount, would necessitate massive export infrastructure - such as ports in
Washington and Oregon if destined for Asian markets. Those impacts, which have never been incorporated or analyzed by the BLM, must be examined in BLM's
review. See letters from Washington and Oregon (raising these concerns).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
107 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Resource Council
In addition, the dozens of coal trains needed to haul federal coal from federally supplied mines to ports would have dramatic and costly impacts on local traffic and
infrastructure. The cost to communities in mitigating those coal trains' congestion and public safety impacts easily adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars.
The
GAO report "Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts," (September 2014)
found that freight-related traffic congestion in communities resulted in delays and congested road conditions for passenger and emergency response vehicles.
Addressing those problems is costly, and the federal funding that is currently allocated for state and local transportation agencies does not align with those needs.
Communities are left on their own to foot the bill for costly rail congestion related infrastructure. (See attachments). Coal trains hauling export coal also put
other commodity shippers and passenger rail at a competitive disadvantage as detailed in Heavy Traffic Still Ahead (attachments).
In 2017, the Washington
Department of Ecology released its final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed coal export terminal in Longview, Washington, which found "unavoidable
and significant adverse impacts" on social and community resources, cultural resources, tribal resources, rail transportation, rail safety, vehicle transportation,
vessel transportation, noise and vibration, and air quality (attachments).
The Health Impact Assessment for the proposed Longview export terminal, which was
released in 2018, also found significant adverse impacts including, to name just a few of its findings, increased cancer rates and increased rates of heart and lung
disease. The Assessment found that infants, children, pregnant women, and the elderly were particularly likely to experience negative impacts (attachments).
In
terms of alternatives, the principal alternative to be considered here is whether BLM should ban or otherwise disincentivize the export of federally leased coal.
The review should consider whether allowing coal development for export is consistent with BLM's often stated objective to sell federal coal to private
companies "to meet the nation's energy needs."176
(footnote 176 See Final Environmental Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications at 1-17; see
also Record of Decision for the North Porcupine Coal Lease Application at 10 (stating the federal coal program "provides a reliable, continuous supply of stable
and affordable energy for consumers throughout the country" and helps to "reduce our nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies").)
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
107(continued) 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Allowing leasing for export contradicts this purpose and need, by sending our domestic energy supply overseas.
1 207.0800.00
Coal exports
We've just learned of a secret attempt to send coal over unstable ground and through environmentally sensitive countryside and along vital sources of drinking
12 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Resource Council
Berardo
Christine
Bonta
Rob
187 N/A
water in northern California to ships bound for China! The coal companies are ruthless and will stop at nothing.
35 California Department of
Justice
In short, the fact that coal consumption may be decreasing in the United States does very little to diminish the harmful impacts of the federal coal leasing program,
given that the greenhouse gas emissions of coal consumption are the same, regardless of where the coal is burned, and exporting more coal overseas actually
increases the pollution burden on already impacted communities in the United States. As BLM reviews the federal coal leasing program, it must account for the
multi-faceted harms that such activities have on our country's already vulnerable communities.
C-90
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Deti
Travis
Organization
Letter # Name
3 Wyoming Mining Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
6 207.0800.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal exports
The amount of federal coal exported to overseas utilities is negligible. In the event that conditions improve and increased export capacity becomes available,
WMA believes that federal coal mined and sold to international buyers should be treated similarly to domestic buyers. In Wyoming, coal producers pay an
average of 40% of the sales price of coal in taxes, fees and royalties. Revenue generated from these amount to an estimated $500 million annually to state and
local governments. Expanded markets for federal coal mined in Wyoming are in the financial interest of the state, as well as the federal government pursuant to
the Mineral Leasing Act. Exported coal historically demands a higher sales price because it includes the transportation costs which are paid by the producer. This
is different than the situation for coal sold domestically where transportation costs are paid by the customer. For the coal producer, these higher sales prices do
not necessarily translate to higher profits on exported coal. WMA encourages the agency to avoid measures that would act as a disincentive to exporting federal
coal to include raising costs, regulatory barriers or implementing arbitrary "social costs of carbon" standards. These actions would be contrary to the agency's
charge of responsible management of the resource.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
26 207.0800.00
Coal exports
VI. Exports Although recent commercial and litigation events have imposed hurdles to U.S. coal exports, Asian coal markets are expanding and have a distinct
need and economic desire for the low-sulfur Powder River Basin Coal in Montana and Wyoming. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China especially are expanding
coal-fired power stations. Japan is the third largest coal-importing country in the world and its use of coal, particularly considering recent failures related to
nuclear energy, is increasing. South Korea has limited domestic energy resources and is expected to become a large importer of U.S. coal, which is beneficial for
both economic and national security reasons. U.S. companies have already secured prospective export contracts with South Korea, but because of the limited
ability to obtain U.S. coal, South Korea has looked elsewhere, including Russia, which has increased its coal exports to the country.
These Asian countries need
to supply their expanding power stations; if they are unable to get clean-burning coal from Wyoming and Montana, they will get high sulfur coal from other
countries. Japan is also dependent on imports for its energy, especially following the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Japan is installing clean coal plant
technologies to meet environmental targets, and it plans to develop additional coal power plants, adding more than 20 GW of capacity in the next decade.
In
2016, Wyoming entered a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Japan Coal Energy Center. The MOU contemplates the parties' cooperation
in the facilitation of coal exports and sales, which may include the development of new U.S. coal export and Japanese coal import terminals, public support to
existing export facilities together with establishing sale contracts for Wyoming coal. Japan, like other Asian countries, has identified Powder River Basin coal from
Montana and Wyoming as being particularly desirable for the country's next generation of high efficiency, low emissions coal-fired power plants.
Wyoming and
Montana have made significant efforts to expand coal exports to Asian markets. Both States' Governors have visited Asian countries to promote the States' coal.
The States recognize that the ability to export to Asian markets is critical to their economic security, as well as production of high-paying jobs in the United
States.32 (Footnote 32 See generally, In the Supreme Court of the United States, State of Montana and State of Wyoming v. State of Washington, Motion for
Leave to File Bill of Complaint, Bill of Complaint, and Brief in Support (Jan. 21, 2020) (available at http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/wpcontent/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2020/20200124 docket-220152 bill-of-complaint-l.pdf).
In sum, efforts to secure coal exports from the PRB continue,
and BLM should not allow recent events to dictate future outcomes on this topic.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
27 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Finally, a 2016 study by the National Energy Technology Laboratory examined the GHG life cycle emissions of coal exports from the PRB.33 (footnote 33 Life
Cycle Analysis of Coal Exports from the Powder River Basin, DOE/NETL-2016/1806 (Aug. 4, 2016) (citations omitted) (available at
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1576781).
The purpose of the study was to: compare environmental implications of exporting U.S. coal resources to Asian
markets with respect to alternative global sources of steam coal. The combination of significant Asian demand for steam coal and declining U.S. domestic coal
consumption in recent years has opened up new potential export markets for ... PRB ... coal. This is evidenced by the recent increase in West Coast terminal
proposals to meet this demand. This study seeks to evaluate and understand potential environmental consequences of exporting PRB coal compared to global
alternative sources of coal. Some of the questions which arise in regards to environmental impacts of PRB exports to Asia include: (1) Which stages of the life
cycle (e.g., mining, transport, power plant combustion) contribute the most to environmental impacts? (2) How do environmental impacts at each stage differ
between the PRB and competing countries? (3) Do environmental impacts differ substantially based on the importing country? (4) Is there a definitive difference
between the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) profiles between sourcing coal from the U.S. (PRB), Australia, or Indonesia for Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan? The
study reached favorable conclusions to those four questions regarding the climate impacts of PRB coal to Asian markets, as follows:34 (Footnote 34 Id. p. 4
(emphasis added).
(1) Which stages of the life cycle (e.g., mining, transport, power plant combustion) contribute the most to environmental impacts? The results
... find that the majority of cradle-to-busbar life cycle GHG emissions in all cases are from the combustion of coal at the destination power plant (92.5 to 96.1
percent of the total impacts, depending on the individual case). Coal mining activities account for 0.8 to 3.3 percent, while transport accounts for 2.0 to 6.7
percent ... (2) How do environmental impacts at each stage differ between the PRB and competing countries? Emissions associated with coal mining activities are
more significant in Australia and Indonesia compared to the PRB. Both countries have considerably higher strip ratios compared to the PRB, meaning that more
overburden must be removed for each unit of coal produced. Additionally, the coal mine methane emissions from Australia and Indonesia are 3.5 to 5 times
higher than those modeled as the expected value for the PRB (3) Do environmental impacts differ substantially based on the importing country? The destination
for the coal does not contribute much variability to the life cycle results ... (4) Is there a definitive difference between the life cycle GHG profiles between
sourcing coal from the U.S. (PRB), Australia, or Indonesia for Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan?
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
27(continued) 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Given the uncertainty in the model parameter values, there is not a definitive difference between the life cycle GHG profiles between sourcing coal from the U.S.
(PRB), Australia, or Indonesia for Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan. In fact, when accounting for the uncertainty, it is difficult to attribute any significant difference
between the various coal sources ....
Hardenbergh
Sabrina
Harvey
Ann
418 N/A
21 No Coal in Oakland
3 207.0800.00
Coal exports
BLM land should not be mined to ship coal to China or India. They should be helping global climate change mitigation by not burning this coal.
15 207.0800.00
Coal exports
BLM should collaborate with other agencies such as the Surface Transportation Board to discourage the permitting, construction, or renovation of coal exportrelated infrastructure such as roads and rail spurs, railroads, and ocean terminals.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-91
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Harvey
Ann
Organization
Letter # Name
21 No Coal in Oakland
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
10 207.0800.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal exports
Federal subsidies allow coal to be sold at artificially low prices, promoting not only otherwise uneconomical electricity production from existing power plants, but
also the construction of new coal power plants in developing nations. If any of the recommendations from the National Coal Council to then Energy Secretary
Rick Perry have been instituted, then the US has also played a more direct role in promoting construction of new coal power plants abroad.[vii]
[vii] The
National Coal Council, in response to a request from then Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, produced the report "Advancing U.S. Coal Exports: An Assessment of
Opportunities to Enhance Exports of U.S. Coal" in October of 2018. It recommends that the federal government subsidize coal by "eliminat[ing] barriers to
production of coal on Federal lands associated with bonus payments, rents and uncertain royalty payments" and encouraging state tax credits (p. 59), avoiding
burdensome environmental protections (p. 39), facilitating and supplying transport infrastructure, and encouraging Multilateral Development Banks (pp. 47-49) and
domestic agencies (EXIM, OPIC, USAID, USTDA) to finance and/or support construction of coal plants in developing countries (pp.50-52)
New coal power
plants emit greenhouse gases and air pollutants harmful to both local and US public health; they also provide impetus for protracted use of coal and will assuredly
saddle poor nations with worthless stranded assets. To protect our own interests and safeguard the public welfare, the United States must instead assist these
nations in developing clean, sustainable power sources.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
11 207.0800.00
Coal exports
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) requires the Secretary to include in provisions in all coal leases "to insure the sale of the production of such leased lands
to the United States and to the public."[viii]
[viii] Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as Amended, Section 30.
Public coal was intended by the Mineral Leasing Act to
be sold to the United States and the US public, not to be exported.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
14 207.0800.00
Coal exports
BLM should make every effort to exclude export under existing leases even before the leases come up for renewal. If export was not specifically allowed in a lease
and not accounted for in the Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement, the lessee should not be assumed to have a right to export. Even
if a lease specifies the possibility of export, such a provision may violate the Mineral Leasing Act as above and may therefore be invalid.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
6 207.0800.00
Coal exports
We are residents of Oakland, CA and Richmond, CA, two cities targeted by a Utah coal mining corporation for coal export terminals, and of neighboring cities
which are currently (in the case of Richmond) and might soon be (in the case of Oakland) impacted by coal export terminals.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
13 207.0800.00
Coal exports
BLM should exclude export if and when current coal leases are renewed, as per the Secretary's authority under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. 207 (7)
(a): "The lease shall include such other terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine. Such rentals and royalties and other terms and conditions of the
lease will be subject to readjustment at the end of its primary term of twenty years and at the end of each ten-year period thereafter if the lease is extended."
Hashe
Janis
83 N/A
3 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Hashe
Janis
83 N/A
6 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
35 207.0800.00
Coal exports
The coal industry SHOULD NOT be allowed to extend its life by shipping coal overseas, over the vehement objections of the areas it affects in the US, to
countries that do not currently have the same environmental protections we have.
In January 2020, the Richmond City Council passed an ordinance requiring the Terminal to phase out shipping and storage of coal within three years. The
Terminal and the mining companies immediately sued. The federal case is still in court.
An allied situation exists in Oakland, where a developer wants to build a
new terminal to ship coal over the objections of the city. Again, lawsuits are in progress.
Coordinating Office
Another issue the BLM should consider in its review of the federal coal leasing program is the environmental benefit to having coal mined in the United States
under existing environmental and safety regulations as compared to having coal mined in countries with less stringent or no environmental or safety regulations.
Utah's low-sulfur, high-energy coal provides important environmental advantages over other domestic and global sources of coal. Utah's support of coal does not
ignore climate change concerns, but rather recognizes that Utah's cleaner coal and advanced coal technologies can contribute to the U.S.'s and the world's energy
needs as part of a robust, resilient portfolio of energy options. This is especially important recognizing the global demand for coal is not subsiding. For example,
India's demand for coal is up nearly 12 percent, while its production is only up 6.5 percent, creating an increasing reliance on imported coal. In fact, according to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration's forecasts, coal-power will continue to expand globally through 2040 to meet developing economies' need for
affordable and reliable electricity. It is important that Utah's superior coal is available to meet these needs Not only does Utah's coal have environmental
advantages, but Utah's coal-fired power plants are among the most efficient in the country, and because they are located in rural Utah, they do not contribute to
air quality challenges along the Wasatch Front where the majority of Utah's population lives. Rather, because coal keeps electricity prices low, coal supports
electric vehicles, electric home appliances, and other electric alternatives that make a difference in improving Wasatch Front air quality. Utah is leading advanced
coal technologies including carbon capture, oxy-firing, gasification, and coal to liquids. For example, the University of Utah's Institute for Clean and Secure Energy
is one of nation's top coal research institutes that is commanding a five-year, $16 million grant to conduct supercomputer simulations aimed at developing a
prototype low-cost, low-emissions coal power plant to provide new opportunities for coal utilization.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
46 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Coordinating Office
In 2018, coal was the largest source of electricity in the world at 38 percent share.31 (Footnote: 31 https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2019 )
The State accounts
for about 2 percent of U.S. coal production and about 1/4th of State coal is exported to other countries.32 (Footnote: 32
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=UT )
When evaluating the export of domestic coal, considerations should be made for the labor safety standards as
well as the BTU level and sulfur content of the coal to be exported compared to that of the destination country.
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
Commissioners
12 207.0800.00
Coal exports
The federal government must support and promote all opportunities to export our coal products overseas. Noted on the ITC website, China is the largest coal
user in the world today, followed by the U.S. However, India is expected to be the largest net importer of coal in the near future. The Powder River Basin has a
lower-sulfur coal and offers some environmental benefits over countries that that do not have that grade of coal. The United States must pursue all options for
marketing our energy products overseas should the market show a demand and should work with all impacted states to secure production, transportation and
infrastructure opportunities. This would in turn provide long-term socio-economic benefits to not only Wyoming but the country.
C-92
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pollastro
Carson
Organization
Letter # Name
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
13 207.0800.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal exports
The continued use of coal as a mainstay power source in other countries increases the demand for high quality, clean burning coal mined in the United States.
While the export market is volatile, and New Castle pricing indexes fluctuate between profitable and uneconomic, the ability to export coal from the Uinta Basin
remains a strong asset to Wolverine's financial position. Even as coal plants in the U.S. continue to be shuddered, developing countries recognize the social benefit
to having reliable, affordable energy to bring their economies out of social poverty. Wolverine recognizes that there is a limited market for export coal, however,
the benefit of mining clean burning coal from federal leases provides the U.S. with a competitive advantage to other exporting nations like Australia and China.
Generally speaking, the types of coal that are exported by the United States tend to be higher quality than those in the countries where it is imported. This has
the potential to reduce emissions in those countries.
Further, coal mines in the United States have safety records that are the envy of the world. With few
exceptions, coal mined in the United States results in fewer injuries and fatalities than coal mined in countries that import coal. Incenting the export of coal from
the United States might displace coal mined with greater numbers of injuries or death. The United States requires all coal mining operations to meet very high
standards with respect to reclamation, much more rigorous than many of the nations that import coal. Coal exports from the United States might displace coal
production from other countries that have less stringent reclamations standards thus netting cleaner air and water than the alternative. If any consideration is
given in the PEIS to the export of federal coal, the overall benefits of coal production in the U.S. and exported to other countries should be considered.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
26 207.0800.00
Coal exports
The export of coal is a tiny fraction of total U.S. production, and will likely remain a small fraction of worldwide coal consumption. Even if U.S. exports were
aggressively expanded, they would have no material effect on overall federal coal production or no detectible effect whatsoever on worldwide consumption.
Exports do not provide a rationale to undertake significant revisions to the federal coal program. As discussed earlier, the volume of coal exported from the U.S.
often ebbs and flows based on international market prices and the productivity of foreign operations. Thus, it would be difficult to determine the volume of coal
from a specific lease that would be sold in the export market.Finally, although the impact of major federal actions on conditions outside the United States is
generally excluded from NEPA, it is worth noting that the export of federal coal saves lives and promotes human welfare. Federal coal, especially coal that is
attractive for export, is often of substantially higher quality and lower ash and sulfur than alternative coals that overseas facilities might consume. Developing
nations typically cannot afford the sophisticated and expensive pollution controls required of U.S. facilities, and thus burning cleaner coal can produce immediate
and dramatic improvements in emissions worldwide. In addition, U.S. coal mines are far safer than many overseas mines. For its part, Wolverine has outstanding
environmental and mine safety records. To the extent Wolverine (and other operators) export federal coal, lives are saved and harmful emissions are lowered.
Raymond
Sherrie
397 N/A
207.0800.00
Coal exports
207.0800.00
Coal exports
1
Reynolds
Patricia
447 N/A
Don't issue new coal leases even if 'just' for export to other countries. They don't have the environmental requirements that we do, so it's even worse if we help
them by providing coal!
THE COAL WE MINE IS BEING USED TO FUEL THE COAL PLANTS IN CHINA. THEY PLAN TO BUILD 40+ MORE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. THEY ARE
ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE SELL OUR RESOURCES AT A CHEAP RATE TO THEM. WHY DON'T WE TAX EXPORTED COAL AND APPLY THAT
EXTRA TAX TO CLIMATE MITIGATION PLANS?? THEY TAX US ON OUR IMPORTS MUCH MORE THAN WE TAX THEM. IT MIGHT ALSO
1
Seffens
Patricia
Shoaff
Nathaniel
414 N/A
6 Sierra Club Environmental
DISCOURAGE THE AGGRESSIVE BUILD OF THE 40+ PLANTS.
1 207.0800.00
Coal exports
We are trying to stop a coal export terminal from being built here in Oakland.
68 207.0800.00
Coal exports
VII. BLM Should Examine Coal Exports and Attempts by Coal Producing States to Prop Up Coal Mines by Creating New Export Infrastructure. Federal coal
Law Program
leasing affects the environment at each stage of the coal lifecycle, including mining, shipping, and end use consumption, whether for burning or in industrial
applications. Coal export expands and intensifies this lifecycle. Exports can also affect coal price and increase coal consumption and send market signals that prop
up the coal production industry. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect impacts of their actions, even if the
extent of these impacts is not known. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8; see also Mid States Coal. for Progress, 345 F.3d at 549-550 (finding that the
agency should examine the rail project's reasonably foreseeable effect of increasing coal consumption). The activities associated with coal leasing dramatically
increase air emissions, hazard risk and negative impacts to health. Exporting coal exacerbates these affects because export demands more transport through
communities along the line and near ports, involves greater distances, requires expanded infrastructure (e.g., ports, rail lines), and increases emissions due to often
softened regulations overseas related to transport and combustion, compared to domestic emissions. Recent reports have shown an increased willingness of state
officials in coal producing states to attempt to secure even far-fetched export opportunities.156 [Footnote 156 E.g., Memo Shows Involvement of Utah Agency
and Two Tribes in North Coast Coal Export Proposal (Sept. 21, 2021), https://huffman.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/memo-shows-involvement-of-utahagency-and-2-tribes-in-north-coast-coal-export-proposal (last visited Oct. 2, 2021).]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
70 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Law Program
BLM's upcoming review must analyze each of these impacts.
Port-related impacts: BLM must analyze the impacts from unloading coal from trains, loading coal onto barges and/or ships, constructing and/or maintaining port
facilities, and the impacts of port operations, including ship, locomotive, and/or truck operations. Such impacts include air quality impacts of all port operations,
including ship, locomotive, and truck
emissions, water quality impacts (including wetland impacts), and fish and wildlife impacts, and impacts to human health and
safety.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
71 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Law Program
Shipping impacts: BLM must analyze the impacts of shipping coal both within US waters and through international waters. Specifically, the analysis must include air
quality impacts, impacts to water quality (particularly through discharge from ships), and impacts to river and ocean species, especially species listed as threatened
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
74 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Coal combustion overseas: The review must analyze the impacts of processing and combusting coal from federal lands. This includes but is not limited to analyzing
the air quality impacts of coal combustion (including greenhouse gas emission impacts), water quality impacts, coal ash disposal impacts, fish and wildlife impacts,
impacts to human health and safety, and impacts to lands.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-93
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
69 207.0800.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal exports
Rail-related impacts: BLM must analyze the impacts to wildlife and human health of coal traffic due to exports along the entire route from federal lands to existing
Law Program
and contemplated coal ports. Coal can be transported more than a thousand miles by rail just to reach this first stop before being shipped overseas. Impacts to
analyze include, but are not limited to: the air quality impacts of rail traffic, noise impacts of rail traffic, fish and wildlife impacts of rail traffic, and water quality
impacts. Such an analysis must take into account the potential for spills and/or derailments and the impacts such events may have on land, water, fish, wildlife, and
air.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
72 207.0800.00
Coal exports
73 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Law Program
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
South American and European ports, and wherever else coal is exported.
Law Program
Steitz
Jim
Sweeny
Katie
Sweeny
Katie
162 N/A
Coal unloading impacts at overseas ports: The review must analyze the impacts of unloading coal from ships and loading coal onto trains and/or trucks at Asian,
Coal transport overseas: The review should analyze the impacts of transporting coal from ports in Asia, Europe and Latin America to facilities on those
continents. This analysis must include impacts of transport by rail or truck.
5 207.0800.00
Coal exports
19 National Mining Association
18 207.0800.00
Coal exports
19 National Mining Association
16 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Moreover, because American domestic consumption is declining, coal companies are lustfully eyeing Asian markets and a series of sites along the US West Coast
for export terminals. This trans-Pacific pipeline of carbon would doom our children's atmosphere with equal efficiency, and US public lands must not provide the
origin for that maritime death pact.
Future western coal exports are dependent on the development of port capacity on the U.S. West Coast, which could be beneficial to western coal exports by
increasing market access.
Consideration of Export Potential Is Not Material to Leasing Decision BLM appears to be considering arguments that current leasing and royalty valuation
regulations do not capture the true value of coal exports. This argument suffers from the same fundamental error as the arguments for using the total delivered
cost to domestic consumers as the market price for the commodity. In reality, the substantial costs of transporting coal to the terminal, having it loaded on a
vessel and shipped overseas can be six times the mining cost.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
17 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Coal exports have never comprised a significant share of coal production from western states with federal coal lands. During the height of U.S. coal exports,
exports from Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming were four percent of the total production in those states. In general, western U.S. coal is at a significant
disadvantage in the seaborne coal market. The four largest importers of coal - China, Japan, India and Korea - are substantially closer to the two largest exporters
of coal, Australia and Indonesia, both of which enjoy low mining costs. Currently, the vast majority of exports of western coal must go through Canadian, U.S.
Gulf Coast, or Great Lakes ports, which represent significant transportation and logistics costs, placing western mines at a competitive disadvantage. In addition,
coal fueled power plants along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Ocean sometimes find it cheaper to import coal from other countries than to obtain coal from U.S.
coal-producing regions.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
19 207.0800.00
Coal exports
The relatively small portion of western coal exported precludes potential exports from serving as a basis to value new coal leases. The value of increased coal
exports would be captured in the royalty which is based upon the price of the coal sold at the mine. Charging federal royalties on the total cost of exporting coal
will shift exports to private coal, and thus decrease return for taxpayers on the development of federal coal. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution specifically
prohibits the imposition of duties on goods by reason of exportation to an international country. Any law specifically addressing an increase in tax or royalty
based upon the fact that the coal is exported would be an imposition of an export tax, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 9, clause 5.
(Footnote 14: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." )
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
20 207.0800.00
Coal exports
Courts have recognized that fees or taxes that apply to the sale of coal into export markets violate the Export Clause. (Footnote 15: See Consolidation Coal Co.
v. United States, 528 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that if the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act reclamation fee was calculated based on the
extraction and sale of coal, such that it applied to coal exports, it would be an unconstitutional violation of the Export Clause as a tax on exports); see also Ranger
Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 467, 469 (E.D. Va. 1998) (holding an IRS-imposed coal excise tax unconstitutional and in violation of the Export
Clause).).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
16 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Delayed Reclamation and Corresponding Impacts to Other Land Uses: As of 2018, there are 401,315 acres of land, or 627 square miles, that have been mined for
coal across the western U.S. since SMCRA's passage in 1977. The gap between disturbed and reclaimed lands continues to grow. More than a third of all mined
areas in the western U.S. remain un-reclaimed, despite nearly five decades of active mining.13
at: https://www.worc.org/publication/8193/ )
(footnote 13 WORC, Planning for Coal's Decline, 2020, available
This means that nearly 150,000 acres (234 square miles) have not met regulatory requirements for re-vegetation
and water restoration necessary to sustain pre-mining land uses. This lack of reclamation prevents land from being returned to its prior use of habitat for wildlife
and livestock. Un-reclaimed lands can also lead to the spread of noxious weeds and can contribute to air quality impacts. Due to down market conditions for coal,
the threat of failed and untimely reclamation is becoming even more prevalent.
C-94
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
(See attached PDF for image of desert with orange sky)
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
66 207.0900.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal reclamation
Impacts from Delayed and Ineffective Reclamation
Resource Council
Timely and effective reclamation practices are essential to protecting land and water resources, minimizing
the length of time lands are disturbed, maintaining stable non-eroding mine sites, reducing fugitive dust from unvegetated areas, and achieving productive end land
uses. Inadequate reclamation has substantial adverse impacts, including the spread of noxious weeds, decreased air quality as a result of a larger area of
disturbance, less water restoration, and a longer loss of livestock pastureland and wildlife habitat. Absent ensured contemporaneous reclamation, land may not be
able to be restored "to a condition equal to or greater than the 'highest previous use'" as required by Federal and state laws.
For those reasons, one of the most
important legal requirements for coal mining in the United States is that reclamation of mined land must be "as contemporaneous as possible." 30 U.S.C. § 1202(e).
Every year, OSMRE prepares oversight reports on state programs implementing SMCRA that analyze state-wide trends regarding contemporaneous reclamation.
OSMRE evaluates the effectiveness of a state program achieving reclamation success based on the number of acres that meet the standards for phases of bond
release and acres that have been released from bond. BLM should fully consider these reports in the scope of its review and solicit additional information from
OSMRE as necessary to disclose the current reclamation status of mines with federal coal leases.
Specifically, the reports on the Wyoming program, where the
largest amount of federal coal is being mined, show that contemporaneous reclamation requirements are not being met because of a growing gap between
disturbed and reclaimed acreages, delays in reclamation activities, failure to achieve bond release, and operational emphasis on production over reclamation.
These reports affirmatively demonstrate that, on average, the rate of land disturbance is much greater than the rate of reclamation for PRB coal mines. OSMRE
has stated that "the data shows that the State program may not be fully effective in its goal of having all disturbed lands reclaimed to the approved post-mining land
use as contemporaneously as possible."136
(footnote 136 Annual Evaluation Summary Report For The Wyoming Regulatory Program (OSMRE 2009) at 9.)
OSMRE concludes that "...there could be delays in backfilling and grading or permanent seeding operations due to the mines' operational emphasis on coal
production over reclamation."137
(footnote 137 Id.)
While this problem is most pronounced in Wyoming, coal companies' failure to reclaim mines in a timely
manner is a problem throughout the West. Regionwide healthy, productive post-mining land uses cannot be attained without an increase in all phases of
reclamation and bond release - from backfilling and grading to revegetation to full reclamation. Re-establishment of persistent vegetative communities and the
restoration of the hydrologic balance are challenging throughout coal country, but are necessary preconditions to post-mine land uses in the semi-arid West.
Given the overall decline of the coal industry in recent years, reclamation has strong socioeconomic implications as well.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
66(continued) 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Resource Council
In much of coal country, reclamation is the single most shovel-ready economic bridge, providing years of meaningful employment while utilizing a skillset that
often overlaps heavily with professional skills that many miners already have (earthwork, large equipment operation, etcetera). Additionally, the restoration of
mined lands to productive uses like agriculture can provide ongoing employment and tax base potential for the county, in addition to other economic benefits
associated with the restoration of an area's hydrology. As BLM considers its role in a just transition, it would do well to view reclamation as a part of the
equation.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
68 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Resource Council
Assessing the status of reclamation is fundamental to BLM's responsibilities to limit coal leasing to those circumstances that are in the public interest. 30 U.S.C. §
201. Federal law makes contemporaneous reclamation a prerequisite to coal leasing. Leasing and the right to mine coal that it conveys is allowed only where
reclamation can and does occur. 30 U.S.C. §1202(c) (the purpose of SMCRA is to "assure that surface mining operations are not conducted where reclamation as
required by this Act is not feasible."). The success or failure of coal companies to reclaim previously mined land is a critical factor in BLM's determination of
whether to lease more coal. The federal coal program should contain specific concurrent reclamation standard, including standards to facilitate revegetation and
final bond release.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
70 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Resource Council
In addition to finally addressing the failures of self-bonds, BLM should work with its sister agency OSMRE to: 1) evaluate reclamation bond adequacy for all mines
with federal coal reserves; 2) evaluate current mine and reclamation plans to better facilitate timely and effective reclamation; and 3) require detailed closure plans
for mines and transparent disclosure of timing of mine closures and the financial resources available to pay for post-closure reclamation.141
e.g., WORC, Planning for Coal's Decline, 2020, available at: http://www.worc.org/publication/8193/. )
(footnote 141 See,
BLM should also work with OSMRE to evaluate whether
any existing leases should be relinquished given the current rate of mining. If a mine no longer needs federal coal reserves to satisfy a realistic and economically
defensible version of a mine plan (based on a review of coal contracts to power plants), BLM should coordinate with the mine operator to relinquish those leases.
Existing and valid leases can be a barrier to adequately planning for mining reductions and ultimately mine closure because the regulators assume mining will
occur. Thus, relinquishment will assist operators in providing a more realistic estimate of the life of the mine and allow for OSMRE and state regulators to develop
the detailed mine closure plan discussed above.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
9 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Resource Council
The existing regulations also require certain bonding, which is supposed to be adequate to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease, and
which cover a portion of the liabilities associated with the bonus bid, rental, and royalties. See generally 43 C.F.R. Part 3474. BLM's bonding is distinct from
bonding required by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) or delegated state programs to cover reclamation costs. However, as
also detailed below, the current bonding approach by either BLM or OSMRE is insufficient to ensure proper reclamation, particularly given that, in a world of
declining coal prices and increasingly idled mines, companies risk defaulting on their reclamation commitments.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
67 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
The risks and impacts associated with the failure to complete these reclamation obligations must be thoroughly examined in BLM's review. The review should also
disclose the reclamation and bond release status of all mining operations across all phases of reclamation required under SMCRA. BLM must also assess how long
land uses will be impacted (e.g. what is the expected time frame for reclamation and the area to regain access for grazing, hunting, and recreational purposes?).
These impact analyses should be site-specific and cumulative on a regional basis.138
(footnote 138 As identified by BLM's sister agency, OSMRE, bond release
status is the most objective measure of reclamation success. For example, in Wyoming bond release is tied to restoration progress, and the operator is not
eligible for final bond release until re-vegetation standards have been met, pre-mining productivity has been re-established, and pre-mining surface and
groundwater quality and quantity (including groundwater recharge capacity) have been restored. See Wyo. Land Quality Regulations Ch. 15 § 5.)
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-95
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
69 207.0900.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal reclamation
Inadequate Reclamation Bonding
Resource Council
Thanks to important DOI enforcement efforts and bankruptcy settlements, the coal industry's use of self-bonding for
reclamation of mined federal coal reserves has declined. However, some coal companies still "self-bond" to meet reclamation bonding requirements, meaning the
company's reclamation commitment is backed only by the company's name and overall financial health, not by sureties or specific pledges of collateral. While it is
technically allowed under federal and some state laws, self-bonding is an option, not a requirement. With declining coal company revenues and increasingly
decreasing demand for coal, self-bonding practices are becoming more and more
risky for State and Federal governments, and concerns will only grow.139
(footnote 139 See, e.g., Can Coal Companies Afford To Cleanup Coal Country?, Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2016 (discussing concerns))
Across the nation, $3.5
billion in reclamation liabilities are covered only by self-bonds. Thus, as noted in the Scoping Notice, in recent years some companies mining federal coal
resources have sought to shed their reclamation obligations in bankruptcy proceedings.140
(footnote 140 See, e.g., In re Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., No. 15-
33896 (KRH) United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (Aug. 3, 2015).)
BLM's review should disclose the amount of
reclamation liability for federal coal leases that is covered only by self-bonds, disclose the status of those bonds and the financial health of the companies, and
disclose any reasonably foreseeable impacts and risks associated with self-bonding practices. This analysis is necessary for all lands overlying leased federal coal,
regardless of ownership status, but it is especially important for federal public lands, as self-bonding presents additional risks to the Federal government as the
owner and manager of those lands. Going forward, BLM, working with OSMRE, should prevent the use of self-bonding for any mine with federal coal.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
91 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Resource Council
Facilitating reclamation
As mentioned elsewhere within these comments, reclamation is perhaps the single most shovel-ready economic bridge for coal
communities. If companies can be induced to fulfill their reclamation obligations in a timely way, it will provide years of meaningful revenue and employment for
coal-dependent communities as production volumes decrease. Good reclamation can put communities on stronger footing for the future. Incomplete or
inadequate reclamation can hinder communities' success for decades to come.
While adequate bonding and bond release both serve to induce reclamation,
there are other steps BLM should consider as well. For example, certain mining sites are more difficult to successfully remediate, and a tract's design is critical to
facilitating successful remediation. To fulfill mitigation requirements under NEPA and other statutes, under this alternative BLM would consider establishing
additional unsuitability criteria focused on ensuring that remediation can be adequately completed, and additional design criteria to ensure that tract design best
aligns with remediation objectives
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
92 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
93 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Resource Council
BLM should also consider subjecting lease tract design to public comment, including from neighboring landowners, allowing the public the opportunity to weigh in
on whether lease design could be improved to ensure reclamation timeliness and success.
Resource Council
Additionally, BLM should work closely with its sister agency of OSMRE, with oversight from the ASLM and the Secretary to create a new set of reclamation
standards for the mining of federal coal reserves. DOI must take a whole of government approach to ensuring effective and timely reclamation of federal coal
leases. For instance, one of the critical opportunities for this review is during review of a federal mine plan.159(footnote 159 Our organizations, and many others,
are submitting comments specific to federal mine plan obligations. The comments herein are meant to supplement, not supplant, those separate comments.). DOI
must analyze reclamation impacts at the time of review of a federal mine plan for a new lease or modification to an existing lease. In doing so, DOI must also fulfill
its public participation mandates, including public notice and comment and public inspection of all records and information related to the mine plan and the
agency's decision. The federal coal program must include a public participation process for the Mining Plan review performed by OSMRE Director, the Director's
recommendation to the Secretary, and the Secretary's decision made by the ASLM. Mining Plan documents provided to the OSMRE Director for review, the
Director's recommendations, and ASLM's decision for the Secretary be immediately placed in the record and made available for public review. Policy documents
and instruction memorandum related to federal mine plan review should include public information requirements, such as an online public file of all documents for
each permit for federal coal.
In particular, DOI must carefully review any federal Mining Plan where the permittee plans to put a surface mine, or a portion of
the mine on "temporary cessation of operations" status. In previous approvals, the cessation of operations for mines with federal coal has not been "temporary,"
with approvals extending for a decade or more. This delays reclamation and thwarts contemporaneous reclamation mandates, and prevents timely and effective
reclamation. It also thwarts multiple use mandates for any public surface lands contained within the permit.
Anon
Anon
Bass
Margot
138 N/A
1 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
52 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
When the coal is all dug up, the land, and probably the water, in the area is a mess. The coal company declares bankruptcy and the reclamation costs are left to
the taxpayers. Yet the BLM allows coal companies to pay lower and lower costing leases. This is not right.
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Our analysis also fails to include the social costs of methane emissions from abandoned mines. This is not due to its lack of importance nor lack of social costs, but
because the science and data on methane emissions from mines are evolving so rapidly. The most recent publication on this issue indicates that methane emissions
from abandoned mines have been drastically underestimated (Kholod N, M Evans, et al., May 20, 2020). Coal companies should be held financially responsible for
these emissions as well. Our analysis also fails to account for the carbon dioxide emissions from surface-mining activities, because we could not obtain those
emissions numbers. BLM surely has access to those, and so can add it to the floor of royalty increases in its rulemaking.
Boston
Rick
Deti
Travis
56 N/A
3 Wyoming Mining Association
1 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Maybe we should put more energy into having coal interests repair the land they have destroyed.
33 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Direct reclamation oversight is rightly provided by state officials of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and accounting for reclamation in
the BLM leasing process is unnecessary. Reclamation progress is painstakingly monitored by the DEQ and is guided by mine plans and staff review. Annual reports
are exhaustive and comply with state and federal requirements. Proper state, federal and producer communication should be the avenue to determine if
responsibilities have been met. There should be no questions or obstacles to the BLM checking on reclamation activities with the state. BLM should consult the
State DEQ's reclamation records to determine the success of the State's reclamation program.
C-96
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Deti
Travis
Organization
Letter # Name
3 Wyoming Mining Association
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
35 207.0900.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal reclamation
To date, an estimated 47 percent of all land disturbed by coal mining in Wyoming since the 1969 state law requiring reclamation has been reclaimed or is in the
process of reclamation. The remaining 53 percent of the land consists of active mining pits and facilities, including many acres of supporting activities designed to
provide protection of resources and the environment during the mining process. In fact, reclamation in Wyoming has been recognized at both the federal and
state levels as arguably the best and most successful efforts in the nation since the enactment of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Wyoming has been
managing this effort for 50 years. Now is not the time to invent yet another duplicative regulatory program at the public's expense.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
34 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Mine reclamation in Wyoming is an ongoing process that takes place simultaneous with mining activities. It starts before the first shovel of earth is turned, with
the development of a comprehensive plan which is reviewed and approved by federal and state regulatory bodies. Once mining begins, reclamation begins as well.
It starts with the careful stockpiling of topsoil, a critical Wyoming resource. As the coal is removed, the resulting void is then backfilled with overburden and
contoured in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. Topsoil is replaced and approved seed mixtures are then sowed. Unique and critical wildlife habitat,
productive grazing and pastureland, and valuable stream and aquatic resources are created and reclaimed in the process. Progress is monitored by specialists from
the mining companies and the state agencies to ensure compliance with rules and, most importantly, to ensure reclamation is successful and sustainable. Only after
a multitude of challenging regulatory standards are met and affirmatively demonstrated can the reclamation bond be released. The goal is to return the land to a
state equal to or better than the pre-mining condition. This is an overly simplified description of a time-consuming and costly, but robustly successful process. To
put it more succinctly, Wyoming coal mines are being reclaimed every single day. Even given today's state of the industry, there has not been a single situation
where a Wyoming coal company reclamation obligation has not been met.
Gibson
Kenneth
292 N/A
207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Former operators and owners of specific mines should be made responsible for restoring the surface area of all mining sites to natural condition of surrounding
4 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Addressing the legacy issues of decades of federal coal mining, including ensuring reclamation of currently leased areas before new leasing and mining can proceed.
2 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
The federal government, as the owner of the coal reserves, should be focused on identifying and closing existing mines over time, and financing the reclamation
14 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
properties or prepare them for contractually committed housing, commercial or industrial building approved by local codes and generally accepted practices.
3
Grey
Becky
Heston
Vivienne
160 N/A
22 Institute for Energy
Economics and Financial
mines on federal lands.
Analysis
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
Sense
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) requires coal mining operators to restore all land affected by their operations and to post a
bond to cover reclamation costs if they fail to restore the land. (Footnote 9 : P.L. 95-87 - August 3, 1977, Section 509(c)) With many coal companies financially
stressed, the ability of BLM to implement the law's bonding requirements, particularly in allowing "self-bonding," is questionable.
In recent years, coal companies
have qualified for self-bonding in ways that were not anticipated by the original self-bonding rules promulgated in 1983 (Footnote 10: 30 C.F.R 700-999 ) by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), the regulatory authority created by SMCRA. Specifically, large coal companies have used the
financial statements of subsidiaries to prove they have the assets available to cover reclamation costs. (Footnote 11: Benjamin Storrow, Casper Star Tribune,
"Feds Say Peabody Energy may be violating mining law," February 17, 2016. Available at: http://trib.com/business/energy/feds-say-peabody-energy-may-be-violatingmining-law/article_9f9ff61c-a338-5433-b77a-36ccab78b628.html) Frequently, the same assets used to signify the health of a subsidiary for self-bonding purposes
are also posted as collateral to cover debt carried by its parent company. They are, in a sense, "double-pledged." In the event of a bankruptcy, there is no
requirement that a company's promise to pay for reclamation costs through a self-bond will get any higher priority than other creditor claims. Therefore,
SMCRA's self-bonding option has proven inadequate to protect taxpayers.
Huang
Mia
4 Taxpayers for Common
13 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Sense
The BLM must review its bonding regulations and practices to determine whether current arrangements will adequately cover reclamation costs in the event of
default. Reclamation costs must be reviewed to keep pace with current development costs. And BLM must change self-bonding practices to ensure that companies
have assets adequate to cover all unreclaimed leases.
Huskinson
Lynne
24 N/A
2 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
I enjoy access to public lands near Eagle Butte. The amount of reclamation not being completed is unbearable.
Jackson
Johnson
Lisa
412 N/A
3 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Ensure where not economically viable the coal is left in the ground and a reclamation process is started.
Carolyn
476 N/A
207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Mining federally owned coal has left a legacy of unreclaimed and under-reclaimed lands and hydrologic systems across the West. Indeed, both the Department of
the Interior and the state "reclamation" agencies have chronically failed to enforce the reclamation, bonding, and permitting requirements of SMCRA. The federal
and state simply lacked the will and competent leadership to carry out their legal enforcement responsibilities. And that continues today, as mining companies
continue to under-bond, ignore, and flee their responsibilities.
Let's take just one example, so I can keep these comments short. Look no further than the
Decker mine in the Powder River Basin area of southern Montana: it sports an 11 million ton spoil pile at its entrance that was created when the mine was
1
Knight
Dennis
Lovie
Julie
Maul
Robert
opened in the 70's.
74 N/A
2 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Ensure the reclamation of currently leased areas before leasing additional public lands for mining.
130 N/A
9 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
If continued production is no longer economical for a company, it should leave the remainder of the coal undisturbed and start the reclamation process.
9 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has oversight of the reclamation program for coal mining operations. The reclamation requirements for coal
3 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
We need to stop mining coal and work to restore the old mines and the waterways and environments that have been devastated by coal mining.
25 Campbell County Board of
Commissioners
mines are exhaustive and painstakingly detailed with monitoring and reporting requirements. No additional measures should be required; however, BLM must
assure that bonding is adequate to cover the costs of the project.
McClain
December 2021
Anne
65 N/A
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-97
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pollastro
Carson
Organization
Letter # Name
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
32 207.0900.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal reclamation
Whether, and how, to account for reclamation responsibilities. This proposal is also unlawful. Lessee qualifications are established under MLA, as amended and
provides: "That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to, and upon the petition of any qualified applicant shall, divide any of the coal lands or the deposits of
coal, classified and unclassified owned by the United States..." (30 U.S.C. 21(a)). As long as an applicant meets the qualification criteria described in Section 1 of the
MLA, the applicant cannot be arbitrarily excluded from applying or bidding on a lease. Proposed approaches that are unlawful are not implementable through a
PEIS. Further, the BLM should not have any responsibility with regards to determining the operator's position on reclamation. This is covered through the mining
permit managed by individual State agencies with oversight from OSMRE. Mine operators are required to be permitted through existing Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act ("SMCRA") regulations and maintain compliance with those regulations at all times.
Raynolds
Linda
42 N/A
13 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Raynolds
Linda
42 N/A
15 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Shoaff
Nathaniel
67 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
the coal producing regions of the country, which have sacrificed so much already in terms of environmental degradation and public health, cannot be left holding
the bag for delinquent taxes and cleanup costs.
Pollution from existing mines, and aquifer degradation need to be addressed, with full public transparency. Reclamation needs to take place on mined-out lands
and wildlife habitat needs to be restored. Public land needs to be returned to productivity of renewable resources, such as grazing, recreation, and ecosystem
services.
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
VI. BLM Must Acknowledge the Widespread Failure to Contemporaneously Reclaim Mined Lands. BLM's upcoming review must examine the impacts of federal
coal leasing in light of the coal industry's profound failure to meet obligations to reclaim mined land. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA"),
30 U.S.C. §§1201-1328, establishes minimum federal standards for the regulation of coal mining. But coal-mine operators almost universally fail to meet SMCRA's
reclamation standards, and increasingly fall short of their bonding obligations. As Navajo Nation President Nez recently wrote in a letter to the U.S. House
Natural Resources Committee, addressing reclamation failures at the Black Mesa and Peabody's Kayenta Mine, "the mines are closed, the Navajo Generating
Station (NGS) is shuttered, and all we're left with is an ecologically devastating and socially unhealthy mess that no one is stepping up to fix."152 [Footnote 152
Navajo Nation Letter to House Natural Resources Committee (June 29, 2021), attached as Exhibit 58.]
But the experience at Kayenta mine is not an outlier.
The National Wildlife Federation, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and Natural Resources Defense Council published a report in 2015, "Undermined
Promise II," documenting reclamation and enforcement failures under SMCRA.153 [Footnote 153 WORC et al., UNDERMINED PROMISE II (June 2015),
attached as Exhibit 59.]
Of 287,442 acres of disturbed land in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, only 29,673 acres had achieved Phase III bond release,
demonstrating successful establishment of vegetation and soils to satisfy permit requirements for post mining land uses.154 [Footnote 154 Id. at 7] 257,769 acresor more than 400 square miles-remained unreclaimed by federal standards. In addition, reclamation that is accomplished often is inadequate to restore pre-mining
conditions, particularly hydrologic and habitat conditions. As the report concluded, "[miining always alters the ecosystem - topography is gentler, shrub density is
lighter, water balance is altered. The long term and cumulative impacts of coal mining and reclamation are significant and often permanent."155 [Footnote 155 Id.
at 25.] BLM's upcoming review must acknowledge the failure of SMCRA's contemporaneous reclamation standards and analyze pathways to fully reclaim mined
lands while providing economic activity to former coal communities through an increased investment in reclamation efforts.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
67 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Law Program
VI. BLM Must Acknowledge the Widespread Failure to Contemporaneously Reclaim Mined Lands. BLM's upcoming review must examine the impacts of federal
coal leasing in light of the coal industry's profound failure to meet obligations to reclaim mined land. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA"),
30 U.S.C. §§1201-1328, establishes minimum federal standards for the regulation of coal mining. But coal-mine operators almost universally fail to meet SMCRA's
reclamation standards, and increasingly fall short of their bonding obligations. As Navajo Nation President Nez recently wrote in a letter to the U.S. House
Natural Resources Committee, addressing reclamation failures at the Black Mesa and Peabody's Kayenta Mine, "the mines are closed, the Navajo Generating
Station (NGS) is shuttered, and all we're left with is an ecologically devastating and socially unhealthy mess that no one is stepping up to fix."152 [Footnote 152
Navajo Nation Letter to House Natural Resources Committee (June 29, 2021), attached as Exhibit 58.]
But the experience at Kayenta mine is not an outlier.
The National Wildlife Federation, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and Natural Resources Defense Council published a report in 2015, "Undermined
Promise II," documenting reclamation and enforcement failures under SMCRA.153 [Footnote 153 WORC et al., UNDERMINED PROMISE II (June 2015),
attached as Exhibit 59.]
Of 287,442 acres of disturbed land in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, only 29,673 acres had achieved Phase III bond release,
demonstrating successful establishment of vegetation and soils to satisfy permit requirements for post mining land uses.154 [Footnote 154 Id. at 7] 257,769 acresor more than 400 square miles-remained unreclaimed by federal standards. In addition, reclamation that is accomplished often is inadequate to restore pre-mining
conditions, particularly hydrologic and habitat conditions. As the report concluded, "[miining always alters the ecosystem - topography is gentler, shrub density is
lighter, water balance is altered. The long term and cumulative impacts of coal mining and reclamation are significant and often permanent."155 [Footnote 155 Id.
at 25.] BLM's upcoming review must acknowledge the failure of SMCRA's contemporaneous reclamation standards and analyze pathways to fully reclaim mined
lands while providing economic activity to former coal communities through an increased investment in reclamation efforts.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
14 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
Reclamation Responsibilities Are Adequately Addressed Concerns over reclamation, especially self-bonding for reclamation, are sure to be raised again during the
current Federal Coal Leasing Program review despite the fact that BLM does not oversee coal mine reclamation. The Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) is the DOI agency with authority over reclamation efforts and, consistent with SMCRA's unique cooperative federalism approach, the state
regulatory authorities generally have ultimate responsibility to ensure reclamation standards are met.
C-98
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sweeny
Katie
Organization
Letter # Name
19 National Mining Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
15 207.0900.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal reclamation
Efforts to restrict self-bonding conflict with SMCRA's statutory language that specifically allows for self-bonding. It also disregards the flexibility SMRCA provides
to allow states to use their own expertise when developing their own state regulatory programs. SMCRA is designed to give states discretion to best manage their
regulatory programs in order to ensure reclamation. States are free to use OSM's standards, more stringent thresholds, or prohibit the use of self-bonds
altogether. As a result, states are highly invested in the proper implementation of self-bonding programs and best positioned to evaluate and make changes to their
programs moving forward. BLM has no ability to address self-bonding and not even OSM has the authority to end self-bonding absent an amendment to SMCRA.
Additionally, SMCRA requires that reclamation occur as contemporaneously with mining as possible. Removing self-bonding as an option undermines the
simultaneous reclamation objective of SMCRA and as a consequence would actually be a net negative for achieving efficient, satisfactory reclamation projects.
Veditti
Karen
77 N/A
3 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
I am also concerned about the costs to restore the land from previous coal mining activities, costs that invariably become the public burden.
Veditti
Karen
77 N/A
4 207.0900.00
Coal reclamation
If leases must continue to be offered for legal reasons, the costs of clean-up, restoration, and related health costs should be included in the lease agreements
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
8 207.1000.00
Coal mitigation
(which would probably make them cost-prohibitive, as they should be).
Regulatory initiatives in the consumer market have further sensitized coal consumers to the precise characteristics of their coal. The Mercury Air Toxics
Standards ("MATS") Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR"), regional haze regulations, and ongoing revisions to Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Ozone,
and Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") have prompted numerous older generating unit retirements, but they have also spurred
extremely expensive and sophisticated new pollution controls on surviving units. These pollution controls in turn often require very precise management of
influent airstream quality, emphasizing the need for consistent and precise fuel characteristics. It is simply not possible for utilities and other consumers to
haphazardly swap out fuel suppliers - or for fuel suppliers to haphazardly substitute coals - and maintain the high degree of environmental performance mandated
by current regulations. Notably, this often means that a coal mining company must have several lease tracts simultaneously at its disposal, so that it can
appropriately blend coals from different sources or seams to manage the naturally occurring variation in coal qualities and deliver a consistent product.The
combined effect of MATS, CSAPR, regional haze, and NAAQS revisions has been to render fuel costs a continually declining share of consumer operating costs,
and to complicate any cause-and-effect relationship between federal coal leasing policy and net coal combustion. A PEIS must evaluate net coal combustion effects
of various leasing policy proposals with appropriate sensitivity to the highly regulated character of the coal consumer market.
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
12 207.1000.00
Coal mitigation
Interior should require that producers offset greenhouse gas emissions as a condition of extraction. Although the reforms discussed above will curtail harmful
at New York University
extraction on lands that have not yet been leased, they do little to mitigate the effect on climate change from the land that has already been leased. To mitigate the
School of Law
climate impacts from extraction on these lands, Interior should require offsetting greenhouse gas emissions as a condition of extraction-a form of compensatory
mitigation.49
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
22 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
79 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
Resource Council
(footnote 49 Toward Rationality in Oil and Gas Leasing, supra note 7, at 37-38.)
Coal Transportation Impacts: Coal rail lines scar landscapes and create coal dust pollution along the tracks. Trains also can create traffic congestion at road
intersections near mines and across the Nation.
Resource Council
Coal Transportation Impacts Downstream impacts on air quality must also be considered. For example, trains used to transport federal coal run on fossil fuels - in
particular diesel - which produce a variety of air pollutants, including nitrogen oxide, soot, sulfur dioxide, and carcinogens. In 2006, U.S. diesel trains released
approximately a million tons of ozone forming oxides of nitrogen and 32,000 tons of PM2.5, causing 3,400 deaths and 290,000 lost work days.150 (footnote 150
Hein and Howard at A4.) Assuming that 40% of U.S. trains are freight and 40% of freight is coal, one study estimated the approximate cost of air pollution from
U.S. coal transport to be $4 per ton of coal in 2015 USD. Id. at A13.
Coal trains also emit dust from the exposed coal in the train cars. Even with surfactant
sprayed over coal train cars, over 100 pounds of coal dust per train car, or about 12,500 pounds per train, blows off the trains as they move from the mines to
their final destination151. (footnote 151 See Ashley Ahearn, What Coal Train Dust Means for Human Health, Earthfix, June 21, 2016, available at
http://archive.kuow.org/post/what-coal-train-dust-means-human-health-pacific-northwest. )
Over 160 doctors in Washington expressed public health concerns
about increased coal train traffic, and resulting air pollution from diesel emissions and coal dust152. (footnote 152 See Whatcom Docs, Position Statement on the
Proposed Cherry Point Coal Terminal, available at http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/whatcom-docs-position-statement-and-appendices. ) Rail transportation also
poses risks to public health due to accidents, noise and congestion. Transportation of federal coal can also burden traffic patterns in towns with rail lines, causing
impacts to emergency services and daily commuting. If communities wish to avoid these impacts, they must invest in expensive infrastructure projects, such as
bypasses and overpasses, at millions of dollars of local expense. Increased coal train traffic can also displace other rail users, such as agricultural freight trains,
leading to impacts for those economic sectors. Limited rail capacity means that freight, agricultural shippers, and passenger trains risk delays and higher rates as
they are bumped by coal, which often takes priority on the tracks153. (footnote 153 See, e.g., Terry Whiteside, et al., Heavy Traffic Ahead and Heavy Traffic Still
Ahead, available at www.heavytrafficahead.org. ) Timely deliveries are particularly important with agricultural products. At least one significant agricultural
business has been closed in recent years due to being pushed off the rails by coal train traffic.154
(footnote 154 See Steve Wilhelm, Coal Trains Kill Cold Trains:
Fruit delivery service shuts down as rail congestion heats up, Puget Sound Business Journal, Aug. 8, 2014, available at
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/08/07/coal-trains-kill-cold-trains-fruit-delivery.html. ) All of these impacts should be considered cumulatively across
all federal coal leasing, and BLM's review should guide how they will be considered in federal agency decision-making, including NEPA reviews for any federal coal
leasing action.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
104 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
Eliminating deductions Under this alternative BLM would eliminate the deductions it allows operators to take for transportation and washing costs. These
deductions were designed to encourage federal coal leasing and production and are no longer appropriate. Eliminating them will also increase the returns to
taxpayers from federally leased coal.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-99
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
53 207.1100.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Coal transportation/ROWs
Hein and Howard (December 2015) recommend that in addition to factoring the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions into royalty prices for coal production,
the social costs of transportation via the rail industry should also be included. However, we disagree. The federal government needs to evaluate the impacts and
social costs for each industry, and regulate each one accordingly. Having the coal industry bear the social costs of the rail industry seems like an unfair burden.
Furthermore, the trucking industry- as an alternate form of transport to rail- should also be assessed for its social costs if rail is to be. If the social costs of these
industries are included in the prices set by these industries, transportation costs will be paid for appropriately by the coal industry.
Cohill
Michael
Coal transportation/ROW
Coal is dangerous to transport. Coal trains have killed thousands over the years. It's volume and weight destroys the rail bed. It's dirty and fouls the path it takes.
Dillon
John
484 N/A
75 N/A
4 207.1100.00
207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
Transportation causes harmful pollution through energy consumption and coal dust in our communities.
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
9 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
Burning diesel and bunker fuel to export coal adds significant greenhouse gas emissions as well as air and water pollution with their negative impacts on the
2
natural environment and on human health, length and quality of life, and productivity. During train transport, up to a pound of coal per mile per car is lost as toxic
dust. [v]
[v] Simpson Weather Associates, Norfolk southern rail emission study: consulting report prepared for Norfolk Southern Corporation. Charlottesville,
VA (1993)., cited on pp. 8-9 of https://nocoalinoakland.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Comment-No-Coal-in-Oakland.pdf
Exporting coal thus exposes large
numbers of people, in particular many in otherwise heavily polluted disadvantaged communities along rail routes and near export terminals, to significant negative
health and safety impacts.[vi]
[vi] See for example the September 10, 2018 Millennium Bulk Terminals - Longview Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The report projects substantial additional inhalable particulate matter, not expected to result in levels above NAAQS standards due to low preexisting local levels.
In contrast, the San Francisco Bay Area, in particular the areas neighboring the Levin-Richmond terminal and proposed Oakland coal terminal, are frequently out
of attainment. In addition, the scientific evidence is now clear that even well below NAAQS, increases in ambient particulate matter cause many negative health
effects.
Hashe
Janis
Hoagland
Vincent
Johnson
Redge
83 N/A
1 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
146 N/A
1 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
38 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
Transportation and "storage" allows huge amounts of highly toxic particulate matter to be spewed across our already environmentally burdened area through
"fugitive dust."
There is a proposal to bring coal from Wyoming to Eureka CA for shipment abroad. This would involve rebuilding a railroad that has been abandoned due to
washouts and is scheduled to become a rails to trails route. This trail would be a great benefit to local communities. We also do not want long coal trains crossing
our roads.
32 Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office
Measuring and assessing climate impacts should be evaluated separately for each step in the supply chain to form a clear comparison to other energy technologies.
Cradle-to-Gate (extraction + transportation) accounts for only about 13 percent average of the lifecycle impacts for electricity generated from traditional coal
technologies.23 (Footnote: 23https://netl.doe.gov/projects/files/ModelingtheLifeCycleImpactsofUSCoalMiningataRegionalLevelISSST201 8 062718.pdf)
Combustion of coal accounts for most the coal sector's climate impacts, but there is also significant variability across coal basins and types.
Rice
Glen
151 N/A
1 207.1100.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
Every day, 3 or 4 100 car coal trains pass by on their way from Wyoming to a port in Canada, where the coal is transhipped to China, to power their economy,
and pollute our world.
This one supply line amounts to about 60 million pounds of coal a day, translating into 180 million pounds of CO2 once burned. This
becomes 66 Trillion pounds each year.
Smith
Thomas
99 N/A
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
2 207.1100.00
62 208.0000.00
Coal transportation/ROWs
In addition, the environmental and detrimental health effects of coal dust during transportation and storage must be thoroughly studied and reported.
Environmental justice
BLM Must Analyze and Disclose the Impacts of its Decisions on Vulnerable Populations and Public Health. The cumulative effects of fossil-fuel development
Resource Council
projects materially contribute to climate change. Environmental justice communities are disproportionately burdened by climate change, and are vulnerable to sea
level rise, storm surges, increased air pollution, heatwaves and elevated urban temperatures and other climate-related impacts. In Executive Order 13990,
President Biden made it a priority of his administration to protect public health, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.124 (footnote 124 Exec. Ord.
13990 §1.)The administration also acknowledges that the Nation faces crises related to health, the economy, racial justice, and climate change - all of which
disproportionately harm Native Americans.125 (footnote 125 The White House, Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation
Relationships (January 26, 2021), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential- actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal-consultation-andstrengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/. ) Thus, BLM must analyze and disclose to the public the impacts of GHG emissions and climate change of the
Federal coal program on vulnerable populations and public health.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
63 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Vulnerable populations
CEQ's 2016 Final Guidance recommended that federal agencies should incorporate environmental justice principles into their programs,
policies, and activities.126
(footnote 126 CEQ Final Guidance, at 23.)
It further recommended that agencies consider whether the effects of climate change, in
association with the effects of a proposed agency action, may result in a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income populations.127
(footnote 127 Id. )
Federal agencies are required to consider environmental justice impacts pursuant to NEPA pursuant to Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations," which was issued to ensure that the environmental consequences of federal actions do not unduly fall on minority
and low-income populations.128 (footnote 128 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec.
Order No. 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994), available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-1994-02-14/pdf/WCPD-1994-02-14-Pg276.pdf. )
Minority and low-income populations are most severely impacted by climate change because they live in places "more susceptible to climate change and in housing
that is less resistant; lose relatively more when affected; have fewer resources to mitigate the effects; and get less support from social safety nets or the financial
system to prevent or recover from the impact."129
(footnote 129 U.N. Doc. A/HRC/41/39 (Jun. 25, 2019),
https://srpovertyorg.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/unsr-poverty-climate-change-a_hrc_41_39.pdf.)
Agencies that make decisions impacting climate change should
consider environmental justice because any adverse effects of GHG emissions or climate change are exacerbated in these vulnerable populations.130
(footnote
130 Douglas Fischer, Climate Change Hits Poor Hardest in U.S., Scientific Am. (May, 29, 2009), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hitspoor-hardest/. )
C-100
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bardell
Timothy
Bonta
Rob
Organization
Letter # Name
180 N/A
35 California Department of
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
1 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
And the mining, transportation, storage, and burning of coal all damage the health of surrounding communities, almost always poor.
8 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
All Americans deserve to live in a safe and healthy environment. All too often, however, our nation's low-income communities, communities of color, and Tribal
Justice
and indigenous communities are denied this basic right, enduring disproportionate burdens of air pollution, climate change harms, and other serious health and
environmental issues. While there are numerous environmental impacts of the federal coal leasing program that remain to be addressed-including impacts to
water quality, air quality, and wildlife -the Attorneys General here specifically urge BLM to consider the disproportionate impacts on environmental justice
communities resulting from the federal coal leasing program.(Footnote 84: BLM itself recognized in the Scoping Report that several impacts of the federal coal
leasing program have never been adequately considered, including harm to public lands and wildlife from coal mining; air quality impacts from coal transport and
combustion; and impacts from the disposal of coal ash, which contains hazardous constituents. See Scoping Report at 5-46 - 5-52; see also id. at 6-4 ("there is a
need for program reform to better protect the nation's other natural resources (e.g., air, water, and wildlife)").)
Bonta
Rob
35 California Department of
19 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Justice
In addition, it is unacceptable that the environmental justice impacts of the federal coal leasing program, including both direct impacts from coal mining, transport,
warehousing, and export, as well as indirect impacts resulting from climate change, have never been analyzed or accounted for. For example, the transport of coal
in open-top train cars across the western U.S. negatively affects local air quality due to the release of particulate matter pollution and toxic materials in lowincome and minority communities that are already disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution. As coal is prepared for export at west coast ports,
workers and surrounding communities suffer public health consequences as coal dust escapes into the air. Further adding to these burdens, climate change is now
imposing increasing and disproportionate environmental harms on low-income communities, communities of color, and Tribal and indigenous communities,
including impacts related to air quality, heat waves, and flooding. Such impacts must be considered prior to moving forward with any new federal coal leasing.
(Footnote 8: See, e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six Impacts (Sept. 2021)
("EPA Climate Report"), available at: https://www.epa.gov/cira/social-vulnerability-report; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change, Health, &
Environmental Justice (May 2016), available at: https://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/EPA%20Factsheets/ej-health-climate-change.pdf; U.S.Global Change Research
Program, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, ch. 9: Populations of Concern (Crimmins, A., et al., eds)
(2016), available at: https://health2016.globalchange.gov/.)
Hardenbergh
Sabrina
Huggins
Mallory
418 N/A
208.0000.00
Environmental justice
6 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
7 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
15 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
17 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Engage Black, Indigenous, and people of color leaders and organizations as decision makers, not just advisors.
22 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Listen to the stories of communities and individuals who are already experiencing acute impacts from the climate crisis through adverse health impacts from
21 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
24 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
2
12 People, Public Lands, and
burned coal from Black Mesa for a half century; this environmental justice issue must not be repeated.
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Issue a statement with actionable items on the relationship between public lands and colonization, with acknowledgement of the ways that public lands have been
places restricted to people with privilege.
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
My Navajo friends in northern Arizona also have noted the health compromising air pollution from the recently decommissioned Navajo Generating Station that
Incorporate historical knowledge into land management practices, both in the form of Indigenous conservation practices and federal land management strategies
that respect landscapes, objects, and plant and animal life held sacred by Indigenous peoples.
Climate Collaborative
Honor the perspectives of environmental justice leaders and communities by providing guidance and support to bureaus to realize the protections of the National
Environmental Protection Act.
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Climate Collaborative
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
environmental racism, pollution, visible changes to landscapes and weather patterns, and climate migration.
Climate Collaborative
Incorporate the stakeholder engagement recommendations in President Obama's Presidential Memorandum on Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National
Parks, National Forests, and Other Public Lands and Waters.
Association
As the Department works to rapidly promote this shift away from fossil fuels, the workers, communities, Tribes, municipalities, and states that are currently
reliant on coal revenue and jobs will need proactive help and assistance to ensure that the transition occurs in an equitable and just way. The Department should
proactively pursue and support policies that support this transition. This will involve a suite of policies that recognize systemic problems related to environmental
justice and provide fair fiscal transition to workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry. Those policies could include job training opportunities,
incentivizing economic development in prioritized communities, restoring degraded lands, remediating orphaned fossil fuel sites, and furnishing direct funds to
assist communities that have relied on fossil fuel revenue for essential services.
Knight
Dennis
74 N/A
4 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Involve impacted communities.
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
4 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
As approximately two-fifths of U.S. coal production comes from federal lands, all new leases, permits, and approvals for coal on federal lands must be halted in
order to protect the fundamental constitutional rights of children, particularly children within environmental justice communities, including communities of color,
low-income communities, and indigenous communities. Executive Order 13990's policy directive clearly states "to listen to the science; to improve public health
and protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; . . . to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[.]"
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
25 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Compounding this risk is the fact that communities of color and low-income communities frequently have limited access to health care, allowing adverse impacts
to go unaddressed. In short, mercury contamination from oil- and coal-fired power plants is an environmental justice issue.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-101
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pruitt
Katherine
Organization
Letter # Name
5 American Lung Association
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
55 208.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Environmental justice
(Footnote : "Mercury Matters 2021: A Science Brief for Journalists" September 9, 2021. Harvard Chan C-CHANGE. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cchange/news/mercury-matters-2021-a-science-brief-for-journalists/) Families in many communities of color, including African-Americans and Native peoples, rely
on fishing to supply basic nutritional needs. (Footnote : National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Fish Consumption and Environmental Justice. 2002.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-02/documents/fish-consump-report_1102.pdf) Fishing can provide an inexpensive and healthful food source, but when
fish are contaminated, reliance on fishing for food poses increased health risks. Thus, subsistence fishing communities may face chronic exposure to high levels of
mercury. (Footnote : World Health Organization. Mercury and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health) Compounding this
risk is the fact that communities of color and low-income communities frequently have limited access to health care, allowing adverse impacts to go unaddressed.
In short, mercury contamination from oil- and coal-fired power plants is an environmental justice issue.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
32 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Law Program
(4) The Biden administration has recognized that climate change is an environmental justice issue, which will impact low-income and communities of color the
hardest in the United States. BLM cannot avoid that any decision to continue the federal coal leasing program will exacerbate those unequal impacts; it would be a
deliberate decision by our federal government to inflict climate harms - such as wildfires,
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
flooding, and storm surges - on environmental justice communities.
49 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
D. BLM Must Recognize the Environmental Justice Impacts of Climate Change.
36 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
As summarized by dozens of renowned climate scientists in 2016 in comments to BLM on the scope its planned (and ultimately cancelled review of the federal
Law Program
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
coal program): "We are scientists writing to urge the Department of the Interior to take meaningful action to fight climate change by ending federal coal leasing,
extraction, and burning. The vast majority of known coal in the United States must stay in the ground if the federal coal program is to be consistent with national
climate objectives and be protective of public health, welfare, and biodiversity."60
[Footnote 60 Letter from Ken Caldeira. et al., to Secretary Sally Jewell,
"Scientists Support Ending Coal Leasing on Public Lands to Protect the Climate, Public Health, and Biodiversity" (July 27, 2016). Attached as Exhibit 25.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
50 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Law Program
As the Biden administration evaluates the climate impacts of the federal coal program, it must recognize that climate impacts in the United States are not and will
not be felt evenly. Should the Biden administration recognize this fact, as it must, and still decide to continue the federal coal leasing program anyway, that would
amount to a deliberate choice to inflict climate harms most acutely on environmental justice communities within the U.S. this century. That unnecessary human
suffering can and should be avoided. But if BLM refuses to align its choices with the Biden Administration's climate priorities, BLM must at a minimum own the
impacts of its choices on low-income and communities of color.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
51 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Law Program
A recent EPA report, released in September 2021, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States, concluded that climate change will
disproportionately affect people of color and low-income communities.116
[Footnote 116 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change and Social
Vulnerability in the United States (Sept. 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/climate-vulnerability_september-2021_508.pdf.
Attached as Exhibit 40.]
The report examined six impacts of climate change (air quality and health, extreme temperature and health, extreme temperature and
labor, coastal flooding and fraffic, coastal flooding and property, inland flooding and property) affect four "socially vulnerable" groups based on income, education,
race, and age. EPA analyzed whether members of socially vulnerable groups currently live in areas that are projected to be most severely impacted by climate
change, as compared to non-socially vulnerable groups.117 [Footnote 117 Id. at 6.]
Of the four identified socially vulnerable groups, EPA found that racial
minorities are most likely to currently live in areas that are at the highest risk for climate change related impacts such as increased mortality because of extreme
temperatures, childhood asthma, labor hour losses, traffic delays, and land loss due to higher sea levels.118 [Footnote 118 Id.]
EPA concluded that racial
minorities are projected to be impacted significantly more than non-minorities by the extreme weather, air pollution, and ocean level rise that would be caused by
a 2°C global warming. Notably, black and African American individuals are 40% more likely to currently live in areas with the highest projected increase in
mortality due to extreme temperatures.119 [Footnote 119 Id.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
82 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
For communities already engaged in coal development, BLM should identify opportunities that help ensure a fair and just transition to a clean energy economy for
all people. While the transition from dirty fuels to clean energy will create many more jobs than those lost, we must not ask workers and communities that have
helped power our country to bear the burden of this energy transformation that will benefit everyone. Identified measures should drive sustainable investment
and job creation in regions where the coal industry has abused and abandoned the land, air, water and people.
C-102
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
83 208.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Environmental justice
On the most fundamental level, "just transition" refers to a path or plan for workers displaced by transformations in the economy.167 [Footnote 167 Labor
Law Program
Network for Sustainability, Strategic Practice Grassroots Policy Project, "Just Transition" - Just What Is It?: An Analysis of Language, Strategies, and Projects, at 22
(2016). Attached as Exhibit 60; Caroline Farrell, A Just Transition: Lessons Learned From the Environmental Justice Movement, 4 DUKE FORUM FOR LAW &
SOCIAL CHANGE 45 (2012). Attached as Exhibit 61.]
BLM should identify measures for a fair and just transition in which affected workers, their unions, and
other impacted communities are equal partners in a well-planned, carefully negotiated and managed transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. Consistent with
President Biden's E.O. 14008, such measures should bring good job opportunities to those traditionally left behind and job security and livelihood guarantees to
affected workers.168 [Footnote 168 E.O. 14008 at 7622.]
Workers' pensions and health care benefits should be preserved, and workers and members of
affected communities should receive right of first employment for any jobs that are created by power plant decommissioning or site reclamation. Healthcare
should also be provided to workers and other members of the local community
experiencing health impacts associated with coal development. In addition, BLM
should evaluate measures in which workers receive education and training for industries, ideally unionized, with similar pay and benefits. Among other things, as
BLM has noted, "BLM could seek to secure Congressional authorization to direct a portion of increased Federal coal revenues toward such community assistance
programs."169 [Footnote 169 2017 PEIS Scoping Report, at 6-39.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
84 208.0000.00
Environmental justice
Law Program
Measures for a fair and just transition also should engage every level of government and business in an effort to maximize public and private investments in
economic development and diversification; mitigate any impacts in a transition to a clean energy economy; provide workforce training; replace lost tax revenues;
and create lasting, good jobs that strengthen the economy and sustain working families-especially jobs related to clean energy, energy efficiency, and climateresilient infrastructure. Finally, such measures should ensure that the mining companies responsible for harmful pollution are held accountable for cleaning it up so
that communities are left with usable land and clean water.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
78 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Resource Council
Coal Seam Fires Also contributing to air quality impacts are the increasing frequency, intensity, and duration of coal seam fires, both inside and outside mine
operations. Drought and extreme heat have caused additional federal coal reserves to combust during mining operations and outside of the mines. Several
prominent coal seam fires caused landscape level impacts in Wyoming and Montana just this summer.
In addition to air quality impacts, coal seam fires cause
socio-economic impacts through the resultant loss of the coal resource that can no longer be mined. For off-mining-site fires, there are impacts to ranching
operations and rangeland resources, wildlife habitat, and even buildings and structures.
In the programmatic review, please account for these impacts and
evaluate ways BLM can mitigate, prevent, and ameliorate the impacts of coal seam fires of federal coal reserves, both on mine sites and off-site.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
18 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Resource Council
Fires: Coal is naturally combustible and catches fire in coal mine pits and at outcrops where the coal seam is exposed. Climate change and extreme heat and
drought have contributed to the prevalence of coal seam fires, which have both air quality and safety concerns. Additionally, if fires are left uncontrolled, they
burn buildings, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, causing significant damage to ranching operations and neighboring communities and landowners. Just this past
summer, two significant fires in the Powder River Basin - one on the Wyoming side and one on the Montana side - burned significant amounts of public and
private property.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
64 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Resource Council
Public Health
(See attached PDF for image of two people and a dog on a hill)
Federal agencies must consider the public health impacts of a proposed action pursuant to NEPA.131
(footnote 131 Uma Outka, NEPA and
Environmental Justice: Integration, Implementation, and Judicial Review, 33 Boston Coll. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 601, 605 (2006),
https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=ealr. )
As indicated by the references cited earlier in these
comments, climate change driven by GHG emissions has severe impacts on public health, including heat-related deaths and illnesses; increased ground-level ozone,
which is associated with diminished lung function; and the creation of a more hospitable environment for fleas, ticks, mosquitos, and other carriers of vectorborne diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.132
hereto and incorporated herein.)
(footnote 132 Climate Change and Public Health, Geo. Envtl. L. Rev. Online 1, 1 (2017), attached
In the 2016 Final Guidance, CEQ acknowledged findings by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),
the National Research Council, the IPCC, and the EPA that elevated concentrations of GHGs are anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare.133
(footnote 133 CEQ Final Guidance, at 8; see also Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009), ttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-12-15/pdf/E9-29537.pdf. )
The 2016 Final Guidance recommended that
federal agencies use the projected GHG emissions of a proposed action as a proxy to assess the proposed action's effect on climate change,134 and quantify GHG
emissions to disclose the public health impacts of a proposed action in clear terms to fulfill NEPA obligations by providing sufficient information to make a
reasoned choice between alternatives.135
Anon
Anon
Bass
Margot
138 N/A
45 Essential Information, Inc.
(footnote 134 CEQ Final Guidance, at 10.) (footnote 135 Id. )
2 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Health and climate issues should also be taken into consideration. We know that fossil fuels have devastating effects on people's health and the environment.
50 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
The impacts from burning coal include the following other emissions:
-Sulfur dioxide, a contributor to acid rain and respiratory illnesses;
-Nitrogen oxides, a contributor to smog and respiratory illnesses;
-Particulate pollutants, a contributor to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease; Mercury, lead, arsenic and other heavy metals, a cause of significant
neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals (EIA, Dec 1, 2020; Munawer 2018; McConnell and Edwards, 2008).
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-103
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
51 209.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Public health and safety
In addition, there are the impacts of coal mining on the land and water that are not factored into our recommended royalty increases. For example, surface coal
mining that removes mountaintops has been linked to birth defects in nearby communities (Ahern, Hendryx, et al., 2011). Surface coal mining can also pollute
local waterways and contaminate underground drinking water resources (Hendryx, Zullig, and Luo, 2020). These are significant costs to burden US taxpayers
with. We hope that these impacts and costs are addressed in other public comment submissions. In addition, the Department of Interior and the BLM, with so
much data and scientific prowess at their disposition, should calculate these costs and incorporate them into royalty structures as part of their duty to US
taxpayers to get fair market value from coal.
Bennett
Sarah
427 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
I grew up in KY where people have long sought to deal with coal company health hazards. My own grandfather was a coal miner. I see what it does to people. I've
seen the destruction in WV as I've traveled around the south. I moved to the southwest and see devastation out here. And for what? A dirty fuel that harms
both the environment and people, when there are sustainable alternatives we could be encouraging and supporting.
1
Bonin
Pieter
442 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Boyce
Samantha
469 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal is no longer an economically or ecologically viable option. And destroys American lives in terms of extraction and processing deaths
Coal mining is not just contributing to the deterioration of air quality in the towns that they are operating in, but it is also the water quality and the land quality;
poisoning land in and around these coal mining facilities to the point that, if they ever do go out of business and the factory is demolished and frees up
greenspace. the soil will be too toxic for anything to grow there, and with a growing movement of people who want to live off grid and be homesteaders raising
their own food, growing food on these toxic lands and trying graze animals on this would be deadly for both the plants and the animals. People want to be self
sufficient, and these unnecessary coal plants are only contributing to more health issues for people who live near these monstrous plants.
4
Cain
Barbara
478 N/A
2 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
The costs of coal in the long term for people, insurance companies, and Medicare are huge!
Cain
Barbara
478 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
As an asthmatic with 4 asthmatic children, I know that the pollution from coalfired electric plants makes breathing more difficult for asthmatics. Tucson Electric
Power used coal for a long time and our home was in the path of the polluted air. We had to learn to give our kids emergency injections and keep an oxygen
tank in our house for emergency use. When we moved away from there, everyone was better!
1
Canepa
Judith
479 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
I grew up in anthracite country - eastern Pennsylvania. That was what we called black diamond, the hard coal, as distinguished from bituminous coal, the softer
dirtier kind that was mined in western PA and West Virginia. My mother would hang out the white sheets to dry in the morning (yes, I go way back) and by noon
they were gray. There was a man in town who had been a miner and the coal was deeply grooved in the seams of his face. He died of silicosis as an old man - in
his 40's. I have COPD myself. Coal and its siblings oil and gas are plunging us into irreversible catastrophic climate chaos. The idea of continuing to support this
filthy and deadly industry is denial of what is fast approaching us, according to the latest IPCC report and our own senses and minds.
1
Fay
Alexa
85 N/A
6 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Halting coal mining is a health issue. One study found that fertility rates increased when coal and oil plants were retired in California, which indicates that
stopping coal and oil production could improve reproductive health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932773/). Furthermore, a study published in
Nature communications found that the lifetime emissions of 3.5 Americans causes one death globally between 2020-2100 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467021-24487-w). This shows that we cannot approve any new coal plants, as it is harmful not only to the environment but to human health.
Giesen
Jaime
523 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
I understand that there are people who make their living from coal mining. But not only does this hurt the environment, it hurts them. Instead of continuing to
make this practice more widely available, which only helps big corporations, we need to provide clean energy jobs so these miners - and future would-be miners,
1
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
have a safe career to move in to.
23 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
IV. Other Impacts on Public Health and the Environment Coal production is subject to stringent environmental and public health-related controls under federal,
state and local law. These laws and regulations protect air, land, water and human health. As BLM is well aware, mining is also subject to rigorous reclamation
standards.
Hansen
Arlene
373 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal mining should STOP! Dirty stuff! Polluting stuff. Puts coal dust in miners' lungs
Hardenbergh
Sabrina
418 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Moreover these coal-fired power plants pollute the air near their sites, around which people live. Our coal presently comes from the Powder Basin, as well as
from our region. Air quality near these plants, such as in southern Illinois and Indiana, has contributed to many health problems in local residents, such as cardiac
conditions, premature birth problems, Alzheimer's. Override Trump's administration's foolhardy deletion of complex causality from NEPA and EIS considerations;
I'm convinced the coal-related air pollution is among the inflammation factors that contributed to my mother's Alzheimer's, where I've had to retire too early to
help her this past decade. And it greatly harmed the minority and rural low-income communities around MetroEast St. Louis, southern Illinois, and Evansville, IN.
1
Harvey
Ann
21 No Coal in Oakland
16 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
In addition to eliminating export, BLM should safeguard the public welfare by carefully re-assessing the environmental, health, and economic impacts of domestic
coal transport before renewals. At renewal, leases should include provisions such as permitted destinations, acceptable routes (taking into account population
densities and vulnerable populations), modes of transportation, transportation fuels, maximum loss to spillage and dust, and mitigation measures.
Hausam
Tom
533 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
As a retired Pediatrician I can tell you that the effects of climate change are KILLING children. Not just from flooding and hurricanes enhanced by a warmer
atmosphere, but also from the toxic effects of the air that we all breathe now laden with by products of the coal industry.
1
Hirschmann
Adina
299 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal is also very bad for the health of the miners (black lung, lung cancer) and can also cause death from the physical collapse of the mines, if underground. In
China, the pollution from coal-fired power plants and heating systems is so bad that ordinary citizens have been masking up, whenever outdoors, for decades.
1
C-104
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Johnson
Redge
Organization
Letter # Name
32 Public Lands Policy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
43 209.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Public health and safety
Mining is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States. Federal and State laws and regulations are put in place to protect public health and the
Coordinating Office
environment. The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) in the Utah Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates the exploration and
development of coal in the Utah, which supports the existence of a viable coal mining industry to meet the Nation's energy needs; implements standards that
safeguard the environment and protect public health and safety; and achieves the successful reclamation of land affected by coal mining activities. Otherwise, the
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) safeguards human health and quality of life by protecting and enhancing the environment. The Utah Division of
Water Rights, also in DNR, has responsibility for administering the appropriation and distribution of the state's water resources.The State has a good track record
for mine reclamation. Rehabilitated areas include native vegetation, increasing native habitat and biodiversity, often resulting in better environmental quality than
existed before mining took place.
Lovie
Julie
130 N/A
3 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Societal impacts must be accounted for, including: decreasing productivity and increasing illness, disability, and early deaths due to both climate and pollutant
impacts, increasing health care costs, increasing loss of habitability of homes and entire towns and regions due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts, excessive
heat, frequent severe fires, etc. increasing government and security budgets, as enormous numbers of people are displaced due to sea level rise, prolonged
droughts, extreme fires, floods, hurricanes etc., increasing infrastructure costs to replace public and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and destructive
hurricanes, fires, and floods, and funding for pensions, early retirement and job training for coal miners as part of a broad safety net and a just transition from coal
to clean energy,
McClain
Anne
Pruitt
Katherine
Pruitt
65 N/A
2 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
5 American Lung Association
24 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
28 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
36 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
42 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
There are also the health impacts to miners from long exposure to coal dust and the negative consequences to mining communities of the impacts of a dying
industry.
Fishing can provide an inexpensive and healthful food source, but when fish are contaminated, reliance on fishing for food poses increased health risks. Thus,
subsistence fishing communities may face chronic exposure to high levels of mercury.
the range and severity of coal's direct harms to health due to the pollutants released by combustion; and the number of people and population sectors vulnerable
to these harms
In order to protect public health, cut greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate the production of cleaner energy sources, the Bureau of Land Management must
make structural reforms to the federal coal program.
Neurological effects are in large measure propelled by coal combustion's contributions to water pollution. Mercury exits power plant smokestacks as air
pollution, then falls from the air in rain and other precipitation, contaminating rivers, streams, lakes and bays. There it enters the food chain, where it
bioaccumulates in animal tissue. As larger animals eat smaller ones, mercury becomes more concentrated higher up the food chain. We humans eat at the top of
the food chain, making consumption of mercury-contaminated fish the most common pathway of human mercury exposure. Most at risk are babies in utero.
Children exposed to mercury during a mother's pregnancy can experience persistent and lifelong IQ and motor function deficits. High levels of mercury exposure
in adults have been associated with adverse cardiovascular effects, including increased risk of fatal heart attacks.
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
50 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
57 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
As national health, public health, medical and nursing organizations, we are writing to urge the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in its review of the Federal
Coal Leasing Program, to give top priority to a critical assessment of the program's contribution to the climate crisis and impact on the health and well-being of
the nation.
Typically, coal ash contains a host of naturally occurring toxic metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium and selenium, as well as aluminum,
antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, chlorine, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. (Footnote : U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric
Utilities." [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL-9149-4] ) All can be toxic. Especially where there is prolonged exposure, these metals can cause several types of
cancer, heart damage, lung disease, respiratory distress, kidney disease, reproductive problems, gastrointestinal illness, birth defects, impaired bone growth in
children, nervous system impacts, cognitive deficits, developmental delays and behavioral problems. This toxic pollution can and does escape from coal ash
disposal sites such as ponds and landfills. (Footnote : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Summary of Proven Cases with Damages to Groundwater and to
Surface Water," Appendix, "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals
From Electric Utilities." Proposed rule. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/fr-corrections.pdf. )
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
7 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
21 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
As the fires, floods and heat waves of 2021 have clearly demonstrated, climate change, driven in large measure by burning fossil fuels, is causing a public health
emergency.
Coal combustion: When coal is burned, the health-endangering pollutants it releases, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx), affect all the major
body organ systems. In fact, coal combustion contributes to four of the leading causes of mortality in the US: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower
respiratory diseases. Air pollutants caused by coal combustion, in particular the very small particulates known as PM2.5, adversely affect the respiratory system.
PM2.5 is known to trigger asthma attacks; contributes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); and is correlated with mortality from lung cancer, the
leading cancer killer in both men and women.
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
22 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Pollutants produced by coal combustion also damage the cardiovascular system and the neurological system. Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in
U.S., and coal combustion air pollutants, especially NOx and PM2.5, are known to negatively impact cardiovascular health. These impacts include cardiac
arrhythmias, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure. Effects on the neurological system include stroke, associated with exposure to fine particles, and
developmental delay, reduced IQ and permanent loss of intelligence, associated with mercury.
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
39 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Yet just as a meaningful assessment of the climate impact of BLM coal leases must take a comprehensive view, so an assessment of the health impacts of BLM coal
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
41 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal trains also release respirable coal dust into the air, exposing communities far from the mine site to dangerous dust inhalation
leases must consider impacts beyond those at the point of extraction.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-105
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pruitt
Katherine
Organization
Letter # Name
5 American Lung Association
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
53 209.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Public health and safety
As the BLM conducts its new review of the Federal coal leasing program, it must bear in mind that the coal operations it permits can contribute in a variety of
ways to negative impacts on human health. These impacts begin at the mines themselves. Inhalation of respirable coal dust causes coal workers' pneumoconiosis,
commonly referred to as CWP or black lung disease. CWP can result in lung impairment, disability, and premature death. (Footnote : Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Pneumoconioses.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pneumoconioses/default.html )
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
54 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal combustion: When coal is burned, the health-endangering pollutants it releases, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx), affect all the major
body organ systems. In fact, coal combustion contributes to four of the leading causes of mortality in the US: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower
respiratory diseases. Air pollutants caused by coal combustion, in particular the very small particulates known as PM2.5, adversely affect the respiratory system.
PM2.5 is known to trigger asthma attacks; contributes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); and is correlated with mortality from lung cancer, the
leading cancer killer in both men and women. Pollutants produced by coal combustion also damage the cardiovascular system and the neurological system.
Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in U.S., and coal combustion air pollutants, especially NOx and PM2.5, are known to negatively impact
cardiovascular health. These impacts include cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure. Effects on the neurological system include stroke,
associated with exposure to fine particles, and developmental delay, reduced IQ and permanent loss of intelligence, associated with mercury.
Raven
Robert
15 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Richardson
Sarah
39 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal dust will blow into our neighborhoods, farms and rivers. Coal dust will harm all of us, especially people with asthma and heart issues like me, and also harm
our children, pets, wildlife, birds and fish.
We know that the U.S. coal fleet releases Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that create ozone, the main pollutant that affected my New York neighborhood in
August. Dirty power plants make people sick--especially in communities of color that are disproportionately polluted.
In your review of the Federal Coal
Program, the BLM must prioritize the end of coal production, quickly. Ending coal will improve air quality and health outcomes for the 25 million Americans who
have asthma.
Richards-Smith
Beverly
429 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal is one of the worst sources of atmosphere-warming greenhouse gases, as well as a source of lung-damaging particulate air pollution.
Rudolph
JoEllen
436 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
WE ABSOLUTELY MUST GET AWAY FROM ALL FOSSIL FUELS BUT COAL CONTAINS MANY CARCINOGENIC MICROPARTICLES THAT CONTRIBUTE
59 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
1
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
TO LUNG CANCER, ASHTHMA AND HEART DISEASE.
Law Program
A. BLM Must Evaluate and Disclose the Widespread Mortality and Morbidity Caused by Continued Coal Consumption. NEPA's requirement that agencies assess
foreseeable consequences of their actions includes the foreseeable impacts of coal combustion, including impacts to public health. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i)-(ii); 40
C.F.R. § 1508.(1)(g); see W. Organization of Res. Councils v. BLM, No. CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018) (holding that "NEPA
requires BLM to consider in the EIS the environmental consequences of the downstream combustion of the coal, oil and gas resources potentially open to
development under these RMPs."); WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, No. CV 17-80-BLG-SPW, 2021 WL 363955, at *7 (D. Mont. Feb. 3, 2021) (holding that
agency failed to adequately disclose the "actual effects of that additional pollution [from coal combustion] on human and environmental health"). NEPA further
requires agencies to evaluate the environmental justice impacts of their actions; that is whether the harmful impacts of their actions fall disproportionately on
people with less political and economic power, such as communities of color or low-income communities. Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera, 6
F.4th at 1330.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
60 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Air pollution from burning coal is responsible for significant mortality throughout the United States and the World. "Pollution is the largest environmental cause of
disease and death in the world today ...."132 [Footnote 132 Pollution, health and the planet: time for decisive action, The Lancet (2018). Attached as Exhibit 46.]
The public welfare losses from the burden of pollution amount to more than $4-6 trillion per year.133 [Footnote 133 Id.] Air pollution is responsible for millions
of deaths annually [nearly 9 million deaths annually].134 [Footnote 134 Lelieveld et al., Loss of life expectance from air pollution compared to other risk factors: a
worldwide perspective, Cardiovascular Research (2020). Attached as Exhibit 47.] "Globally, the LLE [loss of life expectancy] from air pollution surpasses that of
HIV/AIDS, parasitic, vector-borne, and other infectious diseases by a large margin. It exceeds the LLE due to all forms of violence by an order of magnitude and
that of smoking by a third.... The fraction of avoidable LLE from anthropogenic air pollution that can be attributed to fossil fuel use is nearly two-thirds globally,
and up to about 80% in high-income countries."135 [Footnote 135 Id. at 6; Landrigan et al., The Lancet Commission on pollution and health, 391 The Lancet
Commissions 264 (2018) (explaining that mortality from pollution causes "three times more deaths than from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined and 15
times more than from all wars and other forms of violence."). Attached as Exhibit 48.] Mortality from pollution exceeds deaths due to "high-sodium diets (4.1
million), obesity (4.0 million), alcohol (2.3 million), road accidents (1.4 million) or child and maternal malnutrition (1.4 million)."136 [Footnote 136 Id. at 471.] Air
pollution "disproportionately impact[s] ... the health of communities with a low socioeconomic status."137 [Footnote 137 Watts et al., The 2020 report of The
Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises, at 23 (2020). Attached as Exhibit 49.]
C-106
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
61 209.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Public health and safety
In 2019 air pollution was the fourth leading risk factor worldwide for early death.138 [Footnote 138 Health Effects Institute, State of Global Air (2020). Attached
Law Program
as Exhibit 50.] A recent study found that particulate matter pollution from fossil fuel combustion is responsible for approximately 8.7 deaths globally in 2018; that
is, one pollutant from fossil fuel combustion is alone responsible for 1 in 5 deaths in the world each year.139 [Footnote 139 Vohra et al., Global mortality from
outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem, Envtl. Research (Apr. 2021). Attached as Exhibit 51.]
This does
not account for mortality and morbidity from other pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, such as ozone, mercury, or lead.140 [Footnote 140 See also Watts et
al., supra at 23 ("The overall number of deaths attributable to ambient PM2.5 in 2018 was estimated a 3.01 million, a slight increase from the 2.95 million deaths in
2015.").]
Air pollution is linked to a staggering number of adverse health impacts: PM2.5 is the best studied form of air pollution and is linked to a wide range of
diseases in several organ systems. The strongest causal associations are seen between PM2.5 pollution and cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. Specific causal
associations have been established between PM2.5 pollution and myocardial infarction, hypertension, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, and cardiovascular
mortality. Causal associations have also been established between PM2.5 pollution and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. The International
Agency for Research on Cancer has reported that airborne particulate matter and ambient air pollution are proven group 1 human carcinogens. Fine particulate
air pollution is associated with several risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including: hypertension, increased serum lipid concentrations, accelerated
progression of atherosclerosis, increased prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias, increased numbers of visits to emergency departments for cardiac conditions,
increased risk of acute myocardial infarction, and increased mortality from cardiovascular disease and stroke. Clinical and experimental studies suggest that fine
airborne particles increase risk of cardiovascular disease by inducing atherosclerosis, increasing oxidative stress, increasing insulin resistance, promoting
endothelial dysfunction, and enhancing propensity to coagulation.
Emerging evidence suggests that additional causal associations may exist between PM2.5
pollution and several highly prevalent non-communicable diseases. These include diabetes, decreased cognitive function, attention-deficit or hyperactivity disorder
and autism in children, and neurodegenerative disease, including dementia, in adults. PM2.5 pollution may also be linked to increased occurrence of premature
birth and low birthweight. Some studies have reported an association between ambient air pollution and increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
61(continued) 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Law Program
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
These associations are not yet firmly established, and the burden of disease associated with them has not yet been quantified, and they are therefore included in
zone 2 of the pollutome (figure 3).141 [Footnote 141 Landrigan et al., supra at 475.]
63 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Coal plants are also major sources of toxic pollution, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and the radioactive metals thorium, uranium, polonium and others.
Heavy metals never disintegrate, do not degrade, and cannot be destroyed. Therefore their deposition in the environment from sources such as coal fired power
plants, steadily adds to existing concentrations, year after year. The world environment is more toxic now than it was prior to coal combustion, and will be more
toxic 20 years from now if coal burning is not reduced. Many of the toxins in coal combustion emissions have multiple adverse health effects. The heavy metals
for example, can be both carcinogenic and neurotoxic. The U.S. Center for Disease Control ranks toxic heavy metals as the number one environmental health
threat to children. Recent research on the effects of lead pollution, for example, invalidates the notion that exposure to lead is safe below a particular threshold
concentration. In fact, a recent study showed that even minute concentrations of lead were associated with IQ loss, and that the average teenager lost 9 IQ points
due to the levels of lead in their blood. Those average levels were assumed to be benign as recently as ten years ago. Coal-burning power plants are now the
primary source of lead exposure for young children in most of the United States. The loss of intellectual capacity from unnecessary exposure to lead is not only a
personal and social tragedy, it has
caused a drastic reduction in the productivity of the workforce in the economies of countries that obtain their energy
primarily from burning coal. As toxic as lead is, mercury is several orders of magnitude even more toxic to brain and nerve cells. The single largest source of
environmental exposure to mercury in the United States (65%) is from coal-fired power plants. As an indication of its potency, just 1/70th of a teaspoon of
mercury deposited in a 25-acre lake can make all of the fish in that lake unsafe to eat for a year. It is estimated that over 6 million acres of lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds in the United States have unsafe concentrations of mercury. In 48 of the 50 states, wild fish cannot be eaten because their methyl mercury exceeds safe
levels. A typical coal-fired power plant without modern pollution controls emits 170 pounds of mercury each year. In 2009, coal-fired power plants in the United
States released 134,365 pounds (more than 67 tons) of mercury into our environment. Mercury emitted from coal plants in Asia is transported to the
northwestern United States. Studies show that that 18-24% of the mercury deposited in the United States originates in Asia.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-107
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
63(continued) 209.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Public health and safety
Fish in Glacier National Park have been found to have mercury concentrations that approach or exceed EPA criteria for protection of human health. A recently
Law Program
released report by the Biodiversity Research Institute revealed that in 25 countries throughout the world, distant air emissions from mercury from coal fired
power plants and other industrial sources, are causing high levels of mercury in fish throughout the world, and the end result is more than 55% of women have
enough mercury in their blood and bodies to cause intellectual harm to the babies they give birth to. One of the most obvious and destructive environmental
consequences of the climate crisis are massive wildfires that tragically have become routine for months of the year, and a growing disaster on just about every
continent throughout the world, including in far north latitudes like Siberia. Because of decades of coal fired power plant emissions into the upper atmosphere,
the global environment has been contaminated with toxic heavy metals. Wildfires have been shown to mobilize, re-suspend and expand the distribution of
neurotoxins like mercury that has accumulated in ecosystems destroyed in these enormous conflagrations. There is substantial evidence that the neurotoxic
effects of methylmercury in the presence of other heavy metals in blood and tissues is not merely additive, but is synergistic, amplifying the neurotoxic effects of
all those metals.
Child development experts have recently warned of an increasing chemical and metal brain toxicity causing a silent "global pandemic" of a
wide spectrum neurobehavioral disorders and intellectual compromise in children. Even without invoking synergism, adding the demonstrable IQ loss from lead,
and the expected IQ loss from mercury suggests that modern day children could be losing an astonishing 14 IQ points from these two heavy metals whose main
sources are coal combustion emissions. A standard deviation of I.Q. is 15 points. If the next generation of American workers were to be spared from both
methylmercury and lead exposure, their average I.Q. could be expected to be a standard deviation higher. The loss of intellectual capacity for one individual is a
personal tragedy. The loss of intellectual capacity for an entire generation is a national crisis. Even a modest national decline of 5 IQ points causes a 57 percent
increase in the number of children categorized as mentally deficient (<70 points) and a 40 percent decrease in the number of children categorized as gifted (>130
points). Recent epidemiological and macroeconomic studies imply that this loss of intellectual capacity is drastically reducing the productivity of the Nation's
workforce. National average I.Q. has a strong correlation with GDP per worker. Research suggests that while an increase of 1 standard deviation results in a 15%
increase in average wages, it results in national productivity increases of approximately 150%, due to a multitude of external effects of intellectual capacity on
productivity.148 [Footnote 148 Declaration of Brian Moench, M.D., ¶¶ 11-24 (internal citations omitted). Attached as Exhibit 62.]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
66 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Law Program
In short, BLM must disclose to the public that the federal coal leasing programs kills and sickens great numbers of people each year. These impacts cost the public
enormously, demonstrating one of the many hidden subsidies of coal mining in the United States. It is clear that the most efficient, defensible, and just approach
would be to end leasing and extraction of public coal and simply pay individual coal miners to be retrained and coal communities to develop sustainable economic
foundations.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
58 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Law Program
V. BLM Must Analyze the Non-Climate Public Health and Environmental Impacts of the Federal Coal Program. The federal coal program causes significant nonclimate harms to the environment and public health. We urge BLM to rapidly phase-out coal leasing, which would alleviate these harms. However, to the extent
BLM retains an alternative that includes future leasing, the agency must consider the full scope of non-climate harm such an alternative would cause.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
62 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Law Program
"Coal is the world's most polluting fossil fuel, and coal combustion is an important cause of both pollution and climate change."142 [Footnote 142 Landrigan et al.,
supra at 462.]
"[M]ore than 1 million deaths occur every year as a result of air pollution from coal-fired power, and some 390 000 of these deaths were a result
of particulate pollution in 2018."143 [Footnote 143 Watts et al., supra at 2.] Coal combustion is a significant source of cancer.144 [Footnote 144 Lin et al., A
global perspective on coal-fired power plants and the burden of lung cancer, Environmental Health (2019). Attached as Exhibit 52.]
In the United States, while
air pollution controls have reduced coal's mortality rate from approximately 30,000 annually in the late 2000s, air pollution from coal still claims at least 3,000
lives each year.145 [Footnote 145 Clean Air Task Force, Toll from Coal Interactive Map, https://www.catf.us/educational/coal-plant-pollution/; see Caiazzo et al.,
Air pollution and early deaths in the United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005, Atmospheric Environment (2013) (finding that
electricity generation, primarily coal combustion, results in 52,000 deaths annually).]
Notably the model used by the Clean Air Task Force to assess annual
mortality rates is conservative because it only assesses impacts from particulate matter. In addition to widespread mortality, air pollution from coal continues to
cause widespread sickness, including asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, heart attacks, ER visits, and hospital admissions: "Estimates of non-fatal health endpoints
from coal-related pollutants vary, but are substantial-including 2,800 from lung cancer, 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks and tens of thousands of emergency room
visits, hospitalizations, and lost work days."146 [Footnote 146 Epstein et al., Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal, Annals of the N.Y. Acad. of Sciences at
85 (2011). Attached as Exhibit 54.]
Critically, there are no safe limits to particulate matter pollution: "[E]vidence- and risk-based approaches using information
from epidemiological studies to inform decisions on PM2.5 standards are complicated by the recognition that no population threshold, below which it can be
concluded with confidence that PM2.5-related effects do not occur, can be discerned from the available evidence." 78 Fed. Reg. 3,086, 3,098 (Jan. 15, 2013).
"[T]here may be no 'safe' levels of PM2.5 and ... all levels of PM2.5 pose a risk to human health."147 [Footnote 147 Id.]
"Thus, even when NAAQS are not
violated as to this particulate matter, the record reflects that exposure to PM2.5 will increase the risk of asthma, heart attacks, and death." Friends of Buckingham
v. State Air Pollution Control Bd., 947 F.3d 68, 92 (4th Cir. 2020).
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
64 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
The costs of the health impacts of air pollution from coal are staggering, costing the public tens of billions to over one hundred billion dollars in harm annually.149
[Footnote 149 Epstein et al., supra at 86.] The total annual externalized costs of coal pollution on the public are hundreds of billions to nearly a trillion dollars,
significantly exceeding the value of coal to the public.150 [Footnote 150 Epstein et al., supra at 85; Muller et al., Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the
United States Economy, Am. Econ. Rev. (2011), attached as Exhibit 55; Machol & Rizk, Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts, Envtl. Int'l
(2013). Attached as Exhibit 56.]
While these impacts are dramatic, BLM must certainly compare the impacts to the public to the jobs created by coal mining.
One recent economic analysis compared the costs of coal with the jobs generated by coal mining:
C-108
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
65 209.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Public health and safety
For example, the IMF in 2014 calculated that the social costs of coal from air pollution (not including CO2) were $5.5/GJ of energy. There were about 50,000 jobs
Law Program
in coal mining last year in the US, more or less (more if you include related jobs, less if you just think miners). Each ton of coal contains roughly 22 GJ of energy.
US production in 2016 was 738 million short tons. Put those together you get external costs of 1.79 million dollars per miner. Let that number sink in for a
second. To the extent that these costs are not priced or regulated, they are considered as an implicit subsidy to fossil fuels, and that's in a publication dedicated to
Gary Becker (a famously conservative "Chicago" economist). But those statistics are pretty impersonal. A more telling (and tolling) calculation comes from
studies looking at the health-or rather death-consequences of pollution. A 2013 study from MIT found that pollution (specifically particulate matter, SO2, and
NOx, an ozone precursor) from electricity generation causes 52,000 premature deaths annually, mostly from the fine particles associated with coal-fired
generation. They have a nifty graphic showing that largest impact hovers over the east-central United States and in the Midwest, where the power plants tend to
use coal with high sulfur content. This study only gets at how many people die every year from power sector emission and leaves out morbidity and damages to
ecosystems, agricultural production etc. Coal-fired generation creates on average 5 times the pollution of natural gas. At the time of the MIT study (2005), given
the generation shares, roughly 90% of the power sector emissions were coming from coal. Put these numbers together and you can ballpark an estimate of what
these studies suggest in terms of mortality alone. It's very much back of the envelope and maybe we'll write a paper to do this more precisely, but we were
shocked by the outcome. Someone dies each year for every one to two coal mining jobs. Yes. You read that right. Let that sink in. To be completely fair here, we
are assuming that coal is being replaced with some happy shiny non-polluting renewable energy source.
Snyder
Val
43 N/A
2 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Estimated financial costs of this injury to public health are from one third to one half a Trillion dollars annually. That should be the absolute minimum return to
the public, and should also include compensation for past injuries to the public health as well as a set aside for reclamation as current bonding seems to evaporate
when needed.
Snyder
Val
Snyder
Brad
43 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
463 N/A
209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Current coal usage according to the Clean Air Task Force causes 13 thousand deaths,and Tens of thousands of cases of Asthma, Cancer, Heart and Lung
Ailments,and Neurological Problems annually.
And we can't forget the 350,000 people in the U.S. who die annually due to fossil fuel pollution (8 million people worldwide who die annually due to fossil fuels!)!!
2
Veditti
Karen
77 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
I urge BLM to consider the impact of coal leasing, not only the climate impacts resulting from burning coal, but also the costs relating to clean-up of coal mines
Williams
Annski
206 N/A
1 209.0000.00
Public health and safety
Please consider the irreparable damage to the lungs of children breathing by products from coal mining and emmisssion.
Adams
Matthew
2 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
NTEC believes the Federal Coal Leasing Program has historically been a national energy and economic success story. As specifically recognized in the notice, in
and the cost of related health-care issues.
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Company
the last decade alone, the program produced approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.2 billion in revenue collections by the United States. As
such, it has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of federal, state and local revenue per year, while also providing a low cost, reliable source of energy for all
Americans. NTEC provides coal from federal lands for 18 states to generate electricity and fuel industrial and commercial facilities. The jobs and revenues
provided by NTEC have enabled business, education systems and social programs in state and local economies in the West and beyond.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
8 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Company
A comprehensive evaluation of fair return to the public would be inaccurate without full consideration of the federal and state taxes directly provided by the
production of federal coal and the benefits to employees. Importantly, coal wages are between 150 percent and 200 percent of the average wages across all
sectors in states with federal coal production. Beyond the mines, federal coal production has created and sustained tens of thousands of high-wage jobs in other
sectors including transportation, construction, equipment manufacturing, mining services and power generation. This is in addition to the revenues from federal
royalties, bonus bids and surface rentals that are split between the federal and state governments. Operations producing federal coal also pay a range of state and
local taxes. The scope and amount vary by state, but they include severance or production taxes, sales taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes
(equipment) and employment taxes. As an example, in Wyoming, state coal tax revenue approximated $480 million in 2017.4
(Footnote 4 Wyoming Mining
Association, Wyoming Coal Information Committee (2018).) Combined with the state share of federal coal revenues, these revenues support education, school
capital construction, highways, county and city capital projects and other general budget purposes.
Adams
Matthew
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
28 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Company
Jeopardizing affordability is the last thing consumers need with our focus on post-pandemic economic recovery. Look no further than Europe, where the energy
markets are facing catastrophe and rates continue to climb. Soaring natural gas prices, low gas inventories and uncooperative weather have sent European energy
prices through the roof. In the U.K., electricity prices more than doubled in September and are 10 times as high now as they were a year ago. The story is similar
across Europe where the rush to renewables has eclipsed planning and infrastructure. European consumers are bearing the economic hit of higher electricity
prices, and since European governments have closed much-needed coal capacity, there's no longer dispatchable fuel diversity to offer shelter. As an energy trader
told the Financial Times, "In the past we used to see more fuel switching - if gas prices are too high then utilities will switch to coal. But that is not really an option
these days given the high carbon price and the phase out of coal generation in the UK." Fortunately for U.S. consumers, the U.S. coal fleet is working as the price
shock absorber Europeans desperately wish they still had. Analysis from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute shows rising natural gas prices
have led to considerable fuel switching and a resurgent year for thermal coal. Month after month -as gas prices continue to tick up - coal's share of the electricity
mix climbs, and it's poised to play a particularly important role this winter. National coal consumption is expected to rebound 16 percent this year from pandemic
lows. The Global Energy Institute further explained that the main factor is economics: "Since bottoming out in the middle of 2020, natural gas prices have steadily
risen over the last 12 months, leading many utilities to shift back to coal as a lower-cost fuel source . . On a per megawatt-hour fuel cost basis, natural gas has
become over $20 more expensive than coal for the first time in seven-plus years."
Alexander
Charles
357 N/A
211.0000.00
1
December 2021
Socioeconomics
A managed transition, not a hasty exit that eliminates jobs and destroys companies, is what we need. The workers and their families must not suffer as the result
of any new initiative.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-109
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Alper
Dean
Organization
Letter # Name
2 Alper & McCulloch
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
5 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
Societal impacts must be accounted for, including: o decreasing productivity and increasing illness, disability, and early deaths due to both climate and pollutant
impacts, o increasing health care costs, o increasing loss of habitability of homes and entire towns and regions due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts,
excessive heat, frequent severe fires, etc. o increasing government and security budgets, as enormous numbers of people are displaced due to sea level rise,
prolonged droughts, extreme fires, floods, hurricanes etc., o increasing infrastructure costs to replace public and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and
destructive hurricanes, fires, and floods, and o funding for pensions, early retirement and job training for coal miners as part of a broad safety net and a just
transition from coal to clean energy,
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
56 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Resource Council
Expanding the climate test methodology into a broader, multi-criteria framework
A project's consistency with climate goals is not only a function of the
significance of its GHG emissions, as described above, but also a function of its economic viability in the changing energy economy associated with pathways to net
zero emissions. Accordingly, NRDC anticipates expanding the climate test to assess whether a proposed project is vulnerable to becoming a "stranded asset" in a
warming-limited economy where the need for, as well as profitability and competitiveness of, fossil-based fuel resources is diminished by practical challenges of
realizing a carbon constrained energy system. Very similar to the emissions analysis, an economic module could be designed to compare a project's likely longterm economic performance relative to best available data from climate and energy systems modeling as an indicator(s) of its alignment, or misalignment and
potential risk.
Additionally, an essential consideration for any fossil fuel project or program - and analysis required under NEPA - is whether it is consistent with
principles of equity and environmental justice. Accordingly, NRDC is eager to engage with relevant climate and environmental justice stakeholders to explore
ways to incorporate a disproportionate impacts analysis into the climate test methodology. Such an approach could consider, for example, who is predominantly
affected demographically, what their existing environmental burdens are, and how the project may contribute to those burdens. Qualitative and quantitative
indicators could be considered with the goal of providing decision support guidance to augment other climate test module results as well as other broad project
review assessments required as part of NEPA and other laws.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
11 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Resource Council
Since the current leasing system is reactive - rather than proactive - BLM's ability to address the decline in federal leasing and mining in a holistic and
programmatic manner has been limited. In the scope of its review, the agency must consider reforms to the federal coal program that accounts for the socioeconomic impacts associated with reduced leasing and mining and should consider policy options that help to plan and manage the decline in an orderly,
structured way that provides time, space, and opportunity for a just and equitable transition of workers, communities, and coal-dependent state economies.
Baldwin
Dave
421 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
An orderly end to mining on federal lands, coupled with investments in Internet access, jobs training, and other economic development assistance, will end the
boom-bust cycle that has devastated rural communities in coal mining regions for generations. It will allow workers and their families to enjoy the economic
security enjoyed by many in more-populated regions. It will provide them with opportunities many can only dream of today.
It's not a question of if coal mining
on public lands will end, but of when. The coal will eventually run out, assuming market forces don't halt mining first. The only question is, will we be prepared
for the mining to end? The sooner we begin that transition, the better.
2
Baldwin
Dave
421 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Coal mining provided thousands of jobs over the decades. It provided the energy we needed to win World War II. Now, though, the story is the same from
Appalachia to Montana to New Mexico. Mining provides very few jobs. Coal can't compete in an energy marketplace that is quickly shifting to ever-cheaper
renewables. The industry is dying. Anyone who fails to acknowledge that is engaging in wishful thinking. Given that, the question is, how do we move forward?
1
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
14 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Set up a fund from the royalties and fees earned from coal production, to fund adaptations and job training to a net-zero economy.
Socioeconomics
Please demand that the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill contains money to train former coal workers for clean energy jobs!
Socioeconomics
I know that there are towns in Montana & Wyoming that depend on coal-related employment. I encourage that our gov't do what it can to help direct some kind
Bernstein
Julie
428 N/A
1 211.0000.00
Browne
John
472 N/A
211.0000.00
of opportunities to employ the people in those places... but I understand that it isn't always possible to replace jobs with equivalent opportunities, especially in
2
Burke
Sharon
resource-extraction situations.
121 N/A
2 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
If we ended the subsidies and tax breaks given to the fossil fuel industries, that surplus money could be used to help communities who have been financially reliant
on coal production.
Cohill
Michael
484 N/A
3 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
The profits from coal benefit a very small number families
Commerford
John
354 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Even if we weren't morally obligated, the economic opportunities stemming from building out new energy, transportation, and agriculture systems are too great
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
2
Cremin
Juanette
486 N/A
1
C-110
to sacrifice to another country. I selfishly want the most jobs in the new industries to land here in the U.S.
Find and develop clean fuel alternatives and manufacturing jobs able to be implemented in these communities. Develop skill retraining opportunities and
implement them.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Deti
Travis
Organization
Letter # Name
3 Wyoming Mining Association
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
3 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
WMA believes the BLM Federal Coal Leasing program has been working as intended and has been a remarkable success and that taxpayers receive a fair return.
Wyoming is the top coal producing state in the nation with the vast majority of this production coming from federally leased coal. In 2020, the financial
contribution from this coal to state and local governments in the form of taxes, royalties and fees was over $550 million. Wyoming's share of federal mineral
royalties - royalties paid to mine the leased coal - was over $137 million. The industry employs nearly 4,800 individuals directly with a payroll of nearly $500
million, and over 2,000 contractors. The average coal mining job pays over $83 thousand per year, well above the state average. And every coal mining job
supports another 2-3 jobs in the service and supply industry. Revenues generated from the federal coal resource fund federal, state and local governments,
highways and roads, schools and community colleges, and the University of Wyoming. Revenues from Coal Lease Bonus Bids, over $2.6 billion, have built new
schools and facilities in every county in Wyoming over the last 3 decades. The return on federal coal is obvious for Wyoming, and is by any reasonable measure
fair. The impact the industry and the coal leasing program has at the state level for Wyoming is simply huge. Real jobs, real revenue, real people. Considering that
Wyoming accounts for 85% of all federal coal production, it couldn't be clearer that taxpayers are receiving a fair return and excellent value from the BLM
Federal Coal Leasing Program in terms of revenue and jobs. Again, the idea that the American public is somehow being "shortchanged" is simply untrue. The BLM
Federal Coal Lease Program creates a great return not only for those who directly benefit from mining, royalties and bonus bids, like we do in Wyoming. It also
provides value for those across America who rely on affordable electricity.
Ditore
Steve
495 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
And don't forget all the workers in the coal industry. They need to be re- trained in other jobs with an actual future, NOT just abandoned as "collateral damage"
in government policy shifts. Their new careers should be in industries that they choose, but an emphasis on manufacture of sustainable energy tools, like solar
2
Erlanger
Joan
516 N/A
panels and windmills, in the nation's new energy policy wouldn't be that far out of line.
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
12 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
As the review proceeds, I urge your department to work with other sectors of government to facilitate an equitable transition away from coal for coal-impacted
and dependent communities. We need to take responsibility for retraining coal workers in order to minimize disruptions to their families and communities.
2
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
III. The Production of Federal Coal Plays an Outsized Role in Wyoming's Economy
Successful bidders for a coal lease pay a bonus bid for each ton of reserves in
addition to the 12% base royalty as coal is recovered; this is an additive and additional payment to the royalty paid to the federal government. Coal lease payments
are split between the state and federal government and paid out over a five-year period. Wyoming has received more than $2.3 billion in coal bonus bid dollars
since 2003, dollars which have funded school buildings, highways and community colleges in the state. The last payment on coal leased to date was $5.3 million in
2018, according to the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA).19 (Footnote 19 Wyoming Mining Association, 2020-2021 Coal Concise Guide.)
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
14 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Employment in Wyoming's 15 operating coal mines declined 7.8 percent in 2019. Wyoming coal mines now employ just over 5,100 workers directly in the
industry. Coal industry jobs are among the best paying in the state with Wyoming coal miners collecting an average wage of $93,905, excluding benefits. A coal
miner's take-home pay is almost twice the statewide average wage of $49,756 per worker. Estimates indicate that each coal industry position supports an
additional two jobs in the service and supply sectors, bringing direct and indirect employment to more than 15,000 workers.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
13 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Coal is an important source of income for Wyoming and is the second largest source of tax revenue for state and local governments, after natural gas. According
to WMA:20 (20 Id.)
Coal mining companies remit taxes and royalty payments to all branches of government, federal, state and local. Coal's estimated
contribution to Wyoming in 2019 was about $650 million in taxes, royalties and fees, reflecting a $123 million, or 15.8 percent, decrease from 2018. The
decrease highlights the magnitude of the continued slowdown in Wyoming's coal industry in recent years.
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
24 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
V. Socio-Economic Considerations As discussed above the economic and societal importance of the federal coal program to the State of Wyoming cannot be
overstated. Nor can the importance of Wyoming coal to the Nation's energy system be overstated. Data indicate that coal will continue to be used for decades to
come. Research findings support that coal has potential future uses from everything from coal-based products to a source of REEs. 31 (Footnote 31 Coal in a
New Carbon Age: Powering a Wave of Innovation in Advanced Products & Manufacturing (National Coal Council, May 2019) (available at haps
://www.nationalcoalcouncil. org/studies/2019/NCC-COAL-IN-A-NEW-CARB ON-AGE.pdf).)
Green
Susan
161 N/A
5 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Societal impacts must be accounted for, including: o decreasing productivity and increasing illness, disability, and early deaths due to both climate and pollutant
impacts, o increasing health care costs, o increasing loss of habitability of homes and entire towns and regions due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts,
excessive heat, frequent severe fires, etc. o increasing government and security budgets, as enormous numbers of people are displaced due to sea level rise,
prolonged droughts, extreme fires, floods, hurricanes etc., o increasing infrastructure costs to replace public and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and
destructive hurricanes, fires, and floods, and o funding for pensions, early retirement and job training for coal miners as part of a broad safety net and a just
transition from coal to clean energy,
Hall
Ian
Herrin
Ronnie
87 N/A
2 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
New coal leasing and mining will help our country prosper.
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
The quickest way to transition, of course, is simply to stop all use of coal, with transition aid to replace income lost by mine employees (not owners).
536 N/A
2
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-111
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Heston
Vivienne
Organization
Letter # Name
22 Institute for Energy
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
14 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
Transitional Investments and Economic Recovery: Protecting employee's salaries, health benefits and pensions; mitigating local budget deficits; and building new
Economics and Financial
economic growth opportunities.
Analysis
government's historical support for communities affected by defense plant closings. A comprehensive treatment of the financial and social development issues
The basic development concepts used in the design and implementation of transitional activities are rooted in the federal
creates benefits for all stakeholders. This flows from the premise covering defense plants that communities that hosted defense plants supported national security,
and developed job opportunities, fiscal mechanisms and economic growth programs that relied on a federal partnership.4
Assessment. After the Cold War. 1991.)
(Footnote 4: Office of Technology
The justification for the expansion of the federal coal lease policies in the 1970s flowed from the premises that energy
was a national security issue; regional economic expansion was essential to the country's economic health; and host communities could develop job opportunities,
fiscal mechanisms and economic growth programs that relied on the federal coal lease program.5
(Footnote 5: IEEFA. The Great Giveaway. June 2012. )
In
both instances, the federal partnership provided decades of local and national economic benefits. The decline of the coal sector and its string of bankruptcies have
eroded its decades of contributions to the U.S. economy. The partnership arrangements, however, changed in each case. New federal partnerships were
necessary.
The plans for the coal lease program must, like these other initiatives, look at public dollar outlays as investments in new jobs, new tax bases and new
growth areas. The issue of national security remains a concern for energy policy.6
(Footnote 6: The Atlantic Council. The many new ways energy and national
security are intersecting. January 21, 2021.)
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
17 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
In addition to revenues from royalties, rents or other payments, the fund and its activities should be supported by: a. Such allocations made by Congress and b.
Economics and Financial
Resources generated by executive actions employing such resource-sharing agreements as necessary Accounting presentations by the fund should include using
Analysis
separate accounting techniques resources supplied for fund-related activities by private corporations, local and state governments, and private philanthropic
organizations.
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
19 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Economics and Financial
Fiscal payments to local and state governments should be made to affected governmental bodies over a five-year period. Payments should be based in the first year
on the average revenues paid for the last five years. Payments should decline proportionally over the five years.
Analysis
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
3 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Economics and Financial
It should also ensure that lessees, coal employees and host communities are fairly compensated in the closure process and afforded opportunities to participate in
the creation of new economic opportunities.
Analysis
Heston
Heston
Vivienne
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
15 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
The primary consideration for the federal government, as the reserve owner, should be maximizing remaining coal assets to be mined and sold for the purposes
Economics and Financial
of addressing: a. the environmental challenges created by decades of coal mining; b. the social and financial challenges created by the continued loss of jobs,
Analysis
pensions, and medical benefits; c. the revenue loss to state and local budgets; and d. the creation of new economic growth opportunities.
22 Institute for Energy
16 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
All revenues accruing from payments made to the federal government under leases shall be set aside in a special "Early Lease Termination Fund." Special waivers
Economics and Financial
granted to coal companies,7 (Footnote 7: E&E News. Interior keeps slashing royalty rates for coal companies. August 25, 2021. )
Analysis
(Footnote 8: IEEFA. IEEFA royalty reform comments. May 2015. )
Revenue Works. (last visited September 28, 2021) )
in the form of royalty relief,8
should be rescinded as soon as practicable.9 (Footnote 9: Department of Interior. How
Administration efforts to this end are promising but lack the comprehensive approach needed will be
limited in its impact.10 (Footnote 10: Natural Resources Revenue Office. Valuation reform and civil penalty rule; withdrawal. September 30, 2021. )
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
18 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
4. In addition to the environmental challenges outlined above, resources must be mobilized to cover employment opportunities, revenue losses to state and local
Economics and Financial
budgets, and new local and regional economic activities. a. Resources for employment should support existing job holders and future job opportunities. b.
Analysis
Existing job holders should be supported through a system of replacement or insurance wages that compensate them for salaries lost due to plant, mine, port, rail
or other losses of coal and coal-related employment. c. Existing job holders should be supported through a system of payments to sustain health insurance and
pensions with benefit levels no less than those existing at the time of job loss.
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
20 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Economics and Financial
The secretary's committee should establish with the cooperation of governors of affected states such coordination mechanism as necessary to support new
economic growth strategies in the affected areas.
Analysis
Hinshaw
Michael
538 N/A
As the review proceeds, I urge your department to work with other sectors of government to facilitate an equitable transition away from coal for coal-impacted
and dependent communities. Unfortunately, Appalachian regions like Senator Manchin's West Virginia are more dependent upon coal mining for their income and
will need more help in diversifying their economies in order to transition away from a coal dependent economy. Therefore, those regions will require multi
2
agency cooperation.
Holmes
Stanley
112 N/A
8 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Jack
Shirlee
304 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
as the life cycle of coal is brought to an expeditious close, the PEIS should examine how coal leasing fees can be increased to fund the just transition of coal
workers and coal-dependent communities toward sustainable economies
1
C-112
How about creating a program of socially and environmentally responsible land stewardship that could employ former coal, oil, and gas industry workers as well
as others who need productive jobs?
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Johnson
Redge
Organization
Letter # Name
32 Public Lands Policy
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
45 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
The State's efficient power plants supply the State with affordable and reliable energy which supports Utah's dynamic economy. Over seventy percent of the
Coordinating Office
State's power is generated from coal mined in the State. According to the Energy Information Administration, the State's average price of electricity over all
sectors is 8.9 cents per kWh, significantly lower than the national average of 11.3 cents per kWh.29 (Footnote: 29Energy Information Administration power
pricing tables. Accessed Sept. 23, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a )
These low power prices support the
State's economy at all levels, including residential, commercial, and industrial. Additionally, the coal industry in the State is largely supported through the BLM's
coal-leasing program. Continuing this program without unwarranted restriction is crucial to the vitality of the State's coal industry. Eighty-three percent of the
State's coal is produced from federal land. In 2014, State coal produced on federal lands had a total sales value of over $570 million and generated royalty
revenues more than $41 million.30 (Footnote: 30 Utah's Energy Landscape, 4th Edition, Utah Geologic Survey, Michael Vanden Berg.)
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
44 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Coordinating Office
In rural Emery County, where most of the State's coal is produced, the average mining wages in 2020 were $74,230. The average wage across all sectors in Emery
County was $46,589. Comparatively, average wages across all sectors in urban Salt Lake County were $62,469.24 (Footnote: 24
https://headwaterseconomics.org/apps/economic-profile-system/49015 )
High-paying coal mining jobs help to reduce income disparities between urban and rural
communities. The State's rural coal communities have insufficient economic diversity due to their remote geographies and lack of access to infrastructure such as
highways and freeways. Losses of coal jobs are not easily absorbed into other high-paying industries. The top sector for employment in Emery County is
government, with average annual wages that are only 50 percent of the average annual wages for the mining industry.25 (Footnote: 25
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2019 )
The State has one of the best economies and highest qualities of life in the country. For example, the State has on
multiple occasions been ranked the "Best State for Business" by Forbes Magazine. Coal plays a crucial role in the State's economic success. A recent study by
independent economists commissioned by the Governor's Office of Energy Development, found that the State's coal-mining industry contributed $887 million
dollars in 2013 to the State's economy, including $173 million dollars in labor income.26 (Footnote: 26 2015 Report by Applied Analysis. Accessed July 28, 2016.
http://energy.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/UtahsEnergyEconomy_EconomicImpactAssessment.2015.compressed.pdf )
The State's coal economy is especially
important to rural Utah, providing roughly 2,000 direct high-paying jobs, and a fundamental part of the tax base of several rural counties.27 (Footnote: 27 2014
Utah State Tax Commission Report on Property Tax.)
Wages in the coal industry are, on average, 211 percent of the state average.28 (Footnote: 28 Utah
Department of Workforce Services data for NAICS categories analyzed by the Utah Office of Energy Development.)
Without coal and the high-quality jobs it
supports, many of the State's rural communities will decline significantly or disappear.
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
11 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Those policies could include job training opportunities, incentivizing economic development in prioritized communities,
13 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
furnishing direct funds to assist communities that have relied on fossil fuel revenue for essential services.
Clearly we need policies to remove the pain for those affected and generous assistance and reparations for these families suffering, losing for the greater good -
Association
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
Association
Klein
Michael
350 N/A
Klein
Kim
375 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Rather than subsidize the industry, help coal miners transition their employment to other industries and provide the means for those too old or compromised to
387 N/A
1 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
An economic argument: this coal will be more valuable in the future, so we should conserve it now. Especially, not sell it at such low prices.
8 N/A
4 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Societal impacts must be accounted for, including:
1
helping those that can to gain new lives, livelihoods.
1
Levitan
Charles
Maguire
Matt
retire.
o decreasing productivity and increasing illness, disability, and early deaths due to both climate and pollutant impacts,
o increasing health care costs, o increasing loss of habitability of homes and entire towns and regions due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts, excessive heat,
frequent severe fires, etc.
o increasing government and security budgets, as enormous numbers of people are displaced due to sea level rise, prolonged droughts, extreme fires, floods,
hurricanes etc.,
o increasing infrastructure costs to replace public and private facilities due to increasingly frequent and destructive hurricanes, fires, and floods, and
o funding for pensions, early retirement and job training for coal miners as part of a broad safety net and a just transition from coal to clean energy,
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
1 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Commissioners
Coal production is an important component of the State and county's economic base and also has a direct impact on schools, colleges, highways and the overall
socio economics of the community. The coal industry generates high paying jobs to hundreds of people throughout the region. To further illustrate its
importance, the assessed valuation for coal in Campbell County for the current Fiscal Year 2020/2021 is approximately $2.2 billion and $1.7 billion respectively
while the most recent production taxes available accounted for $266 million in 2020 and $209 million in 2021.
Maul
Robert
25 Campbell County Board of
10 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Commissioners
according to the Wyoming Mining Association 2020-2021 Coal Concise Guide; 1) Coal's estimated contribution to Wyoming in 2019 was about $650 million in
taxes, royalties and fees, 2) In 2020, Wyoming received $38 million in Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) funds, 3) Wyoming coal mines employ over 5,100 workers
directly in the industry with more than 15,000 workers supported directly or indirectly. These facts are significant in Wyoming alone and reinforces the
importance of a continued fair and efficient federal coal leasing program.
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
18 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
There is no economic basis to continue extracting coal from federal public lands. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that "[o]ver the last decade (20112020), the BLM sold 17 coal leases and managed leases that produced approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.2 billion in revenue collections by
the United States."39
(Footnote 39 BLM, Notice of Intent to Conduct a Review of the Federal Coal Leasing Program and to Seek Public Comment, 86 Fed. Reg.
46,873, 46,874 (Aug. 20, 2021).)
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-113
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Olson
Julia
Organization
Letter # Name
18 Our Children's Trust
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
21 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
Following basic principles of microeconomics, if the BLM puts a moratorium on extraction of coal from federal public lands, thereby constraining the supply of
coal, "price for that fuel would increase, leading to decreased consumption of that fuel and in turn increased consumption of alternative fuels."42 (Footnote 42
Declaration of Peter A. Erickson in Support of Plaintiffs' Urgent Motion under Circuit Rule 27-3(b) for Preliminary Injunction, Juliana v. United States, No. 1836082 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2019).
The effect of constraining coal supply, such as if the U.S. were to stop issuing leases for coal production in Wyoming's Powder
River Basin, is also fairly straight forward, at least in the U.S. Domestic power companies are the main market for U.S. coal (whether from federal or other lands),
and they are price-sensitive, especially given recent competition from low-cost natural gas and renewables. As a result, any constraints on coal supply are
expected to affect prices and lead to reduced coal consumption for power generation, which would be substituted by both natural gas and renewables, either of
which releases less CO2 per unit of electricity generated than coal.43 (Footnote 43 Id., Ex. 1 at 18-19.)
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
2 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
The local rural communities, counties, and state economies rely on the economic contributions of the Wolverine mines through its payment of salaries, supplies,
taxes and royalties. The continued operation of the Wolverine mines is critical to the future economic health of the communities and counties local to the mines.
Additionally, much of the coal produced from the Wolverine mines is used to generate low-cost electricity that is supplied to the residences of Utah and other
western states, further enabling the growth and expansion of the Utah State economy.
Pollastro
Carson
28 Wolverine Fuels, LLC
3 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Compared to other sources of income available to the BLM, like recreational permits and renewable energy rights-of-way, income from coal leases provide the
BLM and the American Taxpayer with a much higher benefit than other sources. In 2020, the BLM coal leasing program brought the American Taxpayer over
$339 Million dollars in rental, bonus and royalty income (ONRR Revenue Data CY2020) from only 34 counties in the entire U.S. Approximately half of that
amount went to the states those leases are located in.
Roller
Sheryl
438 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
People who are dependent on coal for their livings should be screened and compensated as is appropriate and coal mines should be shut down everywhere
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
We need to do two steps together-- stop the leases and offer retraining to those affected so that they can retain the salaries that they have been making.
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Besides you surely know that investing in renewable energy produces many more jobs than those lost in the fossil fuel production and management. There are so
1
Rosenblum
Mark
435 N/A
permanently!
1
Rui
Paolo
453 N/A
many bright youngsters ready to go the green way and you could easily and cheaply re-qualify those who are still working in the soon dying fossil fuel industry.
1
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
20 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
at New York University
Interior should also work with other government agencies, including the recently formed Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities, to
help ensure that coal communities are not left behind in the energy transition.
School of Law
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
21 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Substitution analyses of coal leasing should be based on reasonable economic assumptions about the long-term trajectories of coal and other fuel sources.
at New York University
Interior should also consider the economic impacts of any determination with respect to coal leasing. In doing so, it should recognize that while gradual declines in
School of Law
coal production would cause reductions in revenues and employment within the industry, those impacts would not translate into broader macroeconomic effects
as empirical research finds little evidence that environmental regulations have significant impact on overall, economy-wide employment.24
(footnote 24 See
Cary Coglianese & Christopher Carrigan, The Jobs and Regulation Debate, in DOES REGULATION KILL JOBS? 2 (Cary Coglianese, Adam M. Finkel &
Christopher Carrigan eds., 2014); Institute for Policy Integrity, Does Environmental Regulation Kill or Create Jobs? 2-3 (2017),
https://policyintegrity.org/files/media/Jobs_and_Regulation_Factsheet.pdf. Numerous studies find that effects of government regulation on overall employment tend
to be small, especially in the long term. See, e.g. Anna Belova et al., Estimating the Job Impacts of Environmental Regulation, 6 J. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 625
(2015), Timothy J. Bartik, Social Costs of Jobs Lost Due to Environmental Regulations (Upjohn Inst. Working Paper 13-193, 2013); Marc A.C. Hafstead &
Roberton C. Williams III, Unemployment and Environmental Regulation in General Equilibrium, 160 J. PUB. ECON. 50 (2018).)
For instance, in recent years
coal mining employment has steadily dropped to just 42,500-about half of its 2011 total25-while nationwide employment and economic conditions have mostly
improved.26
(footnote 25 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National),
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES1021210001. ) (footnote 26 The August 2021 unemployment rate of 5.2% is substantially lower than the January 2011
unemployment rate of 9.1%. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.
Macroeconomic conditions in the United States were particularly strong before the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, even though most of the employment
decline in the coal industry occurred before that time.)
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
21(continued) 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
As renewable energy continues its growth27-and domestic energy consumption rises28-employment gains in the renewable field are likely to make up for, or
at New York University
potentially exceed, the decline in coal employment.29
School of Law
supra note 20, at 4 fig. 1 (projecting increased domestic energy consumption, even as coal stagnates or declines).) (footnote 29 See Bureau of Labor Statistics,
(footnote 27 See supra notes 21, 23 and accompanying text.) (footnote 28 EIA Annual Energy Outlook,
Green Growth: Employment Projections in Environmentally Focused Occupations (Apr. 2018), https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/greengrowth.htm ("[T]he two occupations that BLS projects to have the fastest employment growth from 2016 to 2026 [are] solar photovoltaic installers (105-percent
increase) and wind turbine service technicians (96-percent increase).").) . While Interior should consider all economic impacts, its mandate to serve the public
interest requires a broad perspective. At the same time, as discussed further below, Interior should exercise its authority and work with other government
agencies to ensure economic opportunity for coal communities while the nation shifts away from fossil fuels, such as through siting of renewable energy projects.
In short, there are many externalities to the federal coal program that Interior has not adequately considered in prior leasing determinations. Interior should fully
consider all externalities in future determinations, and should engage in leasing (including lease renewals and mine expansions) only if it makes a reasoned
determination that the benefits of that leasing exceed the full costs to society.
C-114
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sarinsky
Max
Organization
Letter # Name
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
15 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
Interior, and the federal government more broadly, should work to mitigate adverse impacts on coal communities from the energy transition. Even though land-
at New York University
management policies may have a negligible impact on overall employment, coal communities are likely to be disproportionately burdened by shifts in the energy
School of Law
market toward renewable energy. Interior can take numerous actions to lessen this burden. For instance, the agency could identify renewable resource generation
potential in areas that are expected to experience a decline in fossil-fuel production, and seek to site renewable projects in these areas. Interior could also
support local communities and the environment by facilitating investment in coal mine reclamation.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
55 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Law Program
iii. Multiple economic models are available to inform BLM's review. There are a variety of economic models available to BLM that would allow the agency to
reasonably assess the market and substitution effects of various alternatives here. Using these models would inform BLM and the public's understanding of how
considered alternatives would alter the mix of fuels used to generate electricity in the U.S. NEPA requires agencies to use the tools available to them in order to
ascertain essential information or explain why they cannot do so. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.21 (c) (formerly codified at 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22).125 [Footnote 125 Although
the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations were amended in 2020, Secretary Haaland has instructed federal agencies within the Department of the
Interior not to "apply the 2020 Rule in a manner that would change the application or level of NEPA that would have been applied to a proposed action before
the 2020 Rule went into effect on September 14, 2020." Secretarial Order 3399, Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency
and Integrity to the Decision-Making Process (April 16, 2021), available at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf. ]
Under
the applicable NEPA regulations, if an agency intends not to include essential information in its NEPA review, it "shall" explain (1) why such essential information is
incomplete or unavailable; (2) its relevance to reasonably foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of existing science on the topic; and (4) the agency's evaluation
based on any generally accepted theoretical approaches. Id. § 1502.21(c). Given that other agencies have long used energy models to analyze market and climate
impacts of their proposals, that information is plainly "available" within the meaning of the regulation, and BLM must utilize these available tools to understand the
impacts of various alternatives in this PEIS.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
77 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Law Program
A. BLM Must Objectively Evaluate the Socio-Economic Impacts of the Federal Coal Program on Coal Mining Communities. As a threshold matter, BLM should
interrogate the prolific and misguided assumption that economic benefits to impacted coal mining communities automatically flow from coal development without
associated harm. As BLM summarized in the 2017 PEIS Scoping Report, coal mining can cause both socioeconomic benefits and damage.162 [Footnote 162 2017
PEIS Scoping Report, at 5-34 to 5-56.]
Only after understanding the characteristics associated with coal mining that can limit the industry's ability to support
sustained economic development can a strategy to integrate coal mining into a local economic development strategy be crafted.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
75 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Law Program
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
VIII. BLM Must Evaluate the Socioeconomic Impacts of Federal Coal Leasing and Opportunities to Ensure an Economically Just Transition of Coal-Dependent
Communities to a Renewable Energy Future.
76 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Law Program
Consistent with President Biden's Executive Order 14008,157 [Footnote 157 EO 14008, supra note 3.]
BLM's review of the coal program should evaluate the
socioeconomic impacts of federal coal leasing on local communities where mines are located and opportunities to help ensure an economically just transition for
those communities. Recognizing that coal mining and power plant communities have often borne the burden of economic shifts away from resource extraction
dependence, in January 2021, President Biden directed "[f]ederal leadership" to commit to the "economic revitalization of and investment in [these impacted]
communities."158 [Footnote 158 Id. at 7628.] President Biden's directive, embodied in E.O. 14008, likewise advanced environmental justice as a key
consideration in governance, which includes "investing and building a clean energy economy . . . turning disadvantaged communities . . . into healthy, thriving
communities."159 [Footnote 159 Id. at 7629.]
To that end, the order directs agencies to make "achieving environmental justice part of their missions by
developing . . . policies . . . to address the disproportionately high adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on
disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts."160 [Footnote 160 Id.]
In light of these directives, BLM's review
of the federal coal program should closely examine the socioeconomic impacts of the federal coal program and explore, among other things, opportunities for
robust investment in community economic development, protecting worker livelihoods, and replacing lost tax revenues to aid miners and coal communities. The
measures should not be limited to what BLM alone can accomplish, but include actions that other agencies and Congress can take.161 [Footnote 161 Forty
Questions, 46 Fed. Reg. at 18,031 ("All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be identified, even if they are outside the
jurisdiction of the lead agency or the cooperation agencies ....").]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
79 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Empirical economic studies on the relationship between coal mining and local economic vitality and well-being contradict the rosy picture of coal mining's socioeconomic impacts. For example, historical evidence shows that: coal and other metal mining have often failed to bring sustained prosperity to adjacent
communities; that counties that rely more heavily on natural resource extraction experience less economic growth than counties with more diverse economic
portfolios; that while coal and mining booms result in few additional jobs outside the mining sector, busts cause a greater loss in local employment; that a high
share in coal employment in a county was correlated with a lower rate of self-employment, indicating that reliance on mining may restrain entrepreneurial
activity. 163 [Footnote 163 With these comments, we submit a report by Ph.D. economist Thomas Power from 2016 that provides recommendations regarding
the proper scope and methodology for BLM's economics analysis. See Power Consulting, Inc., The Economic Consequences of the Federal Coal Leasing Program:
Improving the Quality of the Economic Analysis (July 27, 2016). Attached as Exhibit 43.] The attached report by Power Consulting, Inc. describes in detail studies
supporting these conclusions.164 [Footnote 164 Id. at 8-13.]
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
BLM must take this evidence into account in preparing its socio-economic analysis.
C-115
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
78 211.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Socioeconomics
BLM cannot assume that coal mining has only beneficial economic impacts because history shows otherwise. Coal mining can in some instances pay relatively high
Law Program
wages, and those mines that are located on public lands can make substantial payments to local, state, and federal governments, helping them to fund important
public services. But the financial contributions of coal mining are often the only economic characteristics mentioned in federal agency NEPA reviews. Concluding
that expanded or continued coal mining will have a positive impact on coal-dependent communities or that declines in coal mining will have catastrophic impacts
on such communities is incomplete, misleading, and cannot be used to guide public decision making.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
80 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Law Program
In its review of the federal coal program, BLM must analyze the area where the impacts of the program are likely to be most significant and measurable: the
county in which the mine is located or the majority of impacts are likely to occur. Focusing solely on a larger area is likely to mask how coal mining can affect
local communities, as the impacts from coal mining will be overwhelmed by other sectors of the economy. For this reason, the Power Consulting report
recommends focusing the analysis on the 51 rural counties where coal mining provided more than 5% of the employment in 1990.165 [Footnote 165 See id. at 1318.]
The data Power analyzed shows such coal dependent communities experienced slower job growth, lower real earnings, lost more population, and
recovered from economic downturns more slowly, "reflect[ing] the instability of coal mining employment."166 [Footnote 166 Id. at 18.]
This is the type of
information that should inform BLM's analysis as the agency attempts to understand how the federal coal program impacts local mining economies.
South
Eric
153 Wyoming Coalition of Local
3 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Further, the BLM should not only consider adverse impacts but also the positive economic impacts that result from approving coal leases on federal land.
1 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Coal mining in Lincoln and Sweetwater County contributes directly to state and local government revenues. Therefore, revisions to the Federal Coal Leasing
Governments
South
Eric
153 Wyoming Coalition of Local
Governments
Program is a direct concern to the Coalition. The State of Wyoming receives half of the royalties paid for oil, gas, and coal produced on federal land. 30 U.S.C. §
191(a). Wyoming law directs the funds to the University of Wyoming, the School Foundation Program, Highway Fund, to cities and towns for construction and
maintenance of public facilities, and other funds. Wyo. Stat. § 9-4-601(a). The Counties benefit indirectly from the Mineral Leasing Act royalties received from the
State through amounts appropriated to the highway fund, public school funding, and given to the cities and towns within the Counties' boundaries. Wyo. Stat. § 94-601(a)(i), (ii), (v), (vii). The State also assesses a severance tax for all minerals produced in Wyoming. Wyo. Stat. § 39-14-104. The Counties receive a share of
the benefit from state severance taxes on coal produced in the county. Wyo. Stat. §§ 39- 14 104, 39-14-801(e)(v) - (vii). The State also imposes a sales and use tax
on the coal mines and coal-fired plants, a percentage of which is returned to the Counties where the mines and facilities are located. Wyo. Stat. §§ 39-15103(a)(i)(A), (E), (J); 39-15- 111(b)(iii).
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
7 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Operations producing federal coal also pay a range of state and local taxes. The scope and amount vary by state, but they include severance or production taxes,
sales taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes (equipment), and employment taxes. For example, in 2020, the financial contribution from federal coal to
Wyoming state and local governments in the form of taxes, royalties and fees was over $550 million 6. (Footnote 6: Wyoming Mining Association, Comments on
the Federal Coal Program Review (Oct. 5, 2021). ) These revenues support education, school capital construction, highways, county and city capital projects, and
other general budget purposes.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
1 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
As a general matter, the NMA believes the Federal Coal Leasing Program has been a national energy and economic success story. As specifically recognized in the
notice, over the last decade, the Program produced approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.2 billion in revenue collections by the United States. It
has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of federal, state and local revenue per year, while also providing a low cost, reliable source of energy for all
Americans. Thirty-seven states consume coal from federal lands to generate electricity and fuel industrial and commercial facilities. The jobs and revenues have
lifted state and local economies across the West.
Sweeny
Katie
19 National Mining Association
6 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
Socio-economic Contributions from Federal Coal Are Substantial A comprehensive evaluation of fair return to the public must include the federal and state taxes
provided by the production of federal coal and the benefits to employees. Importantly, coal wages are between 150 percent and 200 percent of the average wages
across all sectors in states with federal coal production. Beyond the mines, federal coal production has created and sustained tens of thousands of high-wage jobs
in other sectors including transportation, construction, equipment manufacturing, mining services and power generation. This is in addition to the revenues from
federal royalties, bonus bids and surface rentals that are split between the federal and state governments.
Van Atta
Karen
408 N/A
211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
West Virginians are indoctrinated to the concept of coal mining as a way of life. There needs to be care and respect for the fact that the environmental reality
conflicts with an ideology that's been cultivated in partnership between coal interests and government. With effort and a respectful gradual process that provides
immediate tangible benefits people can see and feel in their lives shifting away from coal can succeed. As it stands today the state government's long range
economic projections includes at least 50 years relying on coal mining. I hope you will use diplomacy and focus on the offering and development of alternatives
1
von der Pahlen
Maria C.
Westin
Sue
Anderson
Shannon
82 N/A
222 N/A
more than the reasons coal is undesirable.
1 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
It is a tough decision when jobs are at stake, and workers in the industry should be helped to transition into new jobs.
1 211.0000.00
Socioeconomics
I urge you to reinstate the moratorium so your administration has time to figure out how the program can be something more than just a subsidy for polluters.
Use that money to retrain coal miners for green occupations.
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
86 212.0000.00
Tribal interests and Native
Sovereign Immunity Concerns
American religious concerns
Nation, and to some extent, its wholly owned subsidiary the Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC).
An additional emerging issue for BLM to consider in its review is the problem caused by sovereign immunity held by the Navajo
The Navajo Nation has also granted NTEC the
ability to expressly waive its tribal sovereign immunity consistent with both the enabling legislation and NTEC's Operating Agreement. NTEC therefore clearly has
the power to limit the application of sovereign immunity in relation to its ownership interests in the Antelope, Cordero Rojo, and Youngs Creek coal mines
formerly owned and operated by Cloud Peak Energy.
As a matter of both federal and state law, DOI should prevent NTEC holding current or future coal leases
and any associated state or federal permits unless the company expressly waives its tribal sovereign immunity to allow full enforcement of all state and federal
laws that apply to the leasing and mining of federal coal reserves. This is critical not only to facilitating effective regulation and enforcement by federal and state
government agencies, but also to preserve the effective implementation of any citizen complaint and citizen suit provisions of state or federal law, including the
right to enforce these laws through permit appeals, citizen complaints, and commencing civil actions.
C-116
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
Comment Code
Name
Last Name
First Name
Boyer
Edward
192 N/A
2 212.0000.00
Tribal interests and Native Americ FURTHERMORE, no action or project can be allowed if it THREATENS THE INTEGRITY and long-term health OF ANY INDIGENOUS SACRED SITE(S).
Comment Text
Enk
Michael
132 N/A
3 212.0000.00
Tribal interests and Native
tribes like the Northern Cheyenne are denied their right to be consulted about what happens on their ancestral lands.
American religious concerns
Fields
Joshua
155 N/A
4 212.0000.00
Tribal interests and Native
tribes, including the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, are denied their right to be consulted about what happens on their ancestral lands.
American religious concerns
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
Huggins
Mallory
12 People, Public Lands, and
10 212.0000.00
Climate Collaborative
Climate Collaborative
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
Tribal interests and Native
Identify ways that co-management with Tribal stakeholders can be prioritized in DOI land management practices.
American religious concerns
9 212.0000.00
Tribal interests and Native
Continue to distinguish between inclusive stakeholder engagement with the general public and government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations.
American religious concerns
26 212.0000.00
Coordinating Office
Tribal interests and Native
The State urges BLM to be forthright during its consultation with Tribal Nations. The consequences of climate change on American Indians will feature
American religious concerns
prominently in the consultation process, as will the solution to this problem-adopting clean, renewal energy and eliminating dirty fossil fuels as soon as possible.
However, BLM will be doing a disservice to Tribal Nations if it fails to discuss the potential adverse effects on American Indian communities if efforts to combat
climate change proceed too quickly and without plans to meet our Nation's energy demands during the transition to low-carbon energy. Former President Bill
Clinton observed that, "Indian nations and tribes ceded lands, water, and mineral rights in exchange for peace, security, health care, and education. The Federal
Government did not always live up to its end of the bargain. That was wrong."15 (Footnote: 15 Statement on Signing the Executive Order on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Administration of William J. Clinton (November 6, 2000). Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD2000-11-13/pdf/WCPD-2000-11-13-Pg2806-2.pdf. )
Tribal consultation for the revised coal leasing program should not repeat this mistake by failing to provide
Tribal governments with enough evidence for them to make informed decisions about the features, benefits, and risks of a revised program.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
25 212.0000.00
Coordinating Office
Tribal interests and Native
Tribal Nations must be given adequate information about the features, benefits, and risks of a revised coal lease program, because their members, more than
American religious concerns
other U.S. citizens, feel the consequences of disruptive change sooner, more acutely, and for longer periods. President Biden acknowledged this fact when he
stated, "Honoring those commitments [to federal Indian policy] is particularly vital now, as our Nation faces crises related to health, the economy, racial justice,
and climate change-all of which disproportionately harm Native Americans (emphasis added)." According to Representative Tom O'Halleran (D-Arizona),
members of his district, which includes the Navajo Nation, have "suffered escalating harm from climate-fueled heat waves, droughts and wildfires", but they also
remain "haunted by the 2019 closure of the Navajo Generating Station." Furthermore, more than 25 percent of homes in the Navajo Nation still lack electricity,
even though the reservation is an "energy exporting hotspot."14 (Footnote: 14 The Navajo Nation Generates a Ton of Power-but 14,000 Homes Don't Have
Electricity. Grist (March 5, 2021). Available at https://grist.org/justice/navajo-nation-electricity-power-covid/)
If it has been difficult to electrify homes in the
Navajo Nation during times of energy surplus, it is reasonable to think that electrification will be even more challenging if thermal coal is scaled back before lowcarbon energy sources can make up the deficit.
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
26 212.0000.00
Association
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
Prioritize just and equitable public engagement and promote Tribal self-governance and self- determination
American religious concerns
18 212.0000.00
Association
Kirby
Tribal interests and Native
21 212.0000.00
Association
Tribal interests and Native
Thorough tribal and traditional community consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding Traditional Cultural
American religious concerns
Properties, sacred sites, and other traditional-use areas
Tribal interests and Native
he Department must also fully consult and engage Tribal nations, both those recognized by the United States as sovereign nations as well as those not recognized.
American religious concerns
Tribes must be able to protect and preserve their own lands and resources, and treaty rights must be honored. The administration should consider in its policy
review and reform the right of Indigenous Peoples to give or withhold "free, prior and informed consent" to projects and policies affecting their lands and people,
as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States has supported for more than a decade. The
incorporation of these bottom-up principles in this federal process is an important and needed step as we address the history of public lands in the United States.
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
27 212.0000.00
Association
Tribal interests and Native
The Department must also fully consult and engage Tribal nations, both those recognized by the United States as sovereign nations as well as those not
American religious concerns
recognized. Tribes must be able to protect and preserve their own lands and resources, and treaty rights must be honored. The administration should consider in
its policy review and reform the right of Indigenous Peoples to give or withhold "free, prior and informed consent" to projects and policies affecting their lands
and people, as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States has supported for more than a decade. The
incorporation of these bottom-up principles in this federal process is an important and needed step as we address the history of public lands in the United States.
Valle
David
468 N/A
212.0000.00
Tribal interests and Native
There's an Oklahoma example on the subject mining and what happened in Ottawa County, Olahoma and the Miami, Peoria and Picher, etc surroundings of an
American religious concerns
earliest 1891 ore mining, one of these in 1901 near Quapaw and in 1905 near Commerce, and a major outbreak of lead and ore mining in Picher in 1914. As the
Native names suggest, the Miami, Ottawa, Quapaw and Peoria still exist today along with others measuring what is Northeast Oklahoma in order of largest
acreage first, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandotte, East Shawnee and Modoc and the two other ring leaders in the state: Cherokee and Choctaw which go on to color
other major tribes, the Creek, Chickasaw, Osage, Kiowa-Comanche-Apache and the Cheyenne Arapaho going westward. As for the EPA site, the following years
after 1914 to 1918 showed major changes and what included Kansad and into that following decade and the 1925 peak, and the largest by that time was the
Cardin-Commerce operation.
1
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
December 2021
116 214.0000.00
Surface owner and SMA Surface
In addition to protecting landowners and preserving Congressional intent, protecting surface owner consent would advance other elements of BLM's multiple-use
Management Agency rights
mandate, providing potential protections to biological and cultural resources as well as recreation and serving the spirit of Secretarial Orders 3398 and 3399
interests and concerns
regarding climate change.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-117
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
84 214.0000.00
Resource Council
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Surface owner and SMA Surface
Subsidence While the majority of federal coal is developed from large surface mines, federal coal is also mined underground. Underground mining creates
Management Agency rights
different impacts, including, first and foremost, subsidence of surface lands after mining occurs. These cracks are formed when the removal of underground coal
interests and concerns
seams fracture the overburden above where the seams are removed. This can pose a safety hazard to surface users, from small cracks that can break the legs of
horses, cattle, and wildlife that step into them to larger cracks that can render surface lands uncrossable for some distance. Some ranchers in Montana have
measured subsidence cracks that are up to 15 feet wide. These issues can be compounded when cracking occurs on steep slopes, which increases the risk of
slope failure, rockfalls, and landslides. In addition, subsidence cracks can damage springs and streams, draining surface water resources that are beneficial to
agriculture and wildlife. The longwall mining of coal seams under deep overburden has damaged subsurface water resources as well, draining wells and impairing
aquifers as groundwater resources above the mined seams are impacted by subsidence. The review should analyze subsidence problems on previously leased
acreage and disclose those impacts, as well as consider alternatives to prevent and mitigate those impacts, including preventing leasing and mining in subsidenceprone areas.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
85 214.0000.00
Resource Council
Surface owner and SMA Surface
Split estate issues; surface owner consent
Management Agency rights
federal public lands, and the BLM must take into account the needs to provide for recreation, grazing, and wildlife habitat - to pass our public lands along,
interests and concerns
unimpaired, to future generations - within the context of the federal coal program.
As mentioned elsewhere in these comments, a significant portion of taxpayer-owned coal reserves lie underneath
That being said, a major percentage of federal coal resources also lie
underneath privately-owned surface properties. Under the federal Homestead Acts, more than 160 million acres, or nearly 10% of the total area of the United
States, were given away to 1.6 million homesteaders. While those acts of Congress broadly dispersed surface ownership, they generally reserved the subsurface
mineral estate. Some of those minerals are retained in federal ownership today, while others were conveyed to third parties, such as railroad companies.
The
American legal system tends to give the development rights of mineral owners preference over the rights of surface owners, which has historically led to major
impairments of surface owners' lands and livelihoods, including threats to ranchers' health and the viability of what are often multi-generational family homes and
businesses.
Because of this tension, Section 714(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits the Secretary from entering into a coal lease
involving federal coal that underlies private surface lands "until the surface owner has given written consent to enter and commence surface mining operations...".
This right to surface owner consent does not exist for coal resources that are owned by states or private entities.
When Congress included §714 in SMCRA it
plainly signaled its desire to provide reasonable protection for surface owners who own land over federal coal. However, some coal companies have sought to
use mineral exchanges to circumvent surface owner consent. For instance, the federal coal conveyance in the Nance-Brown Fee Coal Exchange (MTM 99236) led
to the Ashenhurst family's loss of consent rights, and subsequently opened Ashenhurst Ranch to surface mining against the owner's wishes.
To rectify this
problem, on January 19, 2017, BLM issued IM No. 2017-034 on Information and Consent Considerations when a Qualified Exchange Proponent Selects Federal
Coal in a Split Estate Tract for Exchange. Unfortunately, IM 2017-034 expired on September 30, 2020. BLM should reissue that guidance, as well as take additional
steps to make it permanent, such as through manual or handbook revisions or, most preferably, through federal coal leasing rule amendments (such as 43 C.F.R.
§§ 3435 and 3426 governing lease exchanges and land exchanges).
In addition to protecting landowners and preserving Congressional intent, protecting surface
owner consent would advance other elements of BLM's multiple use mandate, providing potential protections to biological and cultural resources as well as
recreation, and also serve the spirit of Secretarial Orders 3398 and 3399 regarding climate change.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
19 214.0000.00
Surface owner and SMA Surface
Subsidence: Underground mines that exploit federal coal have caused land subsidence, impacting surface owners and adjacent landowners. For instance, in the Bull
Management Agency rights
Mountains of Montana, Signal Peak Energy's longwall mine, has caused subsidence cracks over a quarter-mile long. These cracks pose a risk to surface structures,
interests and concerns
water resources above the coal seams such as springs and wells, wildlife and livestock injury or death, and can cause slope failure on hill and cliff-sides.
15 216.0000.00
Visual resources
Consideration of the coal leasing program impacts on viewsheds with respect to all potential points of view within the affected Park Service land or water
2 Alper & McCulloch
4 217.0000.00
Water resources
Water and air pollution must be accounted for, including that produced: o at the mine, o along transport routes, o during combustion (including sulfur dioxide,
40 Powder River Basin
15 217.0000.00
Water resources
21 217.0000.00
Water resources
Resource Council
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
Association
Alper
Dean
Anderson
Shannon
mercury, and particulate emissions), and o from coal ash dumps
Resource Council
Groundwater Depletion: Coal mining has caused complete dewatering of aquifers formerly used for drinking water and livestock watering. The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. §1201 et seq., creates responsibilities to restore both the quality and quantity of aquifers; however, companies
are far behind on meeting these obligations, especially at a landscape scale.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
Water Quality Impacts: Mined coal seams often contain groundwater aquifers that nourish springs, wells, streams, and natural systems. Coal mining pollutes both
surface and groundwater resources, often increasing levels of salinity, suspended solids, and sediment load in streams, wetlands, and other water resources. Coal
dust, as well as leaching from exposed ore, waste rock, and overburden also cause contamination from pollutants like selenium.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
65 217.0000.00
Water resources
Additional Direct Environmental Impacts
Coal leasing and subsequent mining creates substantial local and regional environmental impacts wherever it occurs.
Mines disturb huge amounts of land in order to remove the coal, interrupt and deplete underground aquifers flowing through or above the coal seam, cause
negative physical and chemical changes to surface waters, and create large amounts of air pollution that degrades air quality. In the case of federal coal, many of
these impacts are occurring on and around public lands that are important for wildlife habitat, hunting, grazing, and recreation opportunities. It is imperative that
BLM takes a "look before you lease" approach to coal development across the federal mineral estate, and especially analyzes and discloses local and regional
trends regarding critical issues such as reclamation, air quality, and groundwater depletion. As discussed below, it is equally important that BLM consider
enforceable and effective measures to mitigate these impacts, as part of its alternatives to modernize and enhance the federal coal regulatory scheme.
C-118
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
74 217.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Water resources
Surface waters can become contaminated from the leaching of toxic substances from exposed ore, waste rock, and overburden. In Wyoming and Idaho, for
Resource Council
example, dust from the surface mining of coal in areas with selenium-containing overburden was found to cause selenium levels to increase in the environment.
Selenium leaches from coal ash and coal mine waste into nearby water and soil and heavily impacts aquatic ecosystems, where it can easily reach toxic
concentrations and bio-accumulate through the food chain. In several lakes and reservoirs, selenium has been linked to reproductive impairment in fish and
waterfowl. Contamination of groundwater usually occurs as the result of the leaching of ions from soils or the leakage of chemicals from waste-management
facilities.146
(footnote 146 See Helmut Meuser, Contaminated Urban Soils (Springer Sciences 2010) at 39; see also Richard S. Ogle et al., Bioaccumulation of
Selenium in Aquatic Ecosystems, 4 Lake and Reservoir Management 2 (1988).)
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
71 217.0000.00
Water resources
Resource Council
Groundwater Depletion
Western coal mining often takes place in arid environments, with limited rainfall and surface water resources. Thus, successful
reclamation of rangeland requires not only establishing surface vegetation, but also replacement and restoration of pre-mining water resources, the impacts on
which must also be fully considered.
As such, BLM should analyze and disclose the bond release status of previously leased acreage, and assess associated
impacts related to water resources. OSMRE dictates that, "[a]chievement of surface water quality and quantity restoration can be measured by acres of Phase III
bond release." OSMRE Wyoming 2009 Report at 9. There is no other objective measure of water quality and quantity restoration (sufficient to allow post-mining
land uses) that BLM could substitute for its evaluation.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
72 217.0000.00
Water resources
Resource Council
Additionally, BLM should review previous NEPA analyses for federal coal leases, analyses which have disclosed significant - and irreversible - impacts to
groundwater resources. For instance, the Wright Area Leases Final EIS for the Powder River Basin in Wyoming disclosed: "[t]he overburden and coal aquifers
within the leased tracts would be completely dewatered and removed, and the area of drawdown caused by overburden and coal removal would be extended..."
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Final EIS For the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications, 3-111 (July 2010). According to the EIS, "the effect of coal mine dewatering on the
Upper Fort Union from 1990 to 2010...is a cumulative drawdown ranging from...50 to 150 feet in the vicinity of the Black Thunder" mine. Id. at 4-62. BLM states
that "[t]he rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is currently much greater than the life-of-mine drawdown predictions," and that "[r]oughly 30 years
of surface mining and the more recent CBNG development have resulted in complete dewatering of the coal aquifer in localized areas..." Id. at ES-40, 3-118.
Additionally, the agency discloses that "re-saturation of coal mine pit backfill to form backfill aquifers may take approximately 100 years after cessation of mining."
Id. at ES-67 (emphasis added).142
(footnote 142 These statements essentially acknowledge that coal mining is resulting in material damage to the hydrologic
balance of ground and surface water and that compliance with SMCRA's statutory requirement to restore the regional Fort Union coal aquifer to "pre-mining
conditions" may in fact be impossible.)
Coal mining also uses substantial amounts of water for dust control, extraction (i.e., to cool equipment and prevent fire),
and processing (e.g., coal washing). The Department of Energy estimates that U.S. coal mining uses approximately 70 to 260 million gallons of water per day, with
average uses of 10 gallons per ton of coal mined on the surface in the West.143
comes from underground sources.
(footnote 143 See Hein and Howard at 10.)
Most, if not all, of this water
A 2021 report from ecologist Marcus Griswold, PhD notes that coal development is contributing to water level declines
(which in turn impacts water quality and fish populations, as detailed elsewhere in these comments). Griswold notes that the amount of water used by the coal
industry in Montana and Wyoming is vast, and water use is projected to range from 173,000 to 378,000 acre-feet per year, nearly as much-or more than-the
average annual flow of 80,000 to 300,000 acre-feet from the Powder River144.
(footnote 144 Marcus Griswold, PhD, "Powder River Basin Resource
Management Plan: Impacts of Coal, Oil, and Gas Development on Water Quality, Fisheries, and the Endangered Pallid Sturgeon", September 17, 2021)
The PEIS
should provide a cumulative analysis of these impacts, as well as give direction for considering these impacts in future site-specific EISs.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
73 217.0000.00
Water resources
Resource Council
Water Quality Impacts
In the water-scarce western U.S., groundwater, intermittent surface water, and sub-irrigation are vital to the environment and the
region's economic base. Mined coal seams often contain groundwater aquifers that nourish springs, wells, streams, and natural systems. Coal mining pollutes both
surface and groundwater resources, often increasing levels of suspended solids, salinity, and sediment load in streams and wetlands nearby. This in turn can
increase ventilation rates, reducing oxygen levels for aquatic life. Suspended solids can also diminish light penetration through water, limiting aquatic plant
productivity.145
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
75 217.0000.00
Water resources
Resource Council
(footnote 145 See Undermined Promise II at 30.)
In 2019, federal and state agencies completed a Pallid Sturgeon Basin-Wide Contaminants Assessment. The report looked at 61,108 water quality samples
collected from 2001 to 2014 in the Powder River, Tongue River, Bighorn River, and Yellowstone River in the PRB. The highest chromium, selenium, zinc, and
copper exceedances in the Great Plains Management Area for the pallid sturgeon recovery were from the Powder River watershed and highest lead in the
Powder and Tongue watersheds. As noted by the Recovery Program study, current and historic mining operations and energy extraction activities are likely
sources for all of the identified contaminants in the PRB and are some of the largest current producers for chromium, copper, and lead within the management
unit147.
(footnote 147 Molly Webb et al., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pallid sturgeon basin-wide contaminants assessment, March 8, 2019, available at
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70211832. )
Griswold notes that waters associated coal, as well as other fossil fuel developments, contain a range of
contaminants including selenium, potassium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, ammonia, barium, iron, arsenic, radionuclides, salts (magnesium, calcium, sodium, and
chloride), aluminum, copper, chromium, zinc, iron, manganese, phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic amines, various non-aromatic
compounds, and phthalates. Concentrations of these contaminants in creeks and rivers increase once exposed to air and as they move downstream due to
chemical reactions, especially for iron, manganese, boron, arsenic and selenium. The Powder River Basin, which accounts for only about 5% of the annual
streamflow at Sidney, contributes 30% of the annual sediment load to the Yellowstone River.148
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
(footnote 148 Griswold, Powder River Basin, 3. )
76 217.0000.00
Water resources
BLM's review must address the substantial hydrological impacts of coal leasing.
1 217.0000.00
Water resources
Not to mention the damage it has done to water supplies in many areas. We just shouldn't be using it - period!
Resource Council
Andrae
December 2021
Angelique
174 N/A
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-119
C. Comments by Issue Category
Organization
Letter # Name
Last Name
First Name
Enk
Michael
282 N/A
Frasure-Wieselman
Gary
520 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
1 217.0000.00
Water resources
I am especially concerned about the permanent damage that federal coal mining has caused to the aquifers we depend on for drinking water and agricultural
217.0000.00
Water resources
production
If you have ever smelled coal burning, and common thing on Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay before I left Alaska behind, you would know how foul the reek of
stinking coal is. The American people deserve to have clean drinking water as a human right. Please act to improve their quality of drinking water as a right that
1
Friedman
Scott
522 N/A
Gibson
Kenneth
292 N/A
Kirby
Matthew
all people possess but unfortunately must often fight for.
1 217.0000.00
Water resources
I addition coal leaves residual ash which can damage waterways which are already suffering from drought conditions.
217.0000.00
Water resources
Make coal producers on federal, state and private lands specifically responsible for the environmental damage they do to water resources including rainfall draining
17 217.0000.00
Water resources
1
13 National Parks Conservation
through waste piles and pits, springs, streams, rivers, reservoirs, natural lakes, bays, seas and oceans.
Association
Consultation with relevant agencies to evaluate the impacts of development on water quality and groundwater resources, including subterranean geologic
resources which lend themselves to groundwater supply and ecological integrity of the park and surrounding landscapes
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
19 217.0000.00
Water resources
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
56 217.0000.00
Water resources
Coal mine health impacts can also extend beyond the mine; for example, mining operations can contaminate nearby rivers, lakes, streams and aquifers with highly
acidic water containing heavy metals like arsenic, copper, and lead.
Coal waste disposal: After the carbon in coal is burned away, what remains is large quantities of waste material known as coal ash. Coal ash is one of the largest
industrial waste streams in the U.S., after mining wastes. (Footnote : U.S. EPA. Frequent Questions about the 2015 Coal Ash Disposal Rule.
https://www.epa.gov/coalash/frequent-questions-about-2015-coal-ash-disposal-rule#2)
Westkott
Marcia
30 Powder River Basin
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
7 217.0000.00
Water resources
Coal mining has also led to complete dewatering of local aquifers and significant changes in regional hydrogeology.
Biological resources
Impacts to Wildlife: The grasslands and forests of the Western U.S. are home to abundant wildlife, including big game, songbirds, raptors, and the iconic greater
Resource Council
20 218.0000.00
Resource Council
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
sage-grouse. Coal mining, especially strip mining, disrupts this important wildlife habitat. BLM's review must fully assess impacts to all wildlife species.
81 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Resource Council
Habitat and Wildlife Impacts Coal mining - and particularly mining in the context of inadequate reclamation - also can have severe adverse impacts on habitats,
wildlife, and ecosystems. The review must provide a cumulative impacts analysis of these issues, and also provide guidance on how they should be addressed
further in site-specific reviews.
For instance, the review should disclose wildlife population trends in coal mining regions and generally discuss impacts to
population and habitat as a result of coal leasing and mining activity. Among the mining activities that impact wildlife and plant species and must be examined in
BLM's review are: (a) exhaust from heavy equipment and transport vehicles, which contain sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and lead; and (b) exposure of ores and
rocks, which causes surface water contamination from increased sediment loads and the leaching of toxic elements, leading to decreases in aquatic oxygen content
and light penetration, reductions in growth of aquatic plants, and consequent mortality of fish and other aquatic species dependent on those plants.155
155 Undermined Promise II at 25)
(footnote
As explained in Undermined Promise II (at 24): Wildlife is affected by coal mining in a variety of ways. Construction and
mining activities cause direct wildlife mortalities in addition to the disturbance and displacement of wildlife populations. Direct mortalities from mining activities
occur primarily as the result of interactions between wildlife species and mining equipment, increased traffic and other development. Reptiles, amphibians and
small mammals are generally not mobile enough to avoid mining equipment. Mortalities of birds are caused by collisions with electrical transmission lines and
other mine support structures while fish mortalities result from the rerouting of streams or the activity from heavy construction near stream channels. Because
mined areas are also susceptible to non-native plants and weeds, BLM's review should also examine these habitat impacts.156
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
82 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Resource Council
(footnote 156 Id. at 28. )
The review must also address brush lands protection. Brush lands are very difficult to reestablish, and very little acreage of brush lands has been reclaimed at
western coal mines. Schuman, Richmond, and Neuman, Sagebrush Establishment on Mined Lands: Ecology and Research, 2000.157
(footnote 157 This paper was
a compilation of proceedings at a workshop held by OSMRE in 2000. The paper is available at: http://www.osmre.gov/resources/library/proceedings/Sagebrush.pdf
)
Lack of brush land reclamation has adverse impacts to brush-dependent wildlife species, including the Greater Sage-grouse and mule deer, and an overall
reduction in sagebrush results in a long-term reduction of habitat for some species.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
83 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Resource Council
BLM's review must also address the federal coal program's impacts on fish populations. Selenium levels from coal development have been found to be more than
seven times the concentrations harmful to fish. Selenium is very toxic to fish and bioaccumulates in tissues. Selenium causes low reproduction, increased
mortality, and embryonic deformities and has been associated with impaired recruitment and extirpation of fish populations. Copper has been found to be 3 times
the concentration harmful to fish in the PRB and leads to spawning failure and decreased growth. For freshwater rivers like those in the PRB, salinity is toxic to
fish and the prey they depend on. Salinity from coal and oil and gas development is as much as forty to sixty times more saline than the Powder River's natural
flows, and increases towards the Yellowstone River. At levels found discharging from coal development, survival rates of fish found in the PRB have been halved,
and at the highest levels are toxic enough that fish cannot survive. Along with salinity, bicarbonate is toxic to fish and has been found to cause gill lesions, gill
necrosis, and kidney damage.158
Hirschmann
Adina
299 N/A
218.0000.00
Biological resources
(footnote 158 Griswold, Powder River Basin, 4.)
The byproducts from coal combustion (ash) is also toxic to our lakes, streams and oceans, causing death and depletion of marine wildlife populations.
2
Kirby
Matthew
13 National Parks Conservation
Knight
Dennis
74 N/A
Magee
C. Sharyn
14 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Consideration of the coal leasing program impacts on wildlife migration corridors and habitat connectivity
1 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Minimize further adverse impacts on other public land resources.
218.0000.00
Biological resources
Mountain top removal destroys the land, the water and prime habitat for unsustainably declining wildlife. The needs of wildlife need to be considered in public land
Association
307 N/A
1
use.
Magee
C. Sharyn
308 N/A
1 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Rosin
Lawrence
128 N/A
2 218.0000.00
Biological resources
Coal mining also destroys habitat for our unsustainably declining wildlife, making the biodiversity crisis worse.
Coal mines destroy habitats of animals. Those habitats likely have necessary resources that some of the animals need. If the habitat is destroyed, so will most if
not all of those necessary resources.
C-120
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Adams
Matthew
Organization
Letter # Name
7 Navajo Transitional Energy
Comment
Code
Number
Comment
Number
27 219.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Renewables
Solutions to reliability concerns associated with renewables - grid-scale energy storage and the addition of high-voltage transmission lines - are years away from
Company
becoming a reality while electricity demand, driven by electrification, is poised to surge. Grid-scale energy storage and a massive expansion of transmission
infrastructure are incredibly hard and expensive to do. As the hurdles associated with these solutions are addressed, there's a real danger of doing away with what
works before we are even close to being able to fully understand or manage a grid that leans on variable power. The remaking of our grid will require a complex
federal and state permitting process that will take years to ensure the interconnectivity of transmission lines across multiple states. When examining what would
be required to achieve the wind and solar ambitions of the Green New Deal, Wood Mackenzie projected that it would require the construction of another
200,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines. Our existing grid would, for all intents and purposes, need to be completely rebuilt. While important pieces of
energy technology are getting cheaper, such as solar panels or lithium-ion batteries, building new transmission infrastructure is not. A recent report found that
transmission investment rose from $17.7 billion in 2013 to about $22.4 billion in 2018. However, only about 1,300 miles of new transmission lines were
completed in 2018 versus a peak of 4,500 miles in 2013. Of particular concern is how the electricity grid is prepared to handle the Biden administration-spurred
goal of 50 percent of new car sales as electric by 2030. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been grappling with just that question and what
should be done to prepare. At a recent FERC technical conference on electrification, panelists agreed that the electrification of transportation, heating and other
end uses, viewed as critical to meeting the nation's emission reduction goals, will require the nation to double its electricity load by 2050.
Albert
Pamela
167 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Like creating clean air through Wind turbines, solar panels power. Lets go green with our fuel and energy sources.
Alet
Frances
168 N/A
2 219.0000.00
Renewables
Instead of putting money into coal leasing, use those funds to train coal workers in clean energy -- or another field altogether.
Alper
Dean
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
The BLM should prioritize a rapid end to coal production as part of a rapid transition to clean renewable energy. · The fossil fuel-driven climate crisis is already
2 Alper & McCulloch
wreaking havoc around the U.S. and globally. The International Energy Agency's (IEA) new Special Report: Net Zero by 2050 notes that "a fighting chance of
reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 ° requires "nothing short of a total transformation of the energy systems that
underpin our economies." · The IEA calls for "no new coal mines or extensions." (p 21). · Ending coal production will better reflect the current needs of the
American people.
Ames
Mary
Bass
Margot
172 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
49 219.0000.00
Renewables
I, therefore, urge you to reinstate the moratorium so your administration has time to figure out how our country can transition as quickly as possible to 100%
renewable energy sources.
45 Essential Information, Inc.
There are alternative strategic energy resources that can be used for electricity generation instead of coal, ranging from wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, to
geothermal energy. These generated a record amount of electricity in 2020, surpassing coal in electricity generation for the first time on record (US EIA, July 28,
2021). Thus, their viability as reliable sources of energy in the US has been demonstrated. If coal royalties are increased even moderate amounts, the federal
government would earn additional billions of dollars on behalf of US taxpayers (Hein and Howard, Dec 2015), and federal coal will be disincentivized properly.
Beck
Karen
406 N/A
Benford
Alan
425 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Coal has no role in modern society where green energy is even cheaper than coal
219.0000.00
Renewables
ANY INVESTMENT IN THE EXTRACTION, TRANSPORTATION, PROCESSING AND USE OF FOSSIL FUELS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY CEASE AND BE
219.0000.00
Renewables
Research indicates that the potential energy from renewables is sufficient to power the globe 50 to 100 times over. We no longer need fossil fuel energy.
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
We have been dependent upon fossil fuels for far too long and there's no excuse for it. We've had the knowledge and technology all along - what's missing is the
1
Bezanson
David
441 N/A
TRANSFERRED TO DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY.
2
Bluhm
Darcy
189 N/A
will to make the change to alternative energy sources which are cleaner, more efficient and allow us to have a chance to combat a climate crisis.
Boston
Rick
56 N/A
2 219.0000.00
Renewables
I don't see any reason to deface public lands for a dead energy source. Solar has killed coal. It is over.
Brenneman
Marilyn
194 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
PLEASE STOP ALL COAL LEASES NOW. WE MUST HAVE CLEAN ENERGY TO SAVE THE PLANET!!
Buchanan
Holly
197 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Our goal is green energy!! Not fossil fuel!! We believe it to be yours also!! Figure out how to retrain and get good paying jobs for those involved in fossil fuel
Bull
Mary
198 N/A
Fossil fuels are obsolete! Gov should help people working in this field to segue to new jobs in clean, renewable energy!
Phyllis
483 N/A
Renewables
MAKE SOLAR POWER AND WIND POWER A PRIORITY IN COAL MINING COMMUNITIES WITH TAXPAYER FUNDS.
De Stefano
April
492 N/A
1 219.0000.00
2 219.0000.00
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Chu
Renewables
Americans need to end our dependence on coal. We have the technology for green energy.
Deti
Travis
4 219.0000.00
Renewables
Coal fired generation remains the most reliable, low-cost source of electricity in the United States. Coal generation is reliable and resilient where renewables such
pollution!!
3 Wyoming Mining Association
as wind and solar (by their very nature) are not. The socio-economic benefits cannot be understated. Coal fired generation is readily available and dispatchable 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year. It is reliable where heavily subsidized renewables are subject to weather and daylight. Its cost is consistently low
and not subject to the price swings of natural gas. Reliable, low-cost electricity is necessary to power homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals, and American life.
Recent winter weather events show dramatically the impacts of removing coal fired generation from the nation's power grid. Had the ERCOT grid in Texas not
retired much of its coal fleet once fed by federal coal and replaced it with unreliable renewables, the catastrophic grid failure during the winter storm of 2020,
resulting in deaths and billions in economic damage could have been largely avoided. Conversely, the MISO grid to the north was able to weather the storm
because of significantly increased coal fired generation from its online assets, largely powered by federal coal. The socio-economic benefits from reliable coal fired
electricity generation are crystal clear.
Deti
Travis
3 Wyoming Mining Association
7 219.0000.00
Renewables
Coal remains the only abundant, consistently low-cost, and reliable source of electricity generation in the Untied States. Coal fired base load generation remains
critical as the nation moves down the path of over-reliance on unreliable alternative energy sources such as wind and solar, and natural gas subject to price
swings. Any effort to restrict the federal coal resource will have a negative effect on Americans.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-121
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Dunwell
Bruce
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
503 N/A
Comment
Code
Number
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
219.0000.00
Renewables
Being fully and consistently committed to making the transition to clean, renewable energy sources is the right thing to do. It is expensive only in the most
simplistic immediate sense; if one also considers the manifold and serious damages to health and safety caused by pollution and global climate change, then it
becomes obvious that "business as usual" is essentially a misguided form of denial and unconscionable selfishness.
1
Fay
Alexa
85 N/A
Fuller
Evan
117 N/A
Johnson
Redge
4 219.0000.00
Renewables
We should be focusing on renewable energy and creating sustainable alternatives for planetary and human health.
3 219.0000.00
Renewables
To supply the backbone of electrical power to supplement renewables, we should shift from any fossil-fuel burning to the new generation of nuclear plants that
41 219.0000.00
Renewables
produce less waste.
32 Public Lands Policy
Coordinating Office
All energy technologies rely on minerals extraction, and non-fuel uses for coal include the recovery of Rare Earth Elements and Critical Minerals which may be
used in renewable energy and storage technologies. Additionally, domestic production of critical minerals increases resiliency while reducing climate impacts by
reshoring that portion of the supply chain.
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
2 219.0000.00
Renewables
1. The BLM should prioritize a rapid end to coal production as part of a rapid transition to clean renewable energy.
The BLM should prioritize a rapid end to
coal production as part of a rapid transition to clean renewable energy. Ending coal production will better reflect the current needs of the American people. The
fossil fuel-driven climate crisis is already wreaking havoc around the U.S. and globally. The International Energy Agency's (IEA) new Special Report: Net Zero by
2050 notes that "a fighting chance of reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C… requires nothing short of a total
transformation of the energy systems that underpin our economies." The IEA calls for "no new coal mines or extensions." (p 21).
Lish
Christopher
175 N/A
8 219.0000.00
Renewables
Logan
Toni
389 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
these tax subsidy sucking industries have had decades to transition to renewables, but have not
* Ending coal leases will facilitate the speedy transition from fossil fuels to clean renewables and energy conservation. The IEA Net Zero by 2050 report
Lovie
Julie
130 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
The BLM should prioritize a rapid end to coal production as part of a rapid transition to clean renewable energy.
Lovie
Julie
130 N/A
5 219.0000.00
Renewables
Ending coal leases will facilitate the speedy transition from fossil fuels to clean renewables and energy conservation. The IEA Net Zero by 2050 report specifically
Magidson
Jason
164 N/A
2 219.0000.00
Renewables
specifically calls for "no new coal mines or extensions." (p 21).
calls for "no new coal mines or extensions." (p 21).
Instead of extracting coal from these lands, we should leave most of it in the ground, and instead utilize portions of these lands to generate clean energy (solar and
wind). This could enable the federal and state governments to continue to benefit from a revenue source, but the unnecessary use of coal for energy could stop,
helping to stave off the worst of the effects of climate disruption.
Maguire
Matt
8 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
McEwen
McGovern
The BLM should prioritize an immediate end to coal production as part of a rapid transition to clean renewable energy.
David
109 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
one of the most important ways to save our planet from the effects of human caused pollution is to move as rapidly as possible towards renewable energy and
Cheryl
392 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Why not subsidize solar and wind instead of coal?
Molaris
David
36 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Leases should be suspended to allow for non-polluting energy predicaments to grow in our country, such as windmill farms and the installation of solar panels that
Morris
David
101 N/A
2 219.0000.00
Renewables
Every other country, along with the U.S., is moving toward clean, renewable energy
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
44 219.0000.00
Renewables
In place of coal, support, promote and facilitate the generation of clean, safe, carbon-free energy utilizing the resources so abundantly available on our federal
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
45 219.0000.00
Renewables
away from the burning of coal.
are getting less expensive.
lands: solar and wind energy.
We are heartened to see on the BLM website a page devoted to expanding renewable energy production on federal lands, including the following: The BLM
manages vast stretches of public lands that have the potential to make significant contributions to the nation's renewable energy portfolio. For example, the BLM
has identified portions of public lands that have excellent solar and wind energy potential, and significant geothermal energy resources. To promote the
development of these energy sources, the BLM provides sites for environmentally sound development of renewable energy on public lands...
Pruitt
Katherine
5 American Lung Association
30 219.0000.00
Renewables
We are heartened to see on the BLM website a page devoted to expanding renewable energy production on federal lands, including the following: The BLM
manages vast stretches of public lands that have the potential to make significant contributions to the nation's renewable energy portfolio. For example, the BLM
has identified portions of public lands that have excellent solar and wind energy potential, and significant geothermal energy resources. To promote the
development of these energy sources, the BLM provides sites for environmentally sound development of renewable energy on public lands...
Raynolds
Linda
42 N/A
12 219.0000.00
Renewables
It's time for the coal industry to give way to renewable energy
Renzoni
Dante
446 N/A
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
We must move to renewable energy as soon as possible and one way is to stop making mining easier.
Rund
Jen
439 N/A
219.0000.00
Renewables
We need to phase out coal and phase in solar, wind, and other sustainable energy generation before we no longer have a climate we can live with.
1
C-122
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Sarinsky
Max
Organization
Letter # Name
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
7 219.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Renewables
Interior should also consider the substitution effects of any coal leasing determination, including whether the leasing would displace other fuel sources with fewer
at New York University
externalities-such as renewable energy-over the long-term. Despite the fact that Interior has been propping up the coal industry by supplying leases on favorable
School of Law
terms, domestic coal consumption has dropped roughly in half over the past 30 years,20 and domestic renewable energy consumption-driven by substantial
growth in wind and solar power-recently overtook coal consumption.21
(footnote 20 U.S. Energy Info. Admin., Annual Energy Outlook 2021, With Projections
to 2050 at 7 fig. 3 (2021) [hereinafter "EIA Annual Energy Outlook"].) (footnote21 U.S. Energy Info. Admin., U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption Surpasses Coal
for the First Time in Over 130 Years (May 28, 2020), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895. )
The U.S. Energy Information Administration
expects these trends to continue in the coming decades, with experts projecting that coal plants will continue retiring22 while renewable energy continues its
sharp downward cost trajectory and thereby crowds out demand for fossil fuels.23
(footnote 22 EIA Annual Energy Outlook, supra note 20, at 14 fig. 10
(projecting substantial coal plant retirements in the coming years). See also id. at 3 ("As coal and nuclear generating capacity retires, new capacity additions come
largely from natural gas and renewable technologies."); id. at 8 ("Coal use through 2050 generally declines with the retirement of coal-fired electricity generating
units in the United States."). ) (footnote 23 Id. at 3 (projecting that "[r]enewable energy incentives and falling technology costs [will] support robust competition
with natural gas as coal and nuclear power decrease in the electricity mix."); id. at 14 ("[C]apital costs for both wind and solar continue to decline throughout the
projection period," i.e. to 2050). See also Charles Teplin et al., ROCKY MTN. INST., The Growing Market for Clean Energy Portfolios 8 fig. ES-2 (2019), available
at https://rmi.org/insight/clean-energy-portfolios-pipelines-and-plants/ (showing precipitous decline in cost of clean energy to becoming cheaper than fossil fuels).)
Schonfeld
M
Shoaff
Nathaniel
459 N/A
6 Sierra Club Environmental
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Put solar on those lands instead
33 219.0000.00
Renewables
(5) BLM must acknowledge that its choices for fossil fuel leasing on public lands and waters matters - basic economic principles tell us that those choices impact
81 219.0000.00
Renewables
B. BLM Should Explore Opportunities to Secure an Equitable Transition to a Clean Energy Economy.
82 219.0000.00
Renewables
For communities already engaged in coal development, BLM should identify opportunities that help ensure a fair and just transition to a clean energy economy for
Law Program
the price and use of fossil fuels, which compete with wind, solar, storage, and efficiency in the marketplace, and dramatically affect the amount of greenhouse
gasses emitted by the U.S. electricity sector.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
Law Program
all people. While the transition from dirty fuels to clean energy will create many more jobs than those lost, we must not ask workers and communities that have
helped power our country to bear the burden of this energy transformation that will benefit everyone. Identified measures should drive sustainable investment
and job creation in regions where the coal industry has abused and abandoned the land, air, water and people.
Smith
Thomas
South
Eric
99 N/A
153 Wyoming Coalition of Local
3 219.0000.00
Renewables
The science assessment is clear that we must stop all fossil fuel burning and implement renewable energy sources.
4 219.0000.00
Renewables
Renewable resources are an intermittent source of electricity and simply cannot replace coal-fired electric generation facilities. Wind power facilities only operate
Governments
at about 30 to 40 percent of nameplate capacity. See PacifiCorp, 2020 Renewable Resources Assessment, at 4-2, Appendix A-Summary Tables (Aug. 2020),
available at https://www.pacificorp.com/energy/integrated-resource-plan/support.html. Solar power operates only at about 25 percent capacity. Id. at Appendix ASummary Tables; see also Michael Greenstone & Ishan Nath, Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver?, Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, at 23 (May 9, 2019), available at https://epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Do-Renewable-Portfolio- Standards-Deliver.pdf. And while battery storage is
being installed to support most solar facilities, it is not a proven technology and only can store about four hours of power. See PacifiCorp, 2020 Renewable
Resources Assessment, at 3-3 (Aug. 2020).
The State of Wyoming and the United States still need coal to fulfill its energy needs and to provide the public with a
reliable and sustainable source of power.
von der Pahlen
Maria C.
Warwick
Way
White
Jeff
December 2021
82 N/A
3 219.0000.00
Renewables
Of course, emissions from gas and oil must also be address and alternative energy production be established.
Miriam
223 N/A
Please fund renewable, clean energy only!
416 N/A
1 219.0000.00
1 219.0000.00
Renewables
Catharine
Renewables
We and our planet are not going to survive if we don't transition from dirty fuels like coal to clean like solar and wind.
14 N/A
3 219.0000.00
Renewables
Help expedite the replacement of America's coal-fired power plants with renewables well before 2030.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-123
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
54 509.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Data/Report/Study included
Climate Test Tool
Resource Council
NRDC is in the process of developing a "climate test" tool with the capability of assessing the consistency of fossil fuel projects with climate
goals, in particular the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The test, which is anticipated to be published in the scientific
literature by the end of the calendar year, will have the capability to determine the consistency of both the Program as a whole and any individual leasing decisions
with that goal. It will be accompanied by a simplified spreadsheet tool that agency decisionmakers will be able to populate with available data in running the
assessment.
The climate test is being designed in part to address gaps and deficiencies in agency analysis of climate impacts of individual fossil fuel projects,
including coal leases. BLM has in the past taken the position that the only analytical means available to determine the climate significance of its actions is the
"proxy" test - i.e., a simple arithmetic comparison of project-related GHG emissions to global GHG emissions. Such a comparison, however, does little to inform
BLM or the public of whether those emissions are significant from a climate perspective and consistent or inconsistent with a 1.5° Celsius warming limit-or any
level where warming is finally limited for that matter. Indeed, that raw comparison threatens to mask the significance of decisions furthering fossil fuel extraction
by making each individual project's contribution look trivial. The climate is thus left to die a death by a thousand cuts when those comparatively minimal emissions
add up to a collective inability to meet our goals to halt warming. Additionally, the raw comparison of projected project emissions to status quo emissions ignores
the dynamic character of both energy production and carbon budgets over time. Existing projects - and their committed emissions - have varying finite lifespans.
The remaining carbon budget continues to dwindle over time, and energy needs - and the projected mix of energy sources - changes over time on projected
carbon pathways. As discussed below, the climate test takes those dynamic factors into account in a way that a static comparison to global emissions cannot.
The climate test is consistent with, and should supplement, application of the social cost of GHGs as described above. As discussed below, the social cost tests,
while an essential facet of impact disclosure, are not designed - as is the climate test - to articulate an objective threshold of significance.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
55 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
Developing a climate test tool to meaningfully determine a decision's or policy's climate impact
In brief, the climate test is designed to assess whether a
proposed project's emissions over the course of its lifetime are significant in light of the faction of projected energy demand that will be met by the project. If the
project's fraction of the carbon budget over the project's fractional contribution to energy needs is greater than 1 - i.e., the project is generating GHGs
disproportionately greater than energy needs met - the project is not consistent with climate goals. Such a project would take up a larger share of the remaining
carbon budget than it contributes in the form of energy delivered to the evolving system, thereby increasing the chances that cumulative carbon emissions - and
therefore warming - are not successfully limited to levels agreed to in the Paris Agreement. The project would therefore be interpreted as having a significant
impact for purposes of NEPA and otherwise. By contrast, a project for which the equation yields a number less than 1 fits within the remaining carbon budgetlimited emissions pathway over its lifetime, and contributes to otherwise unmet demand for energy services in such a world.
The climate test takes into account
full lifecycle emissions of energy projects, including and especially downstream emissions. The methodology utilizes default representative assumptions about key
project parameters - e.g., lifecycle GHG emissions, operating lifespan, and anticipated utilization rate or capacity factor, etc. - which can be replaced by projectspecific data to the extent it is available. The comparison of emissions to energy needs met is grounded in data regarding current and future conditions resulting
from robust climate and energy systems modeling projection studies (e.g., carbon budgets, committed emissions from existing sources, energy demand, etc.). A
full description of this climate test methodology is being prepared for publication in the scientific literature concurrent with these comments. Following rigorous
scientific peer review, we anticipate it will be released as an open access article later this year. In the interim, the spreadsheet tool will be available upon request.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
75 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
In 2019, federal and state agencies completed a Pallid Sturgeon Basin-Wide Contaminants Assessment. The report looked at 61,108 water quality samples
collected from 2001 to 2014 in the Powder River, Tongue River, Bighorn River, and Yellowstone River in the PRB. The highest chromium, selenium, zinc, and
copper exceedances in the Great Plains Management Area for the pallid sturgeon recovery were from the Powder River watershed and highest lead in the
Powder and Tongue watersheds. As noted by the Recovery Program study, current and historic mining operations and energy extraction activities are likely
sources for all of the identified contaminants in the PRB and are some of the largest current producers for chromium, copper, and lead within the management
unit147.
(footnote 147 Molly Webb et al., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pallid sturgeon basin-wide contaminants assessment, March 8, 2019, available at
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70211832. )
Griswold notes that waters associated coal, as well as other fossil fuel developments, contain a range of
contaminants including selenium, potassium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, ammonia, barium, iron, arsenic, radionuclides, salts (magnesium, calcium, sodium, and
chloride), aluminum, copper, chromium, zinc, iron, manganese, phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic amines, various non-aromatic
compounds, and phthalates. Concentrations of these contaminants in creeks and rivers increase once exposed to air and as they move downstream due to
chemical reactions, especially for iron, manganese, boron, arsenic and selenium. The Powder River Basin, which accounts for only about 5% of the annual
streamflow at Sidney, contributes 30% of the annual sediment load to the Yellowstone River.148
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
118 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
(footnote 148 Griswold, Powder River Basin, 3. )
Summary: A review by Senator Markey's office found that for every cent per ton that the BLM undervalues federal coal, there is nearly a $7 million loss to
American taxpayers. Mark Squillace, The Tragic Story of the Federal Coal Leasing Program, American Bar Association Natural Resources & Environment, Winter
2013, available at http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/01/21/document gw 05.pdf
C-124
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
121 509.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Data/Report/Study included
Resources on Coal Valuation & Royalties Concerns
Resource Council
OIG Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, June
11, 2013, available at https://www.doioig.gov/reports/coal-management-program-us-department-interior Summary: The federal government and state and local
beneficiaries are losing significant revenue due to the undervaluation of taxpayer-owned coal. Based on a small review sample, the report estimated at least $60
million has been lost. Correspondence between Senator Wyden and the Department of Interior (attached in separate folder)
White House Council of
Economic Advisors, The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to the Taxpayer, June 2016, available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf Summary: This report focuses on the issue of whether the Federal coal
leasing program provides a fair return to the taxpayer and draws upon relevant academic research to provide an economic perspective. A review of the coal
leasing program indicates that the program has been structured in a way that misaligns incentives going back decades, resulting in a distorted coal market with an
artificially low price for most Federal coal and unnecessarily low government revenue from the leasing program.
Institute for Energy Economics & Financial
Analysis, The Great Giveaway: An analysis of the costly failure of federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, June 2012, available at http://ieefa.org/study-almost30-billion-in-revenues-lost-to-taxpayers-by-giveaway-of-federally-owned-coal-in-powder-river-basin/ Summary: The report documents how taxpayers lost an
estimated $28.9 billion in revenue from coal leases over 30 years as a result of the failure to obtain fair market value for coal mined from public lands.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, Federal Coal Leasing: Fair Market Value and a Fair Return for the American Taxpayer, Sept. 18, 2013, available at
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/federal-coal-leasing-fair-market-value-and-a-fair-return-for-the-american-t Summary: The lease-by-application system does
not obtain fair market value for federal coal. The report recommends a re-evaluation of the LBA system, as well as other reforms, to ensure a fair return for
taxpayers.
Center for American Progress, Cutting Subsidies and Closing Loopholes in the U.S. Department of the Interior's Coal Program, Jan. 6, 2015, available
at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2015/01/06/103880/cutting-subsidies-and-closing-loopholes-in-the-u-s-department-of-the-interiors-coalprogram/ Summary: Coal companies, have learned to maximize these subsidies by shielding themselves from royalty payments through increasingly complex
financial and legal mechanisms. Reform is urgently needed to cut these subsidies and to close loopholes that disadvantage other coal producing regions and distort
U.S. energy markets.
Sightline Institute, Unfair Market Value, July 2014, available at http://www.sightline.org/research item/unfair-market-value/ Summary: BLM's
coal valuation practices ignore added-profit from exports.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
121(continued) 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
Sightline Institute, Unfair Market Value II,
June 2016, available at http://www.sightline.org/research item/unfair-market-value-ii/ Summary: By ignoring exports, the BLM has been selling many federal coal
leases at just a fraction of their true economic value. The report is updated with new information on current, past, and projected coal export forecasts.
Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties, Jan. 2015, available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/coal/coal-royalty-valuation/
Summary: The report identifies problems in the current coal royalty structure and suggests reforms to increase transparency, reduce administrative costs, and
provide for a greater return for taxpayers. Because of loopholes and deductions, the report found that the government is receiving an effective royalty rate of 4.9
percent, which falls well short of the statutory minimum rate of 12.5% for surface coal and 8% for underground coal (averaged nationally at 12.3% for all federal
coal). The organization estimated that loopholes and outdated policies cost taxpayers roughly $850 million between 2008 and 2012.
Headwaters Economics,
The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform on Prices, Production, and State Revenue, May 2015 Jayni Hein & Peter Howard, NYU Institute for Policy Integrity,
Reconsidering Coal's Fair Market Value (Oct. 2015), available at http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Coal_fair_market_value.pdf Summary: This report
describes how the federal coal leasing program is not structured to ensure that taxpayers receive "fair market value," as the law requires, for coal extracted from
public lands. Recent investigations have shown that coal companies exploit loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of royalties, costing taxpayers up to $1 billion
each year in lost revenue. Outdated fiscal policies fail to remedy uncompetitive bidding practices or properly account for coal's export value. And Interior's fiscal
terms do not account for the prevalent environmental externalities and option values associated with coal production that impose uncompensated costs on the
public.
Jayni Hein & Peter Howard, NYU Institute for Policy Integrity, Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal (Dec. 14, 2015), available at
http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Hidden_Costs_of_Coal.pdf Summary: This report analyzes the hidden costs of coal production, and suggests updates
that the Department of the Interior can make to modernize the federal coal program and earn "fair market value" for taxpayers. It includes the first-ever
calculation of how the social and environmental costs of coal production (upstream methane emissions and transportation externality costs) can be incorporated
into federal leasing terms.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
121(continued) 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
Peter Howard, NYU Institute for Policy Integrity, The Bureau of Land Management's Modeling Choice for the Federal Coal Programmatic Review (June 10, 2016),
available at http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/BLM_Model_Choice.pdf Summary: There are multiple power sector models available to BLM for analyzing
the effect of current and alternative coal regulations and leasing policies during preparation of its programmatic EIS. This document lays out model selection
criteria to assist BLM in weighing the benefits and costs of these available models, and offers recommendations for model selection, highlighting the tradeoff
between model complexity and transparency.
Institute for Policy Integrity, Harmonizing Preservation and Production (June 2015), available at
http://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/harmonizing-preservation-and-production/
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
122 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resources on Coal Markets, Reserves, and Speculative Leasing
USGS coal reserve information, available at
http://energy.usgs.gov/Coal/AssessmentsandData/CoalAssessments.aspx U.S. Departments of Interior, Energy, and Agriculture, Inventory of Assessed Federal
Coal Resources and Restrictions to Their Development, Aug. 2007, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/september/NR_0709_03.html BLM coal
lease tables, available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy/coal_lease_table.html Clean Energy Action, Trends in U.S. Delivered
Coal Costs, Oct. 2013 https://cleanenergyaction.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/us_coal_costs-2004-2012.pdf Clean Energy Action, Warning: Faulty Reporting of
U.S. Coal Reserves, Oct. 2013, available at https://cleanenergyaction.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/warning-faulty-reporting-us-coal-reserves.pdf Clean Energy
Action, Coal: Cheap & Abundant Or Is It?, Feb. 2009, available at http://cleanenergyaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/coal supply constraints cea
0212091.pdf GasTech, Map of Overburden Depths of PRB Coal Seams
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-125
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
82 509.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Data/Report/Study included
The review must also address brush lands protection. Brush lands are very difficult to reestablish, and very little acreage of brush lands has been reclaimed at
Resource Council
western coal mines. Schuman, Richmond, and Neuman, Sagebrush Establishment on Mined Lands: Ecology and Research, 2000.157
(footnote 157 This paper was
a compilation of proceedings at a workshop held by OSMRE in 2000. The paper is available at: http://www.osmre.gov/resources/library/proceedings/Sagebrush.pdf
)
Lack of brush land reclamation has adverse impacts to brush-dependent wildlife species, including the Greater Sage-grouse and mule deer, and an overall
reduction in sagebrush results in a long-term reduction of habitat for some species.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
117 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
Government Accountability Office, BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information, Feb. 4,
2014, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-140 Summary: GAO recommends, among other things, that BLM require state offices to use more than
one approach to estimate fair market value where practicable, develop a mechanism to ensure that reviews of appraisal reports take place, and take steps to
release additional summary information on its websites, including past lease sales. Interior concurred with these recommendations.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
119 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
Center for Biological Diversity, Grounded: The President's Power to Fight Climate Change, Protect Public Lands by Keeping Publicly Owned Fossil Fuels in the
Ground, September 2015, https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/keep_it_in_the_ground/pdfs/Grounded.pdf Summary: This report details the legal
authority by which the president can immediately stop new federal fossil fuel leasing in the United States, thereby keeping up to 450 billion tons from the global
pool of potential greenhouse gas pollution. This is the equivalent to 13 times the global carbon emissions in 2013 or annual emissions from 118,000 coal-fired
power plants. The president can do this now, without Congress, either independently or in the context of a binding international agreement. This report details
the existing executive authority under the three major statutes that govern extraction of federal fossil fuels: the Mineral Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
120 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Resource Council
Jayni Hein, NYU Institute for Policy Integrity, Priorities for Federal Coal Reform (June 21, 2016), available at
http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Priorities_for_Coal_Reform.pdf Summary: This report contains suggestions for improving strategic planning,
transparency, and alternatives analysis for the Programmatic EIS and beyond. The programmatic review should identify opportunities to increase revenue, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and align federal land management with U.S. climate change goals, paying significant dividends to the public.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
16 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
The US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Table ES-2) has come up with prices that seek to encapsulate the costs of
greenhouse gas emissions on society. In its analysis, the working group states that the social cost of a greenhouse gas is that "monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with adding a small amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year. In principle, it includes the value of all climate change impacts,
including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk natural disasters, disruption
of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services" (The US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, Feb 2021, pg. 2). This group provides the most current and appropriate way for the federal government to account for greenhouse gas
damages, which is why we used it in our analyses.
To clarify how social costs of greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed, we use our Table 1 as an example. Table
1 works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the US net methane emissions from coal production from underground mines, and the amount of
emissions per metric ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per Metric ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty
increases based on these costs. Data is converted into Metric Tons as per international scientific norms. Column 1 is the year from which data are culled. Column
2 represents the net US methane emissions from underground coal mines. It is "net" emissions, because some coal mining companies partially capture methane
emissions from the mines to reuse as an energy source. Column 3 shows the total amount of coal produced in the US from underground mining. Column 4
represents the Metric Tons of methane emissions per Metric Ton of coal, calculated by dividing Column 2 by Column 3. The social cost of methane (Column 5) is
given in 2020 dollars, and is from a federal interagency working group: the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021). A
GDP price deflator (Column 6) was used to adjust methane's social costs for inflation from 2020 dollars to valuations appropriate for each year of data. Here we
use the annual GDP Implicit Price Deflator values in (US BEA Aug 26, 2021 Table 1.1.9.), as per the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Table ES-2). For example, 104.691 (2015)/113.648 (2020) = 0.92. Then the next column, Column 7, gives the social cost of
methane per metric ton, by multiplying Column 5 (the social cost of methane), by Column 6 (the GDP Price Deflator).
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
16(continued) 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Column 8 gives the social cost of methane per metric ton of coal, by multiplying Column 4 (Emissions of Methane per Metric Ton Coal) by Column 7 (Social Cost
of Methane per Metric Ton). So for example, in 2015, the social cost of methane per metric ton of coal is $8.92. The next columns show the prices of coal at the
national mouth-mine price, per short ton (Column 9) and per metric ton (Column 10). The next two columns show the average price of coal across the US when
sold to power plants, per short ton (Column 11) and per Metric Ton (Column 12). Surprisingly, this number is a lower price than the national average mouthmine price. Finally, the percent royalty increase is calculated as the social cost of methane per metric ton of coal (Column 8), relative to (divided by) the average
US mouth-mine price per metric ton (Column 10) and the average US price delivered to the power plants (Column 12).
This gives the suggested royalty
increase per US national average mouth-mine price of coal (Column 13), and the suggested royalty increase per the US national cost of coal delivered to the
electric power sector (Column 14). We calculate the 5-year averages of these at the bottom of the same two columns, in the row labeled "Average 2015-2019".
In this case, the suggested royalty increases are 15.1% and 22.5%, respectively. These royalty increases take into account only the emissions of methane from
mines, not factoring in additional greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining and burning. Other tables factor in other greenhouse gas emissions. Table 8 gives the
sum total of all suggested royalties.
C-126
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
28 509.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Data/Report/Study included
The Use of Federal Lands for US Coal Mining Production, Detailed Data
Table 7 works through twelve years of data (2003 to 2014) on coal mining on federal
and Native American lands (from US EIA, July 2015, Table 11). It provides the underlying data for our Figures 3-6. Although this data is outdated, being six years
old, it is the most recent data that we could obtain. We requested more recent data from the EIA (M Bass email of September 10 at 12:24 PM to
infocoal@eia.gov), but did not receive a reply. In addition to being outdated, this data mixes together coal production statistics from federal lands and Native
American lands. Ideally, this data would be presented separately, given the numerous different issues presented by conducting coal mining on federal lands
compared with on Native American lands. However, we could not find data that was separated by these two types of lands.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
5 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
In calculating the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions, we rely upon the analytical framework of Hein and Howard (December 2015, Table 1, see Appendix
1). We incorporate more recent data from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, analyzing data from 2015 up to the most recent year
for when full annual data is available (generally 2019). For the baseline social cost of each greenhouse gas per Metric Ton, we use the updated 2020 values from
the US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Tables ES-1 and ES-2). These numbers have a significant range depending on
the discount rate used, so we chose the average 3% discount rate price as a middle-range value to use.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
6 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
The recommendation concerning a system for Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue to directly value and collect coal royalties is described in detail in a
second paper, "A Direct Valuation System for Federal Coal Royalty Administration." The recommendation for direct valuation and collection of coal royalties is
critical because the current self-assessment system allows too much control by the coal industry over the determination of royalties and is also excessively
cumbersome and inefficient for both the Department of the Interior and coal producers.
Gollomp
Everett
Gordon
Mark
104 N/A
3 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
27 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Please review these articles below:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932773/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620305369
23 Governor of Wyoming
Finally, a 2016 study by the National Energy Technology Laboratory examined the GHG life cycle emissions of coal exports from the PRB.33 (footnote 33 Life
Cycle Analysis of Coal Exports from the Powder River Basin, DOE/NETL-2016/1806 (Aug. 4, 2016) (citations omitted) (available at
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1576781).
The purpose of the study was to: compare environmental implications of exporting U.S. coal resources to Asian
markets with respect to alternative global sources of steam coal. The combination of significant Asian demand for steam coal and declining U.S. domestic coal
consumption in recent years has opened up new potential export markets for ... PRB ... coal. This is evidenced by the recent increase in West Coast terminal
proposals to meet this demand. This study seeks to evaluate and understand potential environmental consequences of exporting PRB coal compared to global
alternative sources of coal. Some of the questions which arise in regards to environmental impacts of PRB exports to Asia include: (1) Which stages of the life
cycle (e.g., mining, transport, power plant combustion) contribute the most to environmental impacts? (2) How do environmental impacts at each stage differ
between the PRB and competing countries? (3) Do environmental impacts differ substantially based on the importing country? (4) Is there a definitive difference
between the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) profiles between sourcing coal from the U.S. (PRB), Australia, or Indonesia for Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan? The
study reached favorable conclusions to those four questions regarding the climate impacts of PRB coal to Asian markets, as follows:34 (Footnote 34 Id. p. 4
(emphasis added).
(1) Which stages of the life cycle (e.g., mining, transport, power plant combustion) contribute the most to environmental impacts? The results
... find that the majority of cradle-to-busbar life cycle GHG emissions in all cases are from the combustion of coal at the destination power plant (92.5 to 96.1
percent of the total impacts, depending on the individual case). Coal mining activities account for 0.8 to 3.3 percent, while transport accounts for 2.0 to 6.7
percent ... (2) How do environmental impacts at each stage differ between the PRB and competing countries? Emissions associated with coal mining activities are
more significant in Australia and Indonesia compared to the PRB. Both countries have considerably higher strip ratios compared to the PRB, meaning that more
overburden must be removed for each unit of coal produced. Additionally, the coal mine methane emissions from Australia and Indonesia are 3.5 to 5 times
higher than those modeled as the expected value for the PRB (3) Do environmental impacts differ substantially based on the importing country?
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
27 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
The destination for the coal does not contribute much variability to the life cycle results ... (4) Is there a definitive difference between the life cycle GHG profiles
between sourcing coal from the U.S. (PRB), Australia, or Indonesia for Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan? Given the uncertainty in the model parameter values, there
is not a definitive difference between the life cycle GHG profiles between sourcing coal from the U.S. (PRB), Australia, or Indonesia for Japan, South Korea, or
Taiwan. In fact, when accounting for the uncertainty, it is difficult to attribute any significant difference between the various coal sources ....
Mesford
Mike
63 N/A
Olson
Julia
18 Our Children's Trust
1 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
* ?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w * ?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y *
25 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Please include all cited evidence in the administrative record. We are happy to provide any of the cited evidence on request
?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932773/ * ?https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620305369
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-127
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Pruitt
Katherine
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
5 American Lung Association
Comment
Code
Number
52 509.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Data/Report/Study included
In January 2016, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior tasked the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with producing a publicly available and annually
updated database of estimated greenhouse gas emissions associated with the extraction and use of fossil fuels from federal lands. Using this data, the USGS in 2018
released a first-ever assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from fossil fuel extraction on federal lands in the report Federal lands greenhouse gas
emissions and sequestration in the United States -- Estimates for 2005-14. (Footnote : Merrill, M.D., Sleeter, B.M., Freeman, P.A., Liu, J., Warwick, P.D., and Reed,
B.C., 2018, Federal lands greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in the United States-Estimates for 2005-14: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2018-5131, 31 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185131 ) According to the USGS report, the combustion of coal extracted on federal lands in 2014
produced 734.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2 Eq.) (Footnote : The conversion of emissions to CO2 equivalents enables direct
comparison of the different gases. To make the conversion, the amounts of gases are multiplied by their global warming potential, a factor that accounts for the
effect a specific gas has in warming the atmosphere relative to the effect of CO2.) of carbon dioxide, 2.2 MMT CO2 Eq. of methane and 3.7 MMT CO2 Eq. of
nitrous oxide. Coal mining produced 11.8 MMT CO2 Eq. of methane, 10% of which was from abandoned mines
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
4 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
We have also attached a recent Policy Integrity report on federal oil and gas leasing, Toward Rationality in Oil and Gas Leasing: Building the Toolkit for
at New York University
Programmatic Reforms, which has recommendations on quantitative methodologies that are relevant for Interior's evaluation of the coal program.7
School of Law
Rachel Rothschild & Max Sarinsky, Toward Rationality in Oil and Gas Leasing: Building the Toolkit for Programmatic Reforms, INST. POL'Y INTEGRITY (2021)
(footnote 7
[hereinafter "Toward Rationality in Oil and Gas Leasing"]. )
Sarinsky
Max
67 Institute for Policy Integrity
14 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
In reforming the coal program and assessing the environmental and economic impacts of leasing applications, Interior should be guided by the best available
at New York University
research and modeling tools. Cutting-edge research and modeling tools that Interior can apply to assess reforms to the federal coal program include substitution
School of Law
analysis, the social cost of greenhouse gases, and quantifying option value.50
(footnote 50 Id. at 10-34.)
These tools are key to assessing coal's externalities for
the purposes of setting royalty rates and fair market valuations, and for determining whether to lease in the first place. Interior should ensure consistency in its
modeling approach between different fuel sources.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
56 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Law Program
The attached report of economist Dr. Thomas Power126
[Footnote 126 Power Consulting, Inc., Assessing the Ability of Contemporary Models to Calculate the
GHG Implications of Federal Coal Leasing Decisions and Other Federal Energy Management Decisions, viii (2015). Attached as Exhibit 63.]
analyzes available
energy economy models and concludes that the two models best suited to this type of analysis, based on the prior use by other agencies and the known
characteristics of the models, are the Energy Information Administration's ("EIA") National Energy Modeling System ("NEMS"), used by EIA to generate its widely
cited Annual Energy Outlook reports, and ICF International's Integrated Planning Model ("IPM"), used by EPA to evaluate market responses to various policy
proposals since at least 2004.127 [Footnote 127 Id. at v. Accord, Peter H. Howard, "The Bureau of Land Management's Modeling Choice for the Federal Coal
Programmatic Review," Institute for Policy Integrity (2016). Attached as Exhibit 44.]
EIA's NEMS model is an energy-economy model that projects future energy
prices, supply, and demand and can be used to isolate variables such as changes in coal supply and variations in delivered coal price. NEMS uses input data from all
sectors of the energy economy to forecast national energy supply and demand balance for varying sets of regulatory and fuel price scenarios. The model has a high
degree of sophistication in its structure, which allows the model to give solutions for many types of problems. As noted by the Surface Transportation Board,
which used NEMS to evaluate the market effects of a proposal to build a coal rail line, NEMS "not only forecasts coal supply and demand but also quantifies
environmental impacts." Mayo Found. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 472 F.3d 545, 555 (8th Cir. 2006). According to ICF, its Integrated Planning Model (IPM) uses a
linear optimization framework and can be used to evaluate changes in wholesale power dispatch taking into account system reliability, environmental constraints,
fuel choice, transmission, and capacity expansion.128 [Footnote 128 ICF International, Integrated Planning Model, available at
http://www.icfi.com/insights/products-and-tools/ipm (last visited Oct. 1, 2021).]
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental Law
56(continued) 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
ICF has been used in recent years to evaluates the market and environmental impacts of several high-profile proposals related to the extraction and transportation
of fossil fuels, including the U.S. State Department's review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Surface Transportation Board's evaluation of the proposed
Tongue River Railroad, EPA's evaluation of the Clean Power Plan, the Forest Service's supplemental evaluation of a proposed coal mining loophole for the
Colorado Roadless Rule, and Washington Department of Ecology's evaluation of the Millennium Bulk coal export terminal. New, peer-reviewed scientific
literature since the 2016 close of the scoping period for the Programmatic EIS reinforces the conclusion that U.S. federal coal leasing levels exert a substantial
influence on the price, and resulting consumption, of coal, particularly in the absence of the federal limits on power plant emissions. In a 2018 paper published in
Nature Climate Change, Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus estimated a future reference case for U.S. coal, estimated the quantities of federal production that
would be affected by a permanent leasing moratorium, and then modeled the market response to those production cuts through 2030.129 [Footnote 129 Peter
Erickson and Michael Lazarus, Would constraining US fossil fuel production affect global CO2 emissions? A case study of US leasing policy, Nature Climate
Change (Jan. 28, 2018). Attached as Exhibit 45.
Their analysis looked at market responses both with and without implementation of the federal limits on coal
plant emissions. Employing the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), which includes all U.S. coal resources and power plants, the authors concluded: For coal, results
from IPM indicate that, absent the Clean Power Plan, each EJ [exajoule] of coal no longer supplied (due to lease restrictions) to domestic power markets in 2030
would lead to substitution of 0.31 EJ from other coal supplies, especially from the Illinois Basin and Northern Appalachia. The net drop in national coal
consumption would be 0.69 EJ for each EJ of federal coal not produced because of the lease restrictions. Gas consumption would also increase 0.35 EJ, to make up
for the lost coal-based electricity. For coal export markets, we find that each EJ of US coal no longer exported to Asian power markets (e.g., South Korea and
the Philippines) would yield a drop in net coal consumption of 0.30 EJ, accounting for partial substitution by other, higher cost sources of coal (e.g., from Indonesia
and Australia).
C-128
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Shoaff
Nathaniel
Organization
Letter # Name
Comment
Number
6 Sierra Club Environmental Law
Comment
Code
Number
56(continued) 509.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Data/Report/Study included
This ratio is within the range of results of global steam coal market modeling analysis, which found that each unit of coal not supplied to the Pacific coal market
would lead to a reduction in coal consumption of between 0.1 and 0.4 units, depending on whether the supply market was less constrained (lower result) or more
constrained (higher result) (Haftendorn et al. 2012). The higher price of coal would also lead to some switching to natural gas in Asian power markets (less so
than in the US, given that gas is more costly and less available in Asia), amounting to an increase in natural gas consumption of 0.07 EJ for every EJ of US coal no
longer exported due to the lease restrictions. In total, for coal, we find that leasing restrictions would reduce production by 5.4 EJ in 2030. The drop in CO2
emissions from the consumption of federal coal (largely from the Powder River Basin) in that year would be about 490 Mt CO2, as shown in Fig. 1b. Increased
coal and gas supplies from other sources would add back 162 Mt CO2 and 90 Mt CO2, respectively, resulting in a net overall reduction in emissions of 240 Mt
CO2.130 [Footnote 130 Id. at 8.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
79 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
Law Program
Empirical economic studies on the relationship between coal mining and local economic vitality and well-being contradict the rosy picture of coal mining's socioeconomic impacts. For example, historical evidence shows that: coal and other metal mining have often failed to bring sustained prosperity to adjacent
communities; that counties that rely more heavily on natural resource extraction experience less economic growth than counties with more diverse economic
portfolios; that while coal and mining booms result in few additional jobs outside the mining sector, busts cause a greater loss in local employment; that a high
share in coal employment in a county was correlated with a lower rate of self-employment, indicating that reliance on mining may restrain entrepreneurial
activity. 163 [Footnote 163 With these comments, we submit a report by Ph.D. economist Thomas Power from 2016 that provides recommendations regarding
the proper scope and methodology for BLM's economics analysis. See Power Consulting, Inc., The Economic Consequences of the Federal Coal Leasing Program:
Improving the Quality of the Economic Analysis (July 27, 2016). Attached as Exhibit 43.] The attached report by Power Consulting, Inc. describes in detail studies
supporting these conclusions.164 [Footnote 164 Id. at 8-13.]
BLM must take this evidence into account in preparing its socio-economic analysis.
Turner
Lucy
64 N/A
1 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y
Werblin
Joshua
86 N/A
4 509.0000.00
Data/Report/Study included
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932773/
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
58 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620305369
Further, we urge the agency to require, in conditions for approval (COA) or other requirements, an approved net-zero emissions mitigation strategy that can
provide immediate or near-term emissions reductions as well as credibly account for emissions offsets where necessary.118
(footnote 118 See Pleune, Jamie, et
al, A Road Map to Net-Zero Emissions for Fossil Fuel Development on Public Lands, 50 Envtl. L. Rep. 10734, available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship/236/.
)
The BLM's authority to impose such requirements is well-established and regulations allow for measures to be imposed that will "minimize adverse impacts to
other resource values."119
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
87 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
New leasing framework
(footnote 119 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2.)
As noted, the Powder River Basin was "decertified" as a coal production region in 1990, and all other coal regions have been likewise
"decertified." This decision turned leasing into a non-competitive framework through the "Lease by Application" process. Rather than a process in which BLM acts
proactively and leads decision making with respect to federal coal mining, mining companies apply for parcels to be leased and BLM responds to such applications.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act regulatory framework, the "Lease by Application" (LBA) process was an exception to the rule of competitive, BLM-driven leasing,
but it has now become the norm.
As a policy matter, the current company-driven LBA system must be replaced with a new national programmatic approach. A
new leasing framework should be presented and fully analyzed that provides a basis to determine when, where, and how much federal coal, if any, might be
considered for lease in leasing plans. The alternatives analysis of leasing plans should specify the amount, timing, and location of potential leasing activity, if any, that
the Secretary of the Interior determines will best meet national energy needs, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, protect other uses and resources, and
ensure a fair return to taxpayers over a five-year period. One tool that BLM could use to aid it in these determinations is the development of public interest
criteria, taking for example 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1) which directs Interior to make its lease decisions based upon findings of 'public interest," a term which BLM
could give fuller meaning.
A useful model for this analysis and for when to lease can be found in the outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing framework. See 43
U.S.C. § 1344. That program consists of a national schedule of proposed lease sales indicating the size, timing and location of leasing activity that best meets
national energy needs for the five-year period following plan approval. The plans also dictate tailored leasing strategies instead of defaulting to industry proposals
as done with the current LBA approach BLM follows. A PEIS is completed for the five-year leasing schedule to gather public input and ensure proper
environmental analysis and mitigation. The five-year lease schedule, which is reviewed by the Secretary annually, examines environmental and socio-economic
considerations, landscape-scale approaches to mitigation, national energy markets and needs, production substitutes for the energy resources, and assurances for
fair market value.
A useful model for this analysis and for where to lease can be found in the Western Solar Program, where BLM prepared a PEIS to identify the
preferred locations for development and excluded development from high-conflict and/or low-potential areas.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
87(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
That PEIS also set out required design features to be incorporated where development is permitted, and a commitment to mitigating impacts that could not be
adequately avoided or minimized. Parameters to guide the management of solar resources were also shaped by a robust economic and technical analysis, further
ensuring that leasing contemplation would be in balance with market conditions.
BLM should also analyze what the elimination or retention of the Coal Teams
would mean in terms of environmental impacts. The Coal Teams, while advisory in nature, have had substantial power in determining whether lease applications
should move forward. Members of the Coal Teams, notably Governors of coal-dependent states, have inherent conflicts of interest, making them unable to
balance the desire for more leasing and revenue from leasing with other considerations.
Under any approach, BLM must also incorporate expanded unsuitability
criteria, including protecting environmentally sensitive areas and areas that may be suitable for renewable energy development. Through this new leasing
framework, regardless of whether it follows the OCS approach, BLM can protect local environmental conditions by making affirmative decisions about whether,
where, and under what conditions mining may occur.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-129
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
11 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Since the current leasing system is reactive - rather than proactive - BLM's ability to address the decline in federal leasing and mining in a holistic and
Resource Council
programmatic manner has been limited. In the scope of its review, the agency must consider reforms to the federal coal program that accounts for the socioeconomic impacts associated with reduced leasing and mining and should consider policy options that help to plan and manage the decline in an orderly,
structured way that provides time, space, and opportunity for a just and equitable transition of workers, communities, and coal-dependent state economies.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
27 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
At a minimum, BLM should consider implementing the following measures: ·
- Raising royalty rates based on rates used for other resources, such as offshore oil and gas (18.75%) or onshore natural gas, or to other rates that will maximize
taxpayer revenue; ·
- Incorporating an "adder" to account for GHG-related externalities from all lifecycle stages of the coal process, including the social costs of carbon and methane;
·
- Eliminating the use of royalty rate reductions; ·
Changing the approach to determining FMV, such as:
- considering the market price of non-Federal coal in the region or nation-wide o incorporating the "option value" of leasing coal at a specific time
- incorporating the social cost of mining, addressing all externalities
- addressing export values o replacing "lease by application" with an open process of setting minimum bids
- raising the minimum bid amount to account for various factors;
- eliminating the "comparable sales" valuation approach, which justifies future undervaluation based off of historically under-priced sales l Raising rental rates to
account for externalities, inflation and other factors; l Limiting leasing to companies with more than ten years of recoverable coal; and l Evaluating whether coal
oversupply is leading to reduced royalties.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
35 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
any corresponding NEPA analysis - must explore a reasonable range of alternatives that will achieve the following overarching objectives:
l Analyzing and
disclosing to the public the full lifecycle of GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing and their impacts on the climate, including upstream and
downstream emissions; l Reducing, mitigating, or eliminating the GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing to align with the Nation's GHG emission
reduction and climate goals; l Identifying and fully presenting a detailed analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse environmental impacts associated
with federal coal leasing and developing new regulations and policies to ensure these impacts are minimized, including ensuring proper reclamation; and l
Reforming the coal leasing price structure to advance GHG reduction and climate goals, ensure meaningful competition, and provide a transparent and fair return
to taxpayers.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
40 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
Federal lands are also a critical carbon sink. The USGS found that in 2014, federal lands of the conterminous United States stored an estimated 83,600 MMT CO2
Eq., in soils (63%), live vegetation (26%), and dead organic matter (10%).66
(footnote 66 Id. at 12-13.)
In addition, the USGS estimated that Federal lands
"sequestered an average of 195 MMT CO2 Eq./yr between 2005 and 2014, offsetting approximately 15% of the CO2 emissions resulting from the extraction of
fossil fuels on Federal lands and their end-use combustion."67
(footnote 67 Id. at 1. )
Thus, in addition to GHGs and their implications for the climate, BLM
should analyze the impacts of the Federal coal program on carbon sequestration and analyze and disclose to the public how its decisions and resulting fossil fuel
development could lead to the elimination or degradation of these crucial carbon sinks, resulting loss of carbon storage, and related climate change impacts. This
analysis should include a consideration of the time lag between leasing and any reclamation and the significance of the loss of carbon sinks on GHG emissions and
climate change during that time period.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
53 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
While global carbon budgets are imperfect, they represent another measuring standard presently available to BLM to use to analyze and disclose to the public the
significance of its decisions on GHG emissions and their implications for climate change. The global carbon budget is rapidly being spent, and every additional ton
of emissions is a debit against the climate. Thus, BLM should analyze and disclose to the public how the emissions resulting from its decisions would impact the
remaining global carbon budget. BLM previously attempted to use global carbon budgeting in a draft EA for the New Elk coal lease in Colorado.115
(footnote
115 Bureau of Land Management, New Elk Coal Mine Lease by Application Federal Coal Lease (COC71978), 1-1, 3¬17 (2019),
https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/118470/176016/214475/DOI-BLM-CO-F020-2019-14 PRELIM EA-508.pdf. )
The fact that BLM used it to analyze
the climate impact of both a single federal coal lease and a set of 283 federal oil and gas leases demonstrates its usefulness to the public and decisionmakers, and
BLM's ability to apply this measuring standard in decision making. Utilizing global carbon budgets here would help BLM disclose the cumulative climate impacts of
the Federal coal program in a way that is clearly understandable to decisionmakers and the public.
C-130
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
55 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Developing a climate test tool to meaningfully determine a decision's or policy's climate impact
Resource Council
In brief, the climate test is designed to assess whether a
proposed project's emissions over the course of its lifetime are significant in light of the faction of projected energy demand that will be met by the project. If the
project's fraction of the carbon budget over the project's fractional contribution to energy needs is greater than 1 - i.e., the project is generating GHGs
disproportionately greater than energy needs met - the project is not consistent with climate goals. Such a project would take up a larger share of the remaining
carbon budget than it contributes in the form of energy delivered to the evolving system, thereby increasing the chances that cumulative carbon emissions - and
therefore warming - are not successfully limited to levels agreed to in the Paris Agreement. The project would therefore be interpreted as having a significant
impact for purposes of NEPA and otherwise. By contrast, a project for which the equation yields a number less than 1 fits within the remaining carbon budgetlimited emissions pathway over its lifetime, and contributes to otherwise unmet demand for energy services in such a world.
The climate test takes into account
full lifecycle emissions of energy projects, including and especially downstream emissions. The methodology utilizes default representative assumptions about key
project parameters - e.g., lifecycle GHG emissions, operating lifespan, and anticipated utilization rate or capacity factor, etc. - which can be replaced by projectspecific data to the extent it is available. The comparison of emissions to energy needs met is grounded in data regarding current and future conditions resulting
from robust climate and energy systems modeling projection studies (e.g., carbon budgets, committed emissions from existing sources, energy demand, etc.). A
full description of this climate test methodology is being prepared for publication in the scientific literature concurrent with these comments. Following rigorous
scientific peer review, we anticipate it will be released as an open access article later this year. In the interim, the spreadsheet tool will be available upon request.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
59 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
Importantly, by instituting a climate test process applicable at the programmatic review and RMP levels, BLM would be able to better determine the extent to
which climate mitigation measures may be necessary for ongoing coal activities on federal public lands. Further, because already-permitted production and the
rights to future production secured under valid existing leases may lead to significant additional GHG emissions, BLM should consider examining its regulations
applicable to "modification or waiver of lease terms and conditions," which presume the removal of protective measures-as opposed to the imposition of new
measures that may arise due to changed conditions or other factors requiring more stringent requirements.120
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
60 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
Applying the Social Cost of GHGs to Department of the Interior decisions on coal development
(footnote 120 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-4.)
The social costs of GHGs discussed in previous sections are a
very different measure of climate impact than a climate test, with each measure potentially playing a unique and valuable role in BLM's decision-making. The social
cost of GHGs, unlike the climate test, enables BLM to quantify the economic impact of GHG emissions authorized by any of its decisions. This ability is
particularly essential in situations where proponents of a decision that will result in increased extraction are touting the purported economic benefits of such
extraction - whether in terms of employment gains, increased tax revenue, or general economic betterment. BLM should consistently apply the social cost of
GHGs, including the SCC and SCM, in such instances to counterbalance claims of this nature with a clear-eyed assessment of the economic costs associated with
GHG emissions.121
(footnote 121 Id.; see also Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of GHGs (IWG), Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990, U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,
U.S. Government 1 (2021) [hereinafter IWG 2021 Report], https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument
SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. )
Even in the absence of data regarding purported economic benefits, the social cost of GHGs tool is useful to
provide perspective on the economic downside of extractive activity.
The social cost of GHG metrics is not, however, designed to provide a benchmark for the
significance of GHG emissions or determine their consistency with climate goals. They assign a dollar figure to climate impacts but are not set up to provide
context as to whether that dollar figure is significant from a decision-making perspective; and the dollar figure standing alone cannot tell us whether the emissions
and their associated costs are consistent with a 1.5° Celsius warming world.
Although both the social cost of GHGs and potential economic module of the
climate test currently under development address the economics of extraction, they ask entirely different questions within that sphere: the social cost of GHGs
methodology assesses the monetized cost of the externalities associated with extraction, whereas a climate test economic module would ask whether a decision is
economically viable even when those costs are not entirely internalized. Accordingly, both the social cost of GHGs and the climate test should be applied to all
BLM coal-related decisions moving forward, ranging from programmatic-level reviews to site-specific leasing and permitting decisions.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
70 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
In addition to finally addressing the failures of self-bonds, BLM should work with its sister agency OSMRE to: 1) evaluate reclamation bond adequacy for all mines
with federal coal reserves; 2) evaluate current mine and reclamation plans to better facilitate timely and effective reclamation; and 3) require detailed closure plans
for mines and transparent disclosure of timing of mine closures and the financial resources available to pay for post-closure reclamation.141
e.g., WORC, Planning for Coal's Decline, 2020, available at: http://www.worc.org/publication/8193/. )
(footnote 141 See,
BLM should also work with OSMRE to evaluate whether
any existing leases should be relinquished given the current rate of mining. If a mine no longer needs federal coal reserves to satisfy a realistic and economically
defensible version of a mine plan (based on a review of coal contracts to power plants), BLM should coordinate with the mine operator to relinquish those leases.
Existing and valid leases can be a barrier to adequately planning for mining reductions and ultimately mine closure because the regulators assume mining will
occur. Thus, relinquishment will assist operators in providing a more realistic estimate of the life of the mine and allow for OSMRE and state regulators to develop
the detailed mine closure plan discussed above.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-131
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
87 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
New leasing framework
Resource Council
As noted, the Powder River Basin was "decertified" as a coal production region in 1990, and all other coal regions have been likewise
"decertified." This decision turned leasing into a non-competitive framework through the "Lease by Application" process. Rather than a process in which BLM acts
proactively and leads decision making with respect to federal coal mining, mining companies apply for parcels to be leased and BLM responds to such applications.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act regulatory framework, the "Lease by Application" (LBA) process was an exception to the rule of competitive, BLM-driven leasing,
but it has now become the norm.
As a policy matter, the current company-driven LBA system must be replaced with a new national programmatic approach. A
new leasing framework should be presented and fully analyzed that provides a basis to determine when, where, and how much federal coal, if any, might be
considered for lease in leasing plans. The alternatives analysis of leasing plans should specify the amount, timing, and location of potential leasing activity, if any, that
the Secretary of the Interior determines will best meet national energy needs, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, protect other uses and resources, and
ensure a fair return to taxpayers over a five-year period. One tool that BLM could use to aid it in these determinations is the development of public interest
criteria, taking for example 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1) which directs Interior to make its lease decisions based upon findings of 'public interest," a term which BLM
could give fuller meaning.
A useful model for this analysis and for when to lease can be found in the outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing framework. See 43
U.S.C. § 1344. That program consists of a national schedule of proposed lease sales indicating the size, timing and location of leasing activity that best meets
national energy needs for the five-year period following plan approval. The plans also dictate tailored leasing strategies instead of defaulting to industry proposals
as done with the current LBA approach BLM follows. A PEIS is completed for the five-year leasing schedule to gather public input and ensure proper
environmental analysis and mitigation. The five-year lease schedule, which is reviewed by the Secretary annually, examines environmental and socio-economic
considerations, landscape-scale approaches to mitigation, national energy markets and needs, production substitutes for the energy resources, and assurances for
fair market value.
A useful model for this analysis and for where to lease can be found in the Western Solar Program, where BLM prepared a PEIS to identify the
preferred locations for development and excluded development from high-conflict and/or low-potential areas.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
87(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
That PEIS also set out required design features to be incorporated where development is permitted, and a commitment to mitigating impacts that could not be
adequately avoided or minimized. Parameters to guide the management of solar resources were also shaped by a robust economic and technical analysis, further
ensuring that leasing contemplation would be in balance with market conditions.
BLM should also analyze what the elimination or retention of the Coal Teams
would mean in terms of environmental impacts. The Coal Teams, while advisory in nature, have had substantial power in determining whether lease applications
should move forward. Members of the Coal Teams, notably Governors of coal-dependent states, have inherent conflicts of interest, making them unable to
balance the desire for more leasing and revenue from leasing with other considerations.
Under any approach, BLM must also incorporate expanded unsuitability
criteria, including protecting environmentally sensitive areas and areas that may be suitable for renewable energy development. Through this new leasing
framework, regardless of whether it follows the OCS approach, BLM can protect local environmental conditions by making affirmative decisions about whether,
where, and under what conditions mining may occur.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
90 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
Requiring bond release for previously mined lands
Under this alternative BLM would consider management options for new leases - or modification or renewal
of existing leases - that incorporate bond release requirements. For example, BLM might require that a company may not obtain a new or modified lease until at
least 50% of its current leased acreage has been released from bond. Any increase in the ratio of mined-to-reclaimed lands creates an increased risk to taxpayers
in the instance of abandonment and forfeiture. Therefore, BLM should take prior reclamation status into account when it considers new leases, whether the leases
are for mine expansions or otherwise grant additional coal to already-leveraged coal companies.
BLM might also not permit additional leasing for mines where
reclamation has not been completed after waiting for the required 10-year period, meaning reclamation at that site cannot be demonstrated. Undermined Promise
II at 42. These requirements should be accompanied with measurable and enforceable objectives to ensure contemporaneous reclamation standards are met.
While reclamation of mining operations is regulated by OSMRE under SMCRA, BLM can also play a role in helping to meet SMCRA's commitment to ensure coal
mines are reclaimed in a complete and timely fashion that restores disturbed land, water and habitat features to their pre-mining integrity and productivity. This is
especially important in the context of acreage of federal surface lands, including National Grasslands, occupied by mines, as BLM has a regulatory obligation to
meet a "multiple use" mandate for federal lands and prevent "undue and unnecessary degradation of the lands." 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7), 1732(b).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
93 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Additionally, BLM should work closely with its sister agency of OSMRE, with oversight from the ASLM and the Secretary to create a new set of reclamation
standards for the mining of federal coal reserves. DOI must take a whole of government approach to ensuring effective and timely reclamation of federal coal
leases. For instance, one of the critical opportunities for this review is during review of a federal mine plan.159
(footnote 159 Our organizations, and many
others, are submitting comments specific to federal mine plan obligations. The comments herein are meant to supplement, not supplant, those separate
comments.)
DOI must analyze reclamation impacts at the time of review of a federal mine plan for a new lease or modification to an existing lease. In doing so,
DOI must also fulfill its public participation mandates, including public notice and comment and public inspection of all records and information related to the
mine plan and the agency's decision. The federal coal program must include a public participation process for the Mining Plan review performed by OSMRE
Director, the Director's recommendation to the Secretary, and the Secretary's decision made by the ASLM. Mining Plan documents provided to the OSMRE
Director for review, the Director's recommendations, and ASLM's decision for the Secretary be immediately placed in the record and made available for public
review. Policy documents and instruction memorandum related to federal mine plan review should include public information requirements, such as an online
public file of all documents for each permit for federal coal.
In particular, DOI must carefully review any federal Mining Plan where the permittee plans to put a
surface mine, or a portion of the mine on "temporary cessation of operations" status. In previous approvals, the cessation of operations for mines with federal
coal has not been "temporary," with approvals extending for a decade or more. This delays reclamation and thwarts contemporaneous reclamation mandates, and
prevents timely and effective reclamation. It also thwarts multiple use mandates for any public surface lands contained within the permit.
C-132
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
106 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Coal exports With domestic demand for coal shrinking because of aging coal plants, concerns about air pollution and the global climate along with low natural gas
Resource Council
prices, the coal industry continues to eye Asian power markets as a way to dramatically boost their bottom lines. There are existing exports of Powder River
Basin coal through Canada, and recent years have seen export proposals along the West Coast as well. Last month, the North Coast Railroad Company LLC filed
an offer with the federal Surface Transportation Board to redevelop a stretch of rail near Humboldt, California for high-volume coal shipments from the Powder
River Basin to Humboldt Bay for overseas export175.
train/ )
(footnote 175 https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/lawmakers-gearing-up-to-battle-toxic-coal-
The review should disclose impacts associated with exporting federal coal. This includes increased rail traffic and corresponding traffic congestion
impacts (and the associated costs to local communities), the necessary construction of port facilities, and the corresponding impacts those facilities create. The
BLM should also assess the financial impacts of coal exports, including increases in energy costs for domestic consumers and depletion of strategic federal energy
reserves.
The review should also consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts that come with exporting federal coal. For example, exporting
millions of tons of coal from the Powder River Basin, or even a small fraction of that amount, would necessitate massive export infrastructure - such as ports in
Washington and Oregon if destined for Asian markets. Those impacts, which have never been incorporated or analyzed by the BLM, must be examined in BLM's
review. See letters from Washington and Oregon (raising these concerns).
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
14 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
BLM's review must examine how best to measure and assess the climate impacts of continued Federal coal production, transportation, and combustion as well as
how to mitigate, account for, or otherwise address those impacts through the structure and management of the coal program. As discussed below, BLM has
significant authority to combat the climate crisis, and the agency should, at a minimum consider the following policy options: * Changing the methodology used to
determine which areas and how much coal is available for leasing, such as: o establishing a coal leasing budget tied to U.S. GHG emission reduction and climate
goals o creating a new regional lease planning process to make affirmative leasing decisions o developing a land-scape level approach to identify areas for leasing;
l Raising royalty rates with an "adder" to incorporate GHG externalities from all stages of the coal process, including the social costs of carbon and methane; and
l Requiring mitigation for climate and environmental harms from coal production.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
36 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
It is of course too early in the process to set out precisely which reforms will best accomplish these objectives. However, at this stage we anticipate that BLM will
need to include the following elements to achieve the agency's purpose and need: l An end to leasing by application and regional coal teams and development of a
national framework for when, where, and how much federal coal, if any, must be considered for leasing; l A revised lease payment framework that takes into
account GHG reduction and climate goals and provides a transparent and fair return to taxpayers, including a new approach to determining FMV and setting
rental and royalty fees; l A systematic examination of the full lifecycle GHG emissions caused by federal coal leasing; l Apply those emissions to the remaining
global carbon budget through carbon budgeting- which offers a cap on the remaining stock of GHGs that can be emitted while keeping global average temperature
rise below scientifically researched warming thresholds, beyond which climate change impacts may result in severe and irreparable harm; l An inter-agency
management approach to ensure compliance with all federal laws; l Limitations on leasing in areas with environmental conflicts or those that are suitable for
renewable energy development; l Limitations on who may obtain leases based on the extent of reserves and the company's demonstrated capacity to complete
appropriate reclamation; l New lease conditions and bonding requirements that will facilitate proper site reclamation; l Regulatory requirements for methane
capture; and l Development of public interest criteria to more clearly delineate circumstances in which federal coal leases are not in the public interest and
therefore should be rejected pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 201.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
52 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Global Carbon Budgeting
Another measuring standard available to agencies for analyzing the significance of GHG emissions is to apply those emissions to the
remaining global carbon budget through carbon budgeting- which offers a cap on the remaining stock of greenhouse gases that can be emitted while keeping global
average temperature rise below scientifically researched warming thresholds, beyond which climate change impacts may result in severe and irreparable harm.90
(footnote 90 The Paris Agreement states that global warming must be held "well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" with a goal to "limit the temperature
increase to 1.5°C." U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties, Twenty-First Session, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Art. 2,
U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.I (Dec. 12, 2015) [hereinafter, Paris Agreement],
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf.; see also AR6 at 36 ("[t]he term carbon budget refers to the
maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions that would result in limiting global warming to a given level with a given probability,
taking into account the effect of other anthropogenic climate forcers. This is referred to as the total carbon budget when expressed starting from the preindustrial period, and as the remaining carbon budget when expressed from a recent specified date (see Glossary). Historical cumulative CO2 emissions
determine to a large degree warming to date, while future emissions cause future additional warming. The remaining carbon budget indicates how much CO2
could still be emitted while keeping warming below a specific temperature level"). )
Research shows that enormous and rapid cuts in GHG emissions are needed
to meet climate goals. The IPCC's Special Report on 1.5°C (also known as SR1.5) estimated a remaining budget from the start of 2018 of approximately: · 420
Gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C;91
(footnote 91 Joeri Rogelj et al., Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC,
Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5ºC in the Context of Sustainable Development, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1, 96 (Greg Flato et al. eds.,
2018) [hereinafter, Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report], https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf. The full report is
available here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf. )
1.5°C;92
(footnote 92 Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report, at 96. )
· 1500 GtCO2 for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C.94
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
· 580 GtCO2 for a 50% chance of limiting warming to
· 1170 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 2°C;93 and
(footnote 93 Id. )
(footnote 94 Id.)
C-133
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
52(continued) 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
The concept of a remaining carbon budget implies that to stabilize global warming at any particular level, global emissions of CO2 need to be reduced to net zero
Resource Council
levels at some point. Net-zero CO2 emissions describes a situation in which all the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are counterbalanced by deliberate
anthropogenic removals so that, on average, no CO2 is added or removed from the atmosphere by human activities.95
(footnote 95 AR6, at 5-122.)
In order
to meet these targets, the IPCC 1.5ºC Report (also known as SR1.5) concluded that global CO2 emissions would need to reach net zero in about 30 years to stay
within a 580 GtCO2 budget, reduced to 20 years for a 420 GtCO2 budget.96
(footnote 96 Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report, at 96. )
The same timeframe is
utilized in AR6's 1.5C scenario (also known as SSP-1-1.9), citing a decline to net-zero CO2 emissions around 2050 with years of net-negative emissions
following.97
(footnote 97 AR6, at SPM-15.)
AR6 reaffirms with high confidence the IPCC's finding in AR5 that there is a near-linear relationship between
cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause, referred to as the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE).
Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of
0.45°C. This is a narrower range compared to AR5 and SR1.5, reflecting reduced uncertainty due to methodological improvements.98
(footnote 98 Id. at SPM-
36.) In AR6, the IPCC revised the estimated remaining carbon budget due to methodological improvements, which from the start of 2020 is approximately: ·
400 GtCO2 of CO2 (GtCO2) for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C;99
warming to 1.5°C;100
(footnote 100 Id.)
a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C.102
(footnote 99 Id. at SPM-38. )
· 1150 GtCO2 for a two-thirds chance of limiting warming to 2°C;101 and
(footnote 102 Id.)
· 500 GtCO2 for a 50% chance of limiting
(footnote 101 Id.)
· 1350 GtCO2 for
Although there are uncertainties in carbon budgets, the IPCC concluded in SR1.5 that, overall,
"current understanding of the assessed geophysical uncertainties suggests at least a ±50% possible variation for remaining carbon budgets for 1.5°C-consistent
pathways."103
(footnote 103 Chapter 2 of IPCC 1.5ºC Report, at 107.)
In other words, the remaining global carbon budget may be significantly smaller than
these estimated budgets. AR6 expanded the assessment of Earth system feedbacks compared to SR1.5 and included it in its central remaining carbon budget
estimates. Some feedbacks are accounted for through the non-CO2 warming estimate, while the remainder combines to reduce the median remaining carbon
budget estimates for 1.5°C and 2°C of warming by about 10 to 20 GtCO2, respectively, compared to SR1.5.104
(footnote 104 AR6, at 5-98. )
At the 67th
percentile, remaining carbon budget estimates for limiting warming to 1.5°C and 2°C are about 40 to 60 GtCO2 larger, respectively, mainly as a result of a
narrower assessed TCRE range. These remaining carbon budgets may vary by an estimated ± 220 GtCO2 depending on how successfully future non-CO2
emissions can be reduced.105
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
52(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
(footnote 105 Id. at 5-9.)
The potential carbon emissions from existing fossil fuel reserves-the known belowground stock of economically extractable fossil fuels-considerably exceed both
the carbon budget for 2°C and 1.5°C of warming. Globally, the IPCC previously found in AR5 that, "[e]stimated total fossil carbon reserves exceed [the 2°C
budget] by a factor of 4 to 7."106
(footnote 106AR5, at 64.) Research shows that potential emissions from just U.S. federal fossil fuels could take up all or a
significant portion of the remaining global carbon budget. A 2015 analysis prepared by EcoShift Consulting estimated that the potential emissions from all U.S.
fossil fuels is 697-1,070 GtCO2eq.107
(footnote 107 Dustin Mulvaney et al., EcoShift Consulting, The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil
Fuels 1, 18 (2015), https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Potential-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-U-S-Federal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf. )
Federal
fossil fuels- including crude oil, gas, coal, oil shale, and tar sands-account for as much as 492 GtCO2eq, or approximately 46 to 50% of total potential
emissions.108
(footnote 108 Id. )
as much as 43 GtCO2eq.109
Unleased federal fossil fuels comprise 91% of these potential emissions, with already leased federal fossil fuels accounting for
(footnote 109 Id. ) The 2015 analysis is included for context and scale but is likely outdated due to lease sales that have occurred
in the intervening years and the dynamic nature of reserve definitions. A more recent Nature article found that globally, "[b]y 2050, we find that nearly 60% of oil
and fossil methane gas, and 90% of coal must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget."110
(footnote 110 Dan Welsby, et al., Unextractable
fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world, 597 Nature 230, 230 (2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8. )
This same paper finds that in the U.S.
specifically, 97% of an estimated 239 billion tonnes of coal reserves (and 99% of an estimated 873 billion tonnes of coal resources, which include both economic
and uneconomic deposits) must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5C carbon budget.111
(footnote 111 Id. Reserves figure from main text. Resources
figure from Supplementary information, Supplementary Table 10: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-021-038218/MediaObjects/41586_2021_3821_MOESM1_ESM.pdf. )
In order to follow a 1.5°C-consistent pathway, research also shows that the world will need to
decrease total fossil fuel production by roughly 6% per year between 2020 and 2030.112
(footnote 112 Peter Erickson, et al., UN Environment Programme, The
Production Gap The discrepancy between countries' planned fossil fuel production and global production levels consistent with limiting warming to 1.5ºC or 2ºC
1, 2 (2020), https://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PGR2020_FullRprt_web.pdf. )
According to the International Energy Agency's Report on
Net Zero by 2050, global coal supply must fall by over 7% per year between 2020 and 2050.113
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
52(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
(footnote 113 International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050 (2021), https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050. See Annex A, Table A.1: Energy supply and
transformation. Add unabated coal and coal with CCUS energy supplies (EJ) and calculate cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR) from 2020 to 2030 and 2050
using the formula: CAGR(Supply, 2020-20x0) = (Supply in 20x0 / Supply in 2020)^(1/(20x0-2020)) - 1. CAGR 2020-2030 = -7.3% and CAGR 2020¬2050 = -7.1%
per year. ) Recent analysis from the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) has shown that, even with countries' firm climate commitments, current nation-level
planning will lead to production of more than twice the amount of fossil fuels as would be consistent with 1.5° Celsius warming, and fifty percent more than for 2°
Celsius, by 2030.114
(footnote 114 SEI, IISD, ODI, Climate Analytics, CICERO, and UNEP, The Production Gap: The Discrepancy between Countries' Planned
Fossil Fuel Production and Global Production Levels Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5°C or 2°C (2019), http://productiongap.org/. )
C-134
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
57 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Applying the climate test to Department of the Interior decisions on coal leasing
Resource Council
The climate test, or portions of it, are potentially applicable at every level of
BLM's decision-making concerning coal, from the programmatic review to any coal-related proposals or projects that may emerge upon completion.116
(footnote 116 We note that the potential economic and local disproportionate impacts modules referenced above would not be applicable to a programmatic
assessment of the Coal Program, because those analyses are performed on a regional or local level. The carbon emissions significance analysis, however, is applied
on a national scale. )
On a programmatic level, the climate test should be used to determine whether the various programmatic alternatives BLM will consider
for the coal program are consistent with climate goals, using estimates of the level and timing of extraction that will occur in each such alternative, coupled with
the other data inputs and assumptions employed in the test. While the specificity of the test's conclusions obviously vary with the specificity of available data, and
application of the carbon emissions significance test at the programmatic level may generate broader and less certain results, it is nonetheless essential that BLM
employ a data-driven method of this nature to determine the climate impact of any potential alternative path forward with the coal program.
To the extent BLM
decides to continue leasing and permitting following completion of the review, the climate test should be applied to all future decisions concerning coal and fossil
fuel approvals. We recommend that BLM adopt a policy of declining to authorize any coal leasing activity that is demonstrated to be inconsistent with a 1.5°
Celsius warming world via the test (or other relevant tool).117
(footnote 117 We note that in addition to the emissions test described in this comment, the
broader framework would also be designed to be applied at the project level. Data concerning the likely development activity should be available as part of a
reasonable range of NEPA alternatives (reasonably foreseeable development scenarios (RFDS)). Prototypical mine development data on GHG emissions and
operating economics within a planning area could be used to estimate economic viability - for example, whether-and if so, when-that asset may become vulnerable
to economic stranding as a result of changing energy market conditions while the country moves toward our climate goals. Similarly, a disproportionate impacts
analysis could be deployed by determining whether development activity in the various locations would threaten health of disproportionately impacted
communities, as defined by quantitative and qualitative decision metrics (or other indicators deemed appropriate), such that those areas should be closed to
leasing and development. )
Specifically, BLM should determine, based on the level of extraction estimated to occur pursuant to the lease, whether the lifecycle
emissions from such extraction will be consistent with climate goals of limited warming when considered in relation to the energy that will be supplies to such a
world.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
57(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
We also urge the agency to consider techniques to evaluate in a meaningful way whether the extraction sites developed on leased federal lands would be
vulnerable to being abandoned and whether any development anywhere would threaten an overly burdened and disproportionately impacted community. In all
cases, from a program review to the leasing and permitting stages and to the extent legally permissible, BLM should exercise its discretion to decline to authorize
any course of action that is determined via the climate test to be inconsistent with climate goals and principles of equity and environmental justice. To the extent
consistency can be achieved through mitigation and project modification, those should be required as conditions of approval of an activity.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
69 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
Inadequate Reclamation Bonding
Thanks to important DOI enforcement efforts and bankruptcy settlements, the coal industry's use of self-bonding for
reclamation of mined federal coal reserves has declined. However, some coal companies still "self-bond" to meet reclamation bonding requirements, meaning the
company's reclamation commitment is backed only by the company's name and overall financial health, not by sureties or specific pledges of collateral. While it is
technically allowed under federal and some state laws, self-bonding is an option, not a requirement. With declining coal company revenues and increasingly
decreasing demand for coal, self-bonding practices are becoming more and more
risky for State and Federal governments, and concerns will only grow.139
(footnote 139 See, e.g., Can Coal Companies Afford To Cleanup Coal Country?, Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2016 (discussing concerns))
Across the nation, $3.5
billion in reclamation liabilities are covered only by self-bonds. Thus, as noted in the Scoping Notice, in recent years some companies mining federal coal
resources have sought to shed their reclamation obligations in bankruptcy proceedings.140
(footnote 140 See, e.g., In re Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., No. 15-
33896 (KRH) United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (Aug. 3, 2015).)
BLM's review should disclose the amount of
reclamation liability for federal coal leases that is covered only by self-bonds, disclose the status of those bonds and the financial health of the companies, and
disclose any reasonably foreseeable impacts and risks associated with self-bonding practices. This analysis is necessary for all lands overlying leased federal coal,
regardless of ownership status, but it is especially important for federal public lands, as self-bonding presents additional risks to the Federal government as the
owner and manager of those lands. Going forward, BLM, working with OSMRE, should prevent the use of self-bonding for any mine with federal coal.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
94 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Avoiding environmental conflicts
Although, as noted, BLM's regulations specify some areas as unsuitable for mining (see 43 C.F.R. § 3461.5), under this
alternative BLM would more expansively identify specific areas where coal development should be avoided due to high conflicts with wildlife and fisheries, water,
air and protected lands, and set a schedule for amending RMPs to exclude them from future leasing. These conditions could, among other ways, be established via
Interior's "public interest" discretion
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-135
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
95 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Restricting leasing eligibility
Resource Council
As mentioned elsewhere in these comments, DOI has significant discretion to reject a coal lease if, based on the Secretary's
assessment, it is not in the "public interest." 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1) (authorizing coal leasing by the Secretary for lease tracts "he finds appropriate and in the public
interest."). BLM's rules require that, "[a]n application for a lease shall be rejected in total or in part if the authorized officer determines that ... leasing of the lands
covered by the application, for environmental or other sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest." 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-8. This provision is distinct
from the screens BLM must apply to identify lands that are unsuitable or unacceptable for coal development, and is also distinct from BLM's requirements to
obtain "fair market value" for a lease.
Under this alternative BLM would establish additional criteria for determining the fitness of a coal operator as a buyer to
ensure that leasing is in "the public interest." One principal restriction could be that an operator cannot obtain a new or modified lease where it owns a current
mine - or combination of mines - that has more than 10 years of reserves. According to GAO, "[o]fficials from coal companies told us they typically submit new
applications for federal coal leases to maintain a 10-year coal supply at their existing mining operations." Yet, BLM documents suggest that mines with pending
lease applications in Wyoming have from 10.6 - 19 years of remaining recoverable reserves, based on the most recent annual production numbers available and,
until BLM's rejection of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, the agency continued to make coal available for lease whenever coal companies apply. BLM must consider a
reserve limit, such as the aforementioned 10-year limit on leased coal reserves, in order to ensure leasing is in the public interest. This type of limit would allow
BLM more adequately assess and ensure the receipt of fair market value for the resource (as it evolves over time), and to ensure that leasing decisions more
accurately and contemporaneously reflect the nation's energy needs and goals.
Other criteria could include precluding any new leases to any company that is
out-of-compliance with SMCRA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, or any other environmental requirements at any mine site they operate, particularly in
regards to their reclamation and contemporaneous reclamation requirements. BLM should also assess whether the company seeking the lease has any history of
environmental violations related to reclaiming current or past mines at any of its facilities. Finally, eligibility requirements might include whether the company is
operating an existing and viable coal facility, whether the company is financially healthy, and whether the operator is being diligent in developing existing leases.
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
Resource Council
100 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Basing lease sales on a holistic and rigorous FMV analysis
As noted above and in numerous investigations, BLM fails to obtain FMV for coal leases or otherwise
collect coal leasing income commensurate with the value of the coal and its myriad externality costs. Leases with a single bidder, market manipulations,
unreasonable deductions, royalty and rent reductions, and other factors have led to hundreds of millions, or more, in lost income. For example, one report found
that, had coal valuation been based on market value, the royalty collections for just the five-year period from 2008 - 2012 would have been $850 million higher,
an average of $170 million per year.165
(footnote 165 Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties: Current Royalty Structure,
Effective Royalty Rates, and Reform Options (Jan. 2015) at 3.)
To address this concern, BLM should make fair return a threshold criterion for when and
whether to offer new leases and accept bids. Achieving a fair return will require that new leases be offered only when FMV can be achieved and royalty and rent
reductions are not required to make the lease economical or commercially viable. Protecting a fair return will also require allowing leasing only when the federal
coal brought to market will not reduce the price of coal on the national market, will not contribute to overproduction, and will not lead to resource hoarding or
speculation. Approaches to consider include:
l Establishing minimum bids for each coal region that consider regional economic, geologic, and engineering
variables and assessing the projected income from each individual lease to be offered based on unique variables. l Eliminating the "comparable sales" valuation
approach, which justifies future undervaluation based off of historically under-priced sales. l Raising the minimum bid to at least $1 per ton.166
(footnote 166
Nidhi Thakar, Modernizing the Federal Coal Program, Center for American Progress 5 (December 9, 2014), available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/FederalCoal.pdf )
l Considering the market value for coal based on the sale prices of coal with similar characteristics, from both
Federal lands and non-Federal lands.167 Where it is difficult to find such comparative prices, prices could alternatively be calculated on an energy-equivalent basis
to reflect the fact that the heat content of the coal is a determinant of its value in the marketplace. Pricing coal this way would permit comparisons to the
payments collected from Federal leases for natural gas and oil on public lands.168
C-136
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
(footnote 167 White House Report at 18.)
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Anderson
Shannon
Organization
Letter # Name
40 Powder River Basin
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
100(continued) 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
Comment Text
(footnote 168 As the 2016 White House Report on these issues explains: After adjusting for the heat content of coal, the royalty rate being paid by surface PRB
coal is roughly one third of the royalty rate paid for natural gas on Federal lands (on an energy-equivalent basis), even though they are both subject to a 12.5
percent royalty rate on their respective reported sales prices (before deductions). It could be appropriate to adjust the royalty rate directly to reflect an
adjustment for heat content, or to include a Btu-adjusted royalty "adder" on top of the base royalty rate. In other words, the royalty owed would be 12.5 percent
of the revenues plus an additional payment in dollars per Btu. Similar adjustments would be possible for sulfur content and other characteristics, but the heat
content adjustment is likely to be among the most important. White House Report at 19; see also id. at 4 ("If royalty payments are based on the price of nearby
regional coal on a per-Btu basis, after it is fully phased-in, this would add up to $290 million more to State and Federal coffers annually. Maximizing royalty
payments would bring in as much as $3 billion more to State and Federal coffers annually once fully phased-in").)
l Creating an inter-lease bidding process in
which BLM makes multiple sites available for bidding simultaneously, and then subsequently decides which bids to accept based on site location and the amounts
bid. l Incorporating "option value" into the bid amounts - i.e., the informational value of delay associated with federal leasing. As the D.C. Circuit has explained in
considering option value in another context, "[t]here is therefore a tangible present economic benefit to delaying the decision to drill for fossil fuels to preserve
the opportunity to see what new technologies develop and what new information comes to light." 169
779 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2015). )
(footnote 169 Center for Sustainable Economy v. Jewell,
As outlined by Hein and Howard, under this approach, at the bidding stage, BLM-and thus taxpayers-would be compensated for
both the estimated market price of the coal to be leased, as well as the option value of mining coal, as both are fixed costs. The option value of coal leasing
includes not only the uncertainties associated with future coal prices, but numerous other factors about which BLM may obtain additional information. Key
uncertainties for BLM to carefully consider include:
l the magnitude of risk from externalities, such as methane emissions, particulate matter emissions, and
potential aquifer overdraft; as a recent example of unaccounted for externalities, methane leakage from natural gas distribution pipelines was found to be five
times greater than the most recent EPA estimates;170
(footnote 170 Weller, Z. et al, A National Estimate of Methane Leakage from Pipeline Mains in Natural
Gas Local Distribution Systems (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020). )
l the development rate of pollution-prevention technologies, as well as technologies that may
better protect worker safety; l the cost of externalities, including the social cost of carbon and the social cost of methane;
Anderson
Shannon
40 Powder River Basin
100(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Resource Council
l the competing uses of federally-owned lands, such as for renewable energy siting, biodiversity conservation, and climate adaptation and resilience; l the coal
reserve estimates, which may affect the long-term availability and price of accessible coal; and l the climate sensitivities, such as climate conditions that may
exacerbate the damaging effects of air or water pollution, or consequences for land values near production sites171
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
24 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
(footnote 171 Hein and Howard at 18. )
Table 2 works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the net methane emissions from US coal production from surface mines, and the emissions per
Metric Ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per Metric Ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty increases based on
these costs. Based on the US national average mine-mouth price, the suggested royalty increase on surface-mined coal production is 3.9%. Based on the US price
of coal delivered to the electric power sector, the suggested royalty increase on surface-mined coal production is 2.1%. This suggested royalty increase is much
lower than that on coal mined underground, because underground coal production releases far more methane than surface mining.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
27 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Social Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Power Plants, and Suggested Royalty Increases
Table 6 works through five years of recent data (2015
to 2019) on the US carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the emissions per Metric Ton of coal mined, and the social cost of those emissions
in dollars per Metric Ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty increases based on these costs. The suggested royalty increases are based on three different
prices, the price of coal mined underground using the average US underground coal mouth-mine price (Column 16), to be levied on coal mined underground; the
price of surface-mined coal using average US surface-mined coal mouth-mine price (Column 17), to be levied on surface-mined coal; and the price of US coal
delivered to the electric power sector (Column 18), to be levied on both coal mined underground and surface-mined coal. These suggested royalty increases are
159.74%, 234.33%, and 221.40%.
The reason that these recommended royalties are so high is that, per Metric Ton of coal burned, twice as much carbon dioxide
emissions are produced (Column 5). We were surprised that this was physically possible, and thought the data potentially erroneous. We queried Glenn McGrath
and Rosalyn Berry, who manage this data for the US EIA, about how this could be. Dr. Glenn McGrath, the Leader of the Electricity Statistics Uranium Statistics
and Product Innovation Team at the US Energy Information Administration, responded. The reason is "found in the chemistry of fossil fuel combustion. Burning 1
lbs. of coal will emit just over 2 lbs of CO2 of which carbon accounts for 0.56 lbs."(Email communication of Glenn McGrath of Sept 8, 2021, to M. Bass).
Because this royalty is higher than the market price, we recommend in Section 4 to allow the market price of coal to float, and to incorporate the social costs of
carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal by levying a fee rather than a royalty. This fee would be the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions per metric ton of
coal, or 2.002550927 (Table 6, Column 5, Average 2015-2019) multiplied by the social cost of carbon dioxide per metric ton ($51.00 in 2020 dollars), or a total
of $102.13 in 2020 dollars. This would be levied on all coal produced on federal lands, because the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are the same
whether that coal was obtained from underground or surface-mined coal.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
37 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Through Discretionary Actions of the Secretary of the Interior and BLM, the Coal Leasing Program Has Become Largely Non-Competitive, and Royalties Are
Frequently Cut
There are five ways in which the Secretary of the Interior and BLM have taken active measures to reduce competition or permitted lack of
competition in its coal leasing program, and as a result are failing to meet their mandate to obtain fair market value from coal companies operating on federal
lands. These are: 1) Decertifying the six major coal-producing regions of the US; 2) Allowing non-competitive bids for coal leases; 3) Making discretionary lease
modifications that devalue coal by as much as 80%; 4) Allowing for discretionary deductions from the base royalty rates; and 5) Setting royalty rates based on the
mouth-mine price which is subject to manipulated captive sales.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-137
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
40 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Third, the minimum royalty rates are often discarded through discretionary royalty rate deductions, undercutting the whole royalty regulatory structure.
Currently, BLM has the authority to grant royalty rate deductions if (1) it encourages the greatest ultimate recovery of the coal resource; (2) its in the interest of
conservation of the coal and other resources, (3) if it's necessary to promote development of the coal resource, or (4), if the federal lease cannot be successfully
operated under its terms (43 C.F.R. §§3473.3-2(e), 3485.2(c)(1)). Royalty rate reductions are so frequent though that they undermine the whole royalty structure
of coal: they have been granted on approximately 36% of leases offered for sale since 1990 (Haggerty, Jan 2015). In some regions, the issuance of royalty rate
reductions has become so routine that the effective rates paid have periodically dropped to less than half the legal minimum (Lappen, Feb 1, 2021). Just in the first
seven months of this administration, the Department of the Interior granted royalty rate reductions three times for coal mining operations on federal lands, and in
at least one of these cases making a huge 75% royalty rate reduction for underground coal, from 8% to just 2% (Marshall, Aug 25, 2021).
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
45 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Add a fee on both underground-mined coal and surface-mined coal produced on federal lands, for the carbon dioxide gases emitted from burning coal in the
electric power sector, that would currently be assessed at $102.13 (in 2020 dollars) per Metric Ton of Coal Produced, and that would grow over time with the
GDP inflator index. This policy recommendation would only be relevant if BLM does not immediately ban coal leases for coal destined for the electric power
sector and the incineration sector.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
46 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
An immediate ban on federal coal leases for coal destined for the electric power sector and the incineration sector is the only reasonable policy conclusion that
one can draw from our analysis. This analysis is based upon the well-reasoned expert methodology for calculating the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions
from coal (Hein and Howard, Dec 2015, Table 1), and incorporates the middle-of-the-road greenhouse gas prices from US Interagency Working Group on Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases (Feb 2021, Tables ES-1 and ES-2, Average Discount Rate 3%), and pulls in the latest data available from the US Environmental
Protection Agency and the US Energy Information Administration. A ban on coal mining on federal lands in three years may also sound like an aggressive and
market-disrupting step. Table 8 compiles all our analysis on suggested royalty increases. These are a minimum of 183% to 256.2%, for coal mined underground,
and 235.8% to 250.7% for surface-mined coal. These are so high, that in fact they are over the market price of coal by up to more than double. The reason that
these are over 100% is that the royalty increases we reached for carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are 159.7% to 234.3% (see Table 6), because the
social costs of these emissions are currently around double the current market price of coal facing the electric power sector.
It is clear that the social damage
costs of greenhouse gas emissions are so high that it is untenable for any coal mining to continue on federal lands. Companies cannot pay royalties over the
market price (i.e. over 100%), as they would go bankrupt. Yet, if coal mining continues on federal lands without covering these damages, BLM is choosing to
prioritize coal company interests over the economic interests of all US taxpayers, for whom it holds these lands in trust. To meet the statutory and administrative
duties of the Secretary of the Interior and of BLM discussed in Section 4.1-4.3, the balance of interests weighs far towards that of the US taxpayer than towards
that of the coal companies.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
23 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Table 1 works through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the net methane emissions from US coal production from underground mines, and the
emissions per Metric Ton of coal mined, and what the social cost of those emissions are in dollars per Metric Ton of coal, and finally, the appropriate royalty
increases based on these costs. Based on the US national average mine-mouth price, the suggested royalty increase on underground coal production is 15.1%.
Based on the US price of coal delivered to the electric power sector, the suggested royalty increase on underground coal production is 22.5%.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
25 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Table 3 and Table 4 work through five years of recent data (2015 to 2019) on the net methane emissions from coal production from underground mines, (Table
3), and surface mines (Table 4) but are limited to only those states that mine on federal and Native American lands. In contrast to Table 1 and Table 2, which used
the average US mouth-mine price and average US price of coal delivered to the electric power sector to suggest new royalty increases, these two tables provides
suggested royalty increases relative to what are arguably the most relevant prices, the average prices of coal production from only states with mining on federal
and Native American lands. However, what we found shocking was how many of these states were allowed to withhold mouth-mine prices for underground and
surface-mined coal, providing to the federal government only the average between underground and surface-mined coal. Because of this, the royalty increases are
skewed toward average prices between the two types of mining. The recommended royalty increase based on these few states is 26.7% for coal mined
underground, and 2.9% for surface-mined coal. As with Table 1 and Table 2, the suggested royalty increase is much lower for surface mined coal than coal mined
underground, because underground coal production releases much more methane than surface mining.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
29 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Table 8 compiles all the forgoing data on suggested royalty increases and royalty totals. The royalty totals are a minimum of 183% to 256.2%, for coal mined
underground, and 235.8% to 250.7% for surface-mined coal. These are so high, that in fact they are over the market price of coal by up to more than double. The
reason for this is that the royalty rates we reached for carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are 159.7% to 234.3% (see Table 6), because the social costs of
these emissions are currently around double the current market price of coal facing the electric power sector. Our first conclusion leading from these findings is
that the costs are so high that it is untenable for any coal mining to continue on federal lands. Companies would obviously go bankrupt if they had to pay more in
royalties than they could receive from the coal market. Banning coal mining on federal lands where the numbers lead, and best protects US taxpayers from the
damages from greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to recall that the US taxpayer is the ultimate landowner of public lands, as the government holds these in
trust for the public. Furthermore, as presented in Section 4.3 of the Discussion, there are longstanding policies and case law that landowner lessors should be
compensated by lessees for damages incurred from mining.
C-138
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bass
Margot
Organization
Letter # Name
45 Essential Information, Inc.
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
30 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
A second potential conclusion is to allow the price of coal to float and incorporate these costs. In that case, we recommend that the costs of the methane and
carbon dioxide emissions from the mining itself be combined into a royalty appropriate to whether the coal were surface-mined or mined underground, and then
an additional fee be levied on that coal to incorporate the damages of burning coal. We recommend that these be based upon the market price of coal to obtain
fair market value for the coal. Thus, these fees would be for underground coal, the base fee of 8%, plus 22.5% (Table 8, Column 5, Row Underground Mining), plus
0.3% (Column 7, Row Underground Mining), for a total of 30.8%. Similarly, the fees for surface-mined coal would be the base fee of 12.5%%, plus 2.1% (Table 8,
Column 5, Row Surface Mining), with the fee for carbon dioxide from mining activities unknown (Column 7, Row Surface Mining), for a total of 14.6%. Then, the
additional fee would be the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions per metric ton of coal burned, or 2.002550927 (Table 6, Column 5, Average 2015-2019)
multiplied by the social cost of carbon dioxide per metric ton ($51.00 in 2020 dollars), or a total of $102.13 in 2020 dollars. This fee would be levied on all coal
produced on federal lands, because the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are the same whether that coal was obtained from underground or surfacemined coal.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
47 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Prior to the three-year ban on coal production on federal lands, BLM needs to implement royalties that cover the costs of upstream greenhouse gas emissions
(methane and carbon dioxide) from the coal mining activities themselves. We based our royalty totals in Recommendations 4(a) and 4(b) on the national average
price of coal facing the electric power sector. We think this is the most appropriate price to use, because it is a fair market value price that is not manipulated by
captive sales (which the mouth-mine prices are, as discussed in Section 4.5. It also factors in the price of coal across all states on public and private lands. Using
the average prices from only those states where federal lands are used to produce coal is already influenced by the subsidies BLM has been giving, and therefore is
not a fair market value either. The recommended royalty rates are high enough that they will ensure that coal production takes into full account the social costs
of greenhouse gas emissions produced from coal mining. Again, if those costs are not taken into account, the US government is subsidizing US coal production at
the direct and costly expense of the US taxpayer.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
51 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
In addition, there are the impacts of coal mining on the land and water that are not factored into our recommended royalty increases. For example, surface coal
mining that removes mountaintops has been linked to birth defects in nearby communities (Ahern, Hendryx, et al., 2011). Surface coal mining can also pollute
local waterways and contaminate underground drinking water resources (Hendryx, Zullig, and Luo, 2020). These are significant costs to burden US taxpayers
with. We hope that these impacts and costs are addressed in other public comment submissions. In addition, the Department of Interior and the BLM, with so
much data and scientific prowess at their disposition, should calculate these costs and incorporate them into royalty structures as part of their duty to US
taxpayers to get fair market value from coal.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
53 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Hein and Howard (December 2015) recommend that in addition to factoring the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions into royalty prices for coal production,
the social costs of transportation via the rail industry should also be included. However, we disagree. The federal government needs to evaluate the impacts and
social costs for each industry, and regulate each one accordingly. Having the coal industry bear the social costs of the rail industry seems like an unfair burden.
Furthermore, the trucking industry- as an alternate form of transport to rail- should also be assessed for its social costs if rail is to be. If the social costs of these
industries are included in the prices set by these industries, transportation costs will be paid for appropriately by the coal industry.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
54 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
We do recommend that there be no deductions for transportation in establishing royalty rates for coal companies, if royalties are calculated using the market
price of coal delivered to the electric power sector. Surprisingly, current regulations allow for unlimited transportation deductions (30 C.F.R. §1206.261 (a)). This
is an inappropriate subsidy, as again the costs of emissions and other impacts of transport should not be paid by the US taxpayer, but by the industries providing
the service.
Bass
Margot
45 Essential Information, Inc.
56 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
In addition, these royalty recommendations should serve as the model for royalties from oil and natural gas production on federal lands. Like coal, production of
these fossil fuels cause major greenhouse gas emissions, and so too have hefty social costs on the US taxpayer. The playing field should be fair and competitive in
terms of royalties on fossil fuels produced on federal lands, and should take into account the full social costs of each. Furthermore, these royalty
recommendations should also serve as models for tariffs to be levied on imported coal, crude oil, and natural gas, as the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions
from fossil fuel production are global, not local, and thus are costs to be bourn by the US taxpayer. If coal produced on federal land is assessed for royalties that
include the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions, and imported coal is not, the market will simply move to imported coal and the social costs of greenhouse
gas emissions will not have been addressed.
December 2021
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-139
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bucks
Dan
Organization
Letter # Name
27 Public Revenues Consulting
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
14 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
A new system of coal planning and leasing might well begin with a national analysis of energy supply and demand and the largest scale of external effects of coal use
and production, especially climate change. The analysis would be updated periodically such as every 5 to 7 years and would be subject to public comments as it is
conducted. It would be relevant to and used to support both the leasing and, as explained in the next section, the royalty system. For leasing purposes, this
analysis would seek to answer the question, "How much federal coal should be leased in the foreseeable future?" Answering that question would require
addressing subsidiary questions related to estimates of the range of coal needed to supply energy demand, methods of minimizing the harmful effects of coal
through substitution of other fuels or changes in technology for using coal, and other relevant issues. For adverse effects of coal production that cannot be
eliminated through other means, the analysis could produce estimates of changes in royalties to compensate society for the social costs of carbon. Once
completed, the national analysis would yield a target level of coal to be leased broken down by coal production regions along with an accompanying target level of
alternative, renewable energy that might be developed on federal land. Because the level of future coal production is likely to be less than in the past, Interior
could also work with other federal agencies and state and local governments to develop strategies to assist coal dependent communities and workers in adjusting
to changing energy circumstances. The thread of activity related to coal communities and workers would also be carried through to the regional and community
level as a part of mitigating the socioeconomic impacts of the life cycle of federal coal production. With the targets for both coal and alternative energy
production from federal lands, a public planning process could then proceed within each coal production region. The end results of the regional planning process
would be to prepare plans and boundaries for broad tracts for coal leasing, tracts of federal land for renewable energy development and mitigation strategies
associated with both. Particular attention could be paid to develop tracts for future coal leasing large enough to meet two criteria. The tracts should be large
enough to have the potential for attracting competitive bids to help attain a fair return for the public. They should also be of sufficient size to effectively evaluate
the environmental and socioeconomic effects of additional development and develop associated mitigation strategies to minimize costs and maximize benefits
associated with future development.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
15 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
In terms of methodologies, the regional planning process could draw on the policies, strategies and practices called for in Secretarial Order 3330, "Improving
Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of Interior," issued by Secretary Jewell in October 2013, and in the report of Interior's Energy and Climate
Change Task Force of April 2014, "A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of Interior." Landscape-scale approaches to
the development and conservation of resources could be applied as much as possible throughout the regional planning process. In addition, strategies that focus
on natural resources should be supplemented by methods of evaluating how socioeconomic conditions and energy infrastructure in the region are affected by coal
and alternative energy development. Addressing the needs of coal communities and workers and encouraging the efficient common use of energy transmission
facilities by multiple sources of energy are among the topics that could be addressed in this process. The regional planning would be transparent and be assisted by
active public participation throughout.
Interior would need to develop policies and practices around the timing of decisions to offer for leasing planned tracts for
energy development. Timing decisions are significant for securing a fair return for the public as well as effectively implementing mitigation strategies for
development.
Once offered for leasing, Interior should adapt for its use the transparent process used by Montana to lease its Otter Creek coal tracts. An
appraisal process would yield a proposed minimum bid that would be subject to public hearings and comment. After the public process, Interior would decide and
announce the minimum bid it had set for the tract and would proceed to solicit proposals for leasing. Although bids would be submitted in a sealed process, they
would be opened and announced publicly. Decisions by Interior to accept bids, along with their terms and amounts, would likewise be released publicly.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
16 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
This broad outline of public leasing process should be evaluated and refined through the PEIS. The development of a public coal planning and leasing process of this
type should include: · an evaluation of gaps in information sources, · the need for new analytical tools to support the process, · methods of coordinating the
process with other public agencies and levels of government, · procedures for effectively securing public participation in the process, and · consideration of
other tools and practices needed to enable the process to work effectively.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
19 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisors recommends adopting this approach of direct valuation based on market prices and approach and outlines
how it would work:
Under a framework analogous to property taxes, the market value for coal should be based on sales prices of coal with similar
characteristics, from both Federal lands and non-Federal lands. Under such a framework, the most appropriate price to use would be the market price for coal
with similar characteristic in the region of coal extraction.9
(Footnote 9 Council of Economic Advisors, June 2016, p 8.)
The report further stated: There is
strong economic support for setting coal lease royalty terms based on the final delivered price of coal, less adjustments for the heat content, quality, and location
of coal. These adjustments are crucial to make sure coal is assessed on its true economic value.
Similarly, establishing lease royalty terms based on relevant
(adjusted) market prices for comparable coal or coal substitutes is important to ensure a fair return to the taxpayer. The relevant market price could be the
average price of nearby regional coal, the price of nationwide coal, or the price of a substitute in the electricity dispatch orders: natural gas.10
p 4.)
(Footnote 10 Id.,
Direct valuation makes it possible to eliminate all underreporting associated with creative accounting by producers-including inflated deductions and
exclusions that are not remedied by even the newly adopted ONRR rules. Further, it removes all incentives for producers to continuously explore and employ
new accounting methods and legal structures for royalty avoidance purposes. It contains the additional benefit to the coal companies, Interior and the public of
not delaying disputes over royalty payments up to eight years down the road long after production occurs. Disputes will be minimized and addressed upfront,
soon after the time of production for which current payments are made. That enhances the certainty of the royalty for all parties and yields substantial
administrative efficiencies.
David Hayes, former Deputy Secretary of Interior, speaking at the recent New York University Institute for Policy Integrity Federal
Coal Workshop on June 29, 2016, expressed support for Interior directly valuing coal, noting that coal is a commodity and, as such, it should be feasible to
determine its value. This idea that the value of coal for royalty purposes should be based on the value of the commodity in the marketplace also reveals a further
difference between the direct valuation approach vs. producer self-assessment. Direct valuation yields a value for coal in the market (adjusted to the mine via the
transportation deduction). Producer self-assessment yields a value for coal to the producer. As such producer self-assessment, besides all the other problems
already cited, makes the royalty values and payments dependent on the managerial performance, market acumen and operational efficiency of the producer.
C-140
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Bucks
Dan
Organization
Letter # Name
27 Public Revenues Consulting
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
19(continued) 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
The public should not be shortchanged because producers fail to secure the full value of its coal in the marketplace or use inefficient transportation methods, yet
the self-assessment system. From an economic perspective, as reflected in CEA report, direct valuation yields royalty payments that reflect the true value of coal
as a commodity in the marketplace-which is the standard of the Mineral Leasing Act. In terms of securing adequate data for the periodic modeling of market price
data, Interior should continue requiring information reporting on coal sales from producers of federal coal. Interior could also gather market data from the Energy
Information System and from state sources. In his NYU workshop remarks, Hayes noted state electrical utility commission records contain a wealth data on coal
purchase prices that Interior could use in the valuation process. The same is true of state coal severance tax records, especially for non-federal coal. Interior
should systematically identify, test and develop key sources of market price data for use in direct valuation during the PEIS. Interior should also create the
administrative systems to collecting and validating the data during the PEIS. In a direct valuation system, Interior would also develop the cost of the allowable
transportation deductions based on the most efficient means of transport. Again, the PEIS process should be used to identify public and private sources of data,
starting with the Surface Transportation and continuing producer reports, for accomplishing this task. Transportation deductions are retained to adjust the value
of coal back to the mine and take the location of coal out of the valuation equation as noted by the CEA report. The PEIS is also an opportunity for Interior to
reevaluate the washing deduction in a larger economic and policy context. Washing activities are, in fact, simply the last step in extracting coal and placing the
commodity in a marketable condition. There is no clear justification for allowing this deduction. It is a potential source of producer abuses that the CEA report
notes is a "poorly observable cost." More importantly, it is inconsistent with valuing coal as a commodity in the marketplace because it takes the point of valuation
back to a stage where coal is not yet a commodity. Once gathered, market price data for different types and quality of coal would be validated to ensure the data
reflects arm's length sales and is otherwise reliable.
Bucks
Dan
27 Public Revenues Consulting
19(continued) 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
The validated data would then be placed into statistical models used in property valuation contexts to produce market values for coal. Such models applied well
are administratively efficient and produce values at a high level of accuracy and reliability. The models also can be used to produce values for coal of a type and
quality for which market data is not readily available through adjustments from the value of coal of different type and quality, for which data is available. If
necessary, such values can be further tested using other financial and economic analytical methods. Transportation deduction allowances are more likely to be
established based on traditional accounting analysis, but statistical techniques may also be applicable in some instances. Interior should test statistical modeling and
other analytical techniques using market price data during the PEIS. Ideally, by the latter stages of this process, Interior would have sufficient tested a direct
valuation system to implement it soon after the completion of the PEIS. The market values for coal and transportation deductions generated under a direct
valuation system would be posted publicly as would the lease by lease payments of royalties based on those values, achieving openness and transparency for the
royalty process. This is possible, in part, because, as in property tax valuation systems, these publicly established values and payments cannot be considered
proprietary. Underlying market price data used in the modeling may, in many cases, be proprietary and would continue to be fully protected from disclosure.
Again, this occurs in property tax administration. Confidential data used to value property is protected, but the publicly established values and payments based
thereon are fully public. The methods of generating the values of coal do not allow tracing back from the public values to producer financial records. If rare and
unique circumstances exist where such might occur, the values in those case could be protected. However, that would be a rare exception and not a general rule.
Direct valuation would equitably and reliably achieve a fair return for the taxpayers based on the true market value of coal adjusted for heat content, quality and
location of coal. For the first time ever, the standard of value laid out by (?) the Mineral Leasing Act would be attainable. Undue producer influence over royalty
values and payments and distortions of royalties caused by producer inefficiencies and managerial shortcomings would end. Direct valuations would finally enable
the public to know what they are being paid in royalties they own. Transparency would operate over time to help ensure the integrity of the royalty process in
ways entirely unattainable at present in a system where royalty values and payments are kept secret. Public trust and confidence in the coal royalty system would
increase.
Fay
Alexa
85 N/A
Gordon
Mark
23 Governor of Wyoming
1 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
17 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
there should be an increase in the fees charged to lessees from 8% to 12% of revenue to to commensurate with the damage that coal extraction and use cause to
the environment.
Wyoming is a leader in CCS/CCUS law, policy, regulation and projects. More than a decade ago, the Wyoming Legislature separately enacted a statutory
framework for CCS and CCUS projects, including permitting. That framework: · Specifies who owns the pore space (Wyo. Stat. 6C 34-1-152 (2020)); ·
Establishes permitting procedures and requirements for CCS sites, including permits for time-limited research (id. § 35-11-313); · Provides a mechanism for postclosure "measurement, monitoring and verification" ("MRV") via a trust fund approach (id. § 35-11-318); · Provides a mechanism for unitization of storage
interests (id. §,' 35-11-314, 315, 316, 317); · Specifies that the injector, not the owner of pore space, is generally liable (id. § 34¬]-153); · Clarifies that vis-à-vis
storage rights, production rights are dominant but cannot interfere with storage (id. § 30-5-501); and · Provides a certification procedure for CO2 incidentally
stored during enhanced oil recovery (id. 5C 30-5-502).
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
6 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
First, the government needs to get a handle on how much federal coal is needed. Second, it must decide how to adjust the mine leases to produce the amount
Economics and Financial
needed. Third, it must figure out how to work with all stakeholders to create a smooth decline of the amount of coal under federal lease. And, fourth, it must
Analysis
determine how to design and pay for the longer-term close-out costs of an industry that once served the nation's economic and national security needs.
To
direct this effort, the Interior secretary will require the support of many federal agencies. Typically, a president can create a Cabinet-level commission that can
mobilize multi-department resources needed to address the issues. IEEFA proposes such a commission, both to complete the moratorium planning process and to
oversee its implementation.
Heston
December 2021
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
10 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
A program of early lease terminations should be adopted that facilitates the decline of the reserves under federal leasing in an orderly manner. Pending more
Economics and Financial
detailed analyses, the initial focus should be on terminating leases covering mines with 8,400 BTU coal. a. Additional program options can be considered going
Analysis
forward for the higher BTU coal reserves under lease.
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
C-141
C. Comments by Issue Category
Last Name
First Name
Heston
Vivienne
Organization
Letter # Name
22 Institute for Energy
Comment
Number
Comment
Code
Number
12 510.0000.00
Comment Code
Name
Comment Text
Policy Option presented
Early coal termination lease proposals to the Interior Department should be accompanied by a remediation plan by the coal lessee. a. For lessees planning to
Economics and Financial
terminate a lease, the federal government will offer an incentive package. Incentives to terminate a lease will be based on whether the early coal termination is
Analysis
accompanied by a plan to remediate the mines under lease. b. For those lessees that do not file an early lease termination with a remediation plan, incentives
should be limited to a payment of no more than 50% of the estimated profits from remaining extractable coal tons under lease. Remaining extractable coal tons
should be based on the model created by the secretary's committee under the moratorium research protocol outlined above.
Heston
Vivienne
22 Institute for Energy
13 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
For companies filing an early lease termination with a plan of remediation, federal settlement payments should be based on a sliding scale designed to achieve a
Economics and Financial
financially sound, environmentally sustainable plan of remediation supported by the following revenue sources: a. Bond obligations of the lessee created under
Analysis
leases to comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); b. Fifty percent of the federal government's early-termination-with-remediationplan payments to coal lessees; c. Any such state resources supplied under supplemental programs established under state law; and d. Any equity contributions
provided by the lessee, its successors or from partners or other entities investing in the future ownership and or use of the site for economic development
purposes. The source of such contributions can be from private for-profit, private non-profit or public corporations organized under U.S. law.
Johnson
Redge
32 Public Lands Policy
29 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Coordinating Office
In 2017, the Utah Governor's Office of Energy Development (OED) published a report entitled Advancing Utah Coal: Technology, Policy, and a Path Forward.17
(Footnote: 17 https://energy.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/Advancing-Utahs-Coal.pdf )
This report provides a framework and recommendations for the
advancement of strategic coal technologies and a sustainable coal economy in Utah. Consistent with that report, the BLM should implement a cost benefit analysis
of all its environmental regulations within the coal leasing program. Numerous environmental regulations have been proposed or implemented to address goals
that range from improving water quality to decreasing global warming. Some mandates have advanced without thorough consideration of costs and benefits,
resulting in policies that drive higher costs and only marginal progress toward environmental goals. Assessing the full cost of current and proposed regulations and
mandates, including economic and security impacts, can provide better energy and environmental gains.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
16 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Law Program
II. BLM Should Take Immediate Steps to Address Harm from Federal Coal Leasing That Do Not Require the Completion of BLM's Planned Review of the Federal
Coal Program. BLM has ready tools to reduce the negative impacts of federal coal production immediate, with the target of phasing out federal coal production
altogether as necessary to avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. As discussed above, BLM has a solid foundation for immediate coal program
reforms to reduce or eliminate the climate and non-climate impacts of federal coal production preliminarily analyzed in the 2017 Scoping Report and vetted
through the preceding public processes. While we support BLM's further review of aspects of the program-including the consideration of the program's
greenhouse gas emissions as a component of all such emissions from federal fossil fuels-BLM can and should take actions in the near term to reduce the climate
change impacts of federal coal production at the same time it studies longer-term measures to eliminate those impacts. Thus, we urge the BLM to take the
following immediate actions that do not require additional study in a comprehensive review: 1. Pause all new leases and lease modifications during the upcoming
review; 2. Cancel all leases illegally approved under the Trump Administration and invalidated by federal courts, including the Alton coal lease in Utah; 3.
Incorporate the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane into the royalty rate for existing federal coal leases as they come up for 10-year renewals; 4.
Deny all pending and future requests for royalty relief as improper fossil fuel subsidies.
Shoaff
Nathaniel
6 Sierra Club Environmental
53 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Law Program
i. BLM must evaluate its federal coal policies in tandem with those for oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters. BLM must consider the climate impacts of
policies that restrict - and eliminate - fossil fuel leasing on all federal lands and waters. Fossil fuels produced from America's public lands and waters account for
approximately 25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.122 [Footnote 122 Matthew D. Merrill, et al., U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sequestration in the United States: Estimates for 2005-14, Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5131 (2018),
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2018/5131/sir20185131.pdf. Attached as Exhibit 41.]
Attempting to address federal coal, but not oil and gas, would ignore the way in
which these fuels interact in the marketplace and require BLM to address climate with one hand tied behind its back. Any policies that would restrict the supply of
coal will impact oil and gas consumption, and vice versa. As the U.S. Energy Information Administration explained earlier this year, "increases in natural gas prices
are expected to reduce natural gas consumption for electricity generation, which will result in an increased share for coal . . . in the electricity generation
mix."123 [Footnote 123 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Fossil fuel production expected to increase through 2022 but remain below 2019 peak (Jan. 15,
2021), at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46496. Attached as Exhibit 42.]. That assessment is consistent with BLM's own conclusion in the 2017
federal coal scoping report that the "availability and the price of natural gas is one of the single biggest drivers of US coal demand."124 [Footnote 124 BLM 2017
coal scoping report at 5-18.]
Conveniently, BLM is currently beginning a similar review of oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, with an interim report
on the program and potential reforms still due out in early summer of 2021, just as we round into fall. As BLM concurrently begins these reviews of the federal
fossil fuel estate, it should consider the climate impacts of the programs together in order to adequately capture the choices facing BLM with respect to fossil fuels
produced from our public lands.
White
Jeff
14 N/A
4 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
1)) Buy out the coal mines for $20 billion and schedule their shutdown by 2030. 2)) Buy out America's 32,000 coal miners for at least one million dollars each plus
their pensions and healthcare benefits.
3)) Buy out Senator Manchin's coal brokerage and/or give him whatever be wants to support killing coal by 2030.
4))
Buy out the blue-collar workers who run America's coal-fired power plants.
White
Jeff
Wilcox
Tyler
14 N/A
5 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
Collaborating with Sweden, help America's steel mills convert to hydrogen by 2030.
111 N/A
4 510.0000.00
Policy Option presented
increase in the fees charged to lessees from 8% to 12% of revenue to an amount commensurate with the damage that coal extraction and use cause.Sources:*
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y*
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932773/* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620305369I am also asking for an inflationindexed amount of at least $500/tonne of emitted CO2-equivalent emissions, plus a percentage of revenue beyond that.
C-142
Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report
December 2021
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Federal Coal Program Review Comment Summary Report |
| Subject | EMPSi, Bureau of Land Management, Coal, Federal Coal Program, Public Comment |
| Author | Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Headquart |
| File Modified | 2021-12-21 |
| File Created | 2021-12-14 |