"EPA’s final determination on the Spruce Mine comes after discussions with the company spanning more than a year failed to produce an agreement that would lead to a significant decrease in impacts to the environment and Appalachian communities. The action prevents the mine from disposing the waste into streams unless the company identifies an alternative mining design that would avoid irreversible damage to water quality and meets the requirements of the law."
Not only did EPA officials try to reach a compromise, they took the extra step of hiring an independent mine engineering firm that developed an alternative plan that would have decreased environmental impacts by half while maintaining the same coal production at virtually the same cost. This proposal was obviously not accepted by Arch Coal, the company who submitted the permit. Instead, Arch Coal has set out on a publicity tirade against the decision. Joined by West Virginian politicians and the National Mining Association, it seems that this veto was all part of the coal industry's new PR plan (see Matt Wasson's Huff Post article for more on this). This veto is perfect fuel for the anti-regulatory fire being stoked by many members of the newly elected US Congress, and the coal industry can only benefit from that fire turning into a blaze (a coal-fueled blaze, that is). The National Mining Assocaition issued this fear-mongering statement about the effects this decision will have on, apparently, every single American:
"The implications could be staggering, reaching all areas of the U.S. economy including but not limited to the agriculture, home building, mining, transportation and energy sectors.
If EPA is allowed to revoke this permit, every similarly valid ... permit held by any entity -- businesses, public works agencies and individual citizens -- will be in increased regulatory limbo and potentially subject to the same unilateral, after-the-fact revocation."
By the sound of that statement, it surely would be safe to assume that this Spruce Mine permit must have been a huge opportunity for economic growth in the region...one that would have created hundreds of jobs and significantly provided for our increasing energy demands...otherwise its denial wouldn't be affecting the entire US economy. In actuality, the amount of coal that would have been mined from Spruce Mine would have increased US production by less than 1%. And the job creation? The region would have most likely lost jobs if this had been approved, because production in nearby underground mines, where real humans must be paid to excavate coal, would be shifted to the much more efficient mountaintop removal method. Coal companies have been rapidly shifting to mountaintop mining because they can save so much money by replacing miners with machines.
The day before this permit was vetoed, another energy sector announcement made news in Massachusetts. This announcement actually is of national significance in terms of the direct impact our regulatory decisions are having on American jobs. The Evergreen Solar plant announced that it is shutting its doors, moving 800 jobs to China. Their reason for closing? A lack of clean energy subsidies offered in the US in comparison to China. These subsidies are used to quickly bring new technologies to scale and drive production prices down. In the US, energy subsidies are instead given to coal companies like Arch Coal, and these misplaced subsidies have left American companies like Evergreen unable to compete with the cheaper cost of their counterpart Chinese products, thus directly leading to lost jobs for middle class America.
