Following all the partisan rancor on the Hill lately, yesterday’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House Natural Resources Committee was a breath of fresh air. It focused on two important bills that can help Appalachian communities transition to a post-carbon economy in a way that addresses the harmful environmental legacy of coal mining and promotes meaningful economic opportunities for members of those communities.
Drawing on their expertise and experience, Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Emily Hammond reviewed the bills and offered suggestions on how they could be strengthened to better accomplish these goals.
The first of the bills is the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act. In their testimony, Hammond provides a vivid example of the Cheat River to explain why this measure is so important to cleaning up the abandoned mines that still litter Appalachia. Long celebrated by white water rafters and other outdoor enthusiasts, the Cheat was left blighted by a harmful form of water pollution from coal mines called “acid mine drainage” (AMD).
In response, community members came together to form the Friends of the Cheat, an organization dedicated to cleaning up the river by using the tools available under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) — the primary federal law that governs mine cleanups. The problem is that SMCRA requires cleanups to be fully compliant with applicable Clean Water Act standards. That makes sense for when coal companies undertake cleanups of their own mines, but not when volunteer organizations with limited resources do.
As Hammond explains, the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act is designed to address this very scenario. It specifically covers groups like Friends of the Cheat, and it clarifies that the otherwise beneficial cleanups such groups undertake need not meet applicable Clean Water Act standards.
But, as Hammond notes, the bill could be strengthened. Specifically, one provision authorizes states to enter into memoranda of understanding between their natural resources agencies and their federal government counterparts for the purposes of coordinating on mine cleanups. Significantly, the bill seeks to democratize this process by permitting public comment on the memoranda before their approval. Hammond argues that this provision could be strengthened if amended to explicitly require the state to respond to any public comments it receives.
The second bill is the Mining Schools Act. This legislation would create a new grant program for eligible mining schools to support specified educational opportunities related to mining. As Hammond notes in their testimony, a key feature of this bill is that it would address some of the environmental harms associated with mining, such as through effective reclamation practices.
Hammond goes on to note that the purposes of the bill would be further advanced if the grant program could be used to support the training of students in community engagement and communication skills. As they observe, such skills have been vital to the success of the community cleanup efforts being pursued by the Friends of the Cheat. The Mining Schools Act could help ensure that such collaboration between the mining industry and affected communities becomes a regular feature in the future Appalachian economy.
This hearing in general, and Hammond’s testimony in particular, offer some important lessons on energy democracy. More importantly, the bills discussed at the hearing suggest that energy democracy — that energy policy should be truly of, by, and for the people — can provide needed common ground in these otherwise politically divided times. Let’s hope that they offer a harbinger of what is to come.
Showing 2,821 results
James Goodwin | June 15, 2023
Following all the partisan rancor on the Hill lately, yesterday’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House Natural Resources Committee was a breath of fresh air. It focused on two important bills that can help Appalachian communities transition to a post-carbon economy in a way that addresses the harmful environmental […]
Shelley Welton | June 12, 2023
The scientific concept of net-zero emissions has quickly become an organizing policy paradigm, enshrined in the Paris Agreement and manifested in thousands of “net-zero” pledges developed by countries, states, cities, and private companies. Collectively, these pledges now purport to cover more than 91 percent of the global economy. If this figure sounds too good to be true, that’s because it likely is. Net zero is anti-democratic, inequitable, and imperial. For related reasons that I focus on in this post, it is also unlikely to work as a strategy to achieve the collective global aim of net-zero carbon emissions.
Faith Duggan | June 9, 2023
Our first episode of Connect the Dots Season 7 — Climate Win: Maryland’s Climate Solutions Now Act— takes us to Maryland for a major legislative win and its key elements to success. Verchick spoke with the Center’s Katlyn Schmitt, a senior policy analyst who helped steer the Climate Solutions Now Act into law last year.
Daniel Farber | June 8, 2023
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed over 50 years ago. It created a new tool for environmental protection — the environmental impact statement. It also created the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issued guidelines for implementing NEPA in 1978. Lawyers will need to retool quickly because of recent changes. Here’s a roadmap to recent developments.
Robert L. Glicksman | May 30, 2023
The following post provides detailed analysis of the recent Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Supreme Court decision. It was originally posted to The George Washington Law Review and is cross-posted with permission. The current Supreme Court is not a friend of the administrative state. A majority of its members seem to take particular umbrage at administration of the regulatory programs […]
David Driesen | May 30, 2023
In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the federal government’s power to protect wetlands. The Court required “Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the Power of government over private property.”
William Buzbee | May 25, 2023
On May 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is the Supreme Court’s fourth foray over several decades into what count as protected “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. This language provides the key jurisdictional hook for all important federal powers under the Act.
Sidney A. Shapiro, Sophie Loeb | May 25, 2023
There are ways to meet North Carolina's carbon reduction goals and protect ratepayers from catastrophic increases in the cost of electricity, but the regulatory system is set up in a way that makes it more difficult to get to this result.
James Goodwin | May 24, 2023
Gone are the days when people thought little about energy policy — when little more was demanded than reliable access to electricity at affordable prices. Rather, more and more Americans are becoming aware how our energy choices are inextricably intertwined with other shared values. A new report from the Center for Progressive Reform looks at this growing awareness and more through the lens of energy democracy.