Energy Blog

The United States is sitting on a lot of coal. If policymakers don’t want it used to generate electricity, we should be able to ship it to countries that want it, right?

Not if you’re anti-energy environmentalists. In the Pacific Northwest, groups like the Sierra Club want to stop the construction of new export facilities in Oregon and Washington that would ship coal from Wyoming and Montana to Asian markets. One of their “anything goes” tactics is launching a frivolous lawsuit against coal and railroad companies over coal dust blowing off trains traveling to ports.

Jeff Ostermayer at Shopfloor links to an op-ed by Roger McClellan, a former chairman of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee who writes that these groups’ legal argument is too simplistic:

Just because a piece of coal is found in the water or coal dust is found near a rail track does not mean humans are exposed to it. Coal is not a substance that breaks down easily. Coal is relatively innocuous. Simply moving it by trains or trucks or barges does not equate to a risk to the environment or human health.

Coal continues to play an important role in meeting energy needs around the world, with steady improvements made in its transport and use. Coal has been transported through the Northwest by rail for decades and there has never been any evidence of harm associated with this rail transport.

In an op-ed in the Bellingham Herald, Mike Elliott, a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, first notes that in his two decades of working on trains he never heard complaints about coal dust from fellow union members. Second, he explains why he supports these exports projects:

We should be supportive of responsible construction projects in the Northwest and follow established procedures for evaluating and permitting those projects. Trying to influence a legitimate process by filing nuisance lawsuits is counterproductive to U.S. industry, job creation and our economy in general.

The middle class of the 1950s and ’60s was, in large part, a blue-collar workforce that built and manufactured right here in the United States. We must remember the importance of these blue-collar jobs, sustain the ones we have and help create more of them.

Responsible projects that meet or exceed today’s environmental standards should not be delayed simply because someone can go down to the courthouse and file a lawsuit.

Judging from their behavior, these groups will use any trick in the book to oppose these export facilities and block the jobs and economic growth that will come from exporting American coal.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell just started her new job, but her department already has an important issue concerning hydraulic fracturing, the technology that’s unleashed America’s energy resurgence. The Interior Department plans to issue rules on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands in a few weeks.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations committee, the former petroleum engineer said that hydraulic fracturing is an “essential” technology. According to The Hill, she added, “It can be done safely and responsibly.”

That’s true, and it’s happened across the country hundreds of thousands of times over the past 50 years. With state-based regulation, hydraulic fracturing has led to levels of oil and natural gas production not seen in decades.

Will Jewell’s praise for hydraulic fracturing turn into good policy? As someone who has actually fracked a well, Jewell knows that hydraulic fracturing is a safe technology. It would be useful for her to review the testimony from state and local officials who testified before the House Natural Resources Committee. She’ll be reminded that states are effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing.

Montana State Senator Alan Olson:

States have successfully regulated more than 1.2 million hydraulic fracturing (HF) operations spanning sixty years; new federal mandates are not necessary given their exemplary safety record.  State rules specifically tailored to each state’s unique geologic and hydrologic conditions better protect the environment and groundwater than a one-size-fits-all federal rule.

Lynn D. Helms, Director, North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources:

Our oil and gas rules are reviewed at least every two years through a public comment process where every comment must be considered in writing.  This ensures that North Dakota regulations keep up with new technologies and economic conditions.

Cindy DeLancey, Executive Director, Wyoming County Commissioners Association:

The Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) has asked the BLM to defer regulation of hydraulic fracturing to states that have adequate hydraulic fracturing regulations in place, which certainly is Wyoming.  Proactive state regulations have the highest likelihood for successful protection of water resources because they are best able to respond to localized impacts and issues, as opposed to a redundant federal hydraulic fracturing rule.

Federal rules would only be duplicative to state regulatory efforts. Plus, adding more rules on energy production won’t reverse the trend of falling oil and natural gas production on federal lands over the last few years.

We need a regulatory environment that takes advantage of America’s energy abundance on federal, state, and private lands. This will lead to increased economic growth and jobs creation.