BC ’04 Policy Memo: John Kerry and John Edwards - Wrong on Coal

George W. Bush ^ | August 7, 2004

[RWR8189]

MEMORANDUM
FROM: BC'04 POLICY DEPARTMENT

John Kerry says coal should play an important role in America's energy future.  He wants to "forge new ways to draw cleaner power from coal."  But John Kerry's record tells a different story—his votes and policies are aggressively anti-coal.  On every issue of importance to coal and coal miners, John Kerry has sided with environmental extremists, who, like Kerry, view coal as a "dirty energy source" that must be eradicated.

VOTED LAST YEAR FOR KYOTO-LIKE BILL
John Kerry voted for the Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139), a bill very similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which would destroy the coal industry.   Unions for Jobs and the Environment, a group that includes the United Mine Workers, called S. 139 "a bad idea," and believe that passage of S. 139 "would be tantamount to adoption of the Kyoto Protocol." (Unions for Jobs and the Environment, letter to the Senate, http://www.ujae.org/sitemap.htm -9/9/03)

According to the Energy Information Administration, the bill causes steep declines in coal use and production and eliminates thousands of coal jobs.  S. 139 would:

• Cut coal-fired electricity by 80 percent
• Cut bituminous coal production by 69 percent. 
• Destroy 56,000 coal industry jobs. 
• Cause existing coal plants in West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to shut down.  "In the S.139 case, a large proportion of existing coal capacity is projected to be retired. It is simply not economical to continue operating these plants." (Energy Information Administration, Analysis of S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, June 2003)

COSPONSORED EMISSIONS BILL WITH HILLARY CLINTON
Along with running mate John Edwards, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Kerry is a cosponsor of the Clean Power Act, introduced by liberal Vermont Sen. James Jeffords. This legislation would impose heavy burdens on coal, forcing many plants to switch to natural gas or shut down.

The Jeffords bill is so hostile to coal that the Ohio legislature, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, passed a resolution condemning it:

• "The carbon dioxide emissions cap in the bill needlessly eliminates a significant component of electric generation in the United States by effectively removing coal as a fuel source," the resolution states.  "The bill will cause electric utilities to switch from coal to natural gas because the electric utilities would no longer have the option to economically generate electricity from coal…"  (Ohio House of Representatives, S.C.R., No. 28, 124th General Assembly)

The United Mine Workers, the Utility Workers, the Boilermakers, and other labor unions oppose the Jeffords bill:

• "The union is strongly opposed to efforts to use the Clean Air Act as a vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions…Limits on carbon emissions would require switching from coal to natural gas or other higher-cost energy sources, with potentially devastating impacts on the economies of coal-producing states."  (Testimony by Eugene Trisko, the United Mine Workers, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 4/8/03) 
• "We are concerned…that the burden of proposals for removal of CO2 would fall heavily on coal, thereby making the economy dependent on other fuels, particularly natural gas." (Letter, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, 10/24/01)

Further, according to independent analysis, the Jeffords bill:

• Cuts coal-fired electric generation by 55 percent and coal production by 50 percent (EIA analysis of the Clean Power Act).
• Destroys 32,000 coal jobs. (EIA analysis of the Clean Power Act).
• Forces many coal-fired power plants to shut down, "resulting in substantial economic impacts."  (National Coal Council, "Increasing Coal Fired Generation Options Through 2010: Challenges and Opportunities," May 2002)

KERRY/EDWARDS WANT U.S. TO REENTER KYOTO
John Kerry routinely criticizes President Bush for rejecting Kyoto.  As he said last year, "Instead of renegotiating the Kyoto Treaty to improve it, he simply repudiated it." (John Kerry, environmental policy address, October 20, 2003).  And John Edwards, when asked in February by the San Francisco Chronicle whether he would support Kyoto, responded with a direct, "Yes," and said John Kerry agreed with him.  ("Warming Up To a New Treaty?" San Francisco Chronicle, 7/15/04). 

Kerry says the U.S. should "reengage with the international community" to forge a new global warming agreement, but the question remains: What would the agreement look like?  And how could any agreement calling for strict reductions in CO2 emissions not harm coal?

• Kyoto would eliminate coal use. "Under the Kyoto Protocol, coal consumption would be phased-out over the period 2010 to 2020. The result would be massive dislocations in coal producing areas..."  ("The High Cost of the Kyoto Protocol," WEFA, 1998)
• Kyoto would eliminate nearly 50,000 jobs in Ohio; 40,000 jobs in Pennsylvania; and 22,000 jobs in Michigan.  ("The Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Energy Markets and the Economy," Data Resources Inc.)
• Kyoto would be disastrous for West Virginia coal.  According to a study by West Virginia University, Kyoto would cause a 25.5 percent decline in coal mining; destroy 42,800 jobs; reduce state GDP by over $3 billion; and reduce per capita income by $393.
• The West Virginia and Ohio legislatures passed resolutions rejecting Kyoto and preventing state agencies from implementing any part of the treaty.

KERRY'S BOGUS SUPPORT FOR CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
According to his website, John Kerry says he'll spend $10 billion over the next decade on clean coal technologies.  But as the above demonstrates, you can't have clean coal without coal.  Moreover, Kerry's policies would obstruct installation of clean coal technologies, placing further burdens on the industry in meeting new Clean Air Act requirements.

John Kerry opposes President Bush's New Source Review reforms that allow utilities to upgrade their facilities with clean, energy efficient technologies, avoiding the complex, burdensome, and environmentally counterproductive permitting process unleashed by the Clinton EPA. 

• Kerry supports lawsuits filed by environmental groups now blocking President Bush's reforms.
• Kerry joined Sen. Hillary Clinton's anti-NSR reform legal brief.
• Kerry voted last year for John Edwards' amendment to delay President Bush's reforms and vows to "immediately reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks of the Nation's Clean Air Program."  
• Most critically, returning to the Clinton NSR program would thwart installation of clean coal technologies.  According to the National Coal Council, uncertainty over the Clinton NSR policy "has had a direct and chilling effect on all maintenance and efficiency improvements and clean coal technology installations at existing power plants."  (National Coal Council, "Increasing Electricity Availability in the Short Term," May 2001)

Kerry also missed the vote on last year's energy bill, and later said that had he been present, he would have voted against it.  Yet the bill included several provisions and substantial funding for clean coal technologies.

• Authorizes $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 through 2012 for clean coal research and coal-based gasification technologies.
• Authorizes funding to the Secretary of Energy for loans, and authorizes the Secretary to make loan guarantees for a variety of clean coal projects around the country.
• Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to facilitate production and generation of coal-based power and the installation of pollution-control equipment.
• Creates an investment tax credit for facilities retrofitted, repowered or replaced with clean coal technology.

KERRY OPPOSES MOUNTAIN TOP MINING
"Where we see a beautiful mountaintop, George Bush sees a strip mine." This is John Kerry's view of mountaintop mining, which employs 15,000 people and provides $21.8 million in revenue for education in West Virginia, according to a study by Marshall University.  

• In 1999, Kerry voted against Sen. Byrd's amendment to overturn a 1999 federal court decision that threatened to end mountaintop mining in West Virginia.
• Sen. Byrd said the goal of his amendment was "to allow for the continuation of our coal industry and the jobs it provides while better protecting the mountains and hollows of the state we love."
• Sen. Kerry voted against Sen. Byrd, Sen. Rockefeller, and the United Mine Workers of America, who strongly supported the amendment.
• Sen. Kerry joined forces in killing the Byrd amendment with then Vice President Al Gore, who, after initially supporting the amendment, threatened to veto any appropriations bill that included it.

A recent federal court decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, a Clinton appointee, halted 11 mountaintop mining projects in southern West Virginia.   The economic impacts, according to West Virginia economists, could be devastating.  The question is: where does John Kerry stand on this decision?

• Economist Michael Hicks and Cal Kent, former dean of Marshall University's (W.Va.) business college, said the ruling could slow the permitting process for mountaintop mining by two years, resulting in a 40 percent decline in coal production.
• "That decline, the economists predicted, could lead to layoffs, stunted investment in West Virginia - particularly in the southern Coalfields region - and less revenue for the state.  And the impact could be felt as soon as this fiscal year, they said."  ("Economists Predict Mine Ruling Will Affect W. Va. Economy," State Journal)

KERRY WANTS OLDER COAL PLANTS TO SHUT DOWN
John Kerry has a unique view of the Clean Air Act.  According to Kerry, when the Act was passed in 1970, there was a consensus that existing coal-fired power plants had a remaining life-span of 10 to 15 years.  Beyond that time, according to this view, they would be forced to install costly new pollution controls or simply shut down. 

Nearly 100 percent of the coal-fired capacity in Ohio and West Virginia was built before 1985.  According to John Kerry, these plants must install exorbitantly expensive pollution controls, which would force many plants to close, or simply shut down altogether.

• According to Sen. Hillary Clinton's legal brief, which Kerry joined, the Clean Air Act "created a limited and qualified grace period within which existing plants could continue to operate.  Accordingly, the 1970 CAA set up a simple choice for existing sources: either upgrade to new source standards or shut down."  (Joint brief of amici curiae senators, State of New York, et. al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 5/18/04)

[Vortex]

Texas Environmental Almanac, Chapter 7, Texas Energy, Page 3

<SNIP>
Coal consumption in Texas is rising faster than any other form of energy. By 2030, the state's coal consumption is expected to be about 180 million tons per year, twice as much as the state consumed in 1990.(57) However, the state's appetite for coal has caused serious pollution problems around the state. Five of the top ten sources of air pollution in the state are coal-fired electric power plants.(58) Studies have linked elevated selenium levels in a number of East Texas Lakes with nearby coal-fired power plants.(59)
<SNIP>

In 1977, natural gas accounted for 86 percent of the fuel used to generate electric power in Texas. But in 1978, Congress passed the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, which required utilities to phase out the use of natural gas as a boiler fuel by 1990. Designed as a response to perceived natural gas shortages, this requirement was later repealed when new gas supplies were discovered. However, by then, many Texas utility companies had begun developing coal supplies, which were viewed as a way to diversify their power-generation base. Today, about 40 percent of all the electricity consumed in Texas is derived from the burning of natural gas.(72) Half of the state's electricity is derived from burning coal. The balance comes from nuclear power, hydropower and renewables.

In 1990, electric power generation in the state produced 66 percent of the total sulfur dioxides, 37 percent of total nitrogen oxides and 35 percent of all the carbon dioxide emitted into the air in Texas.(73) As noted above, coal-fired power plants have been linked to acidification in several East Texas lakes. The same lakes have also been contaminated by selenium, a heavy metal linked to the coal-fired power plants.
<SNIP>

All Thanks to Carter and a Democratic House and Senate!

Let's recap:

• Five of the top ten sources of air pollution in the state are coal-fired electric power plants.
• In 1977, natural gas accounted for 86 percent of the fuel used to generate electric power in Texas.
• But in 1978, Congress passed the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, which required utilities to phase out the use of natural gas as a boiler fuel by 1990.
• Today, about 40 percent of all the electricity consumed in Texas is derived from the burning of natural gas.
• In 1990, electric power generation in the state produced 66 percent of the total sulfur dioxides, 37 percent of total nitrogen oxides and 35 percent of all the carbon dioxide emitted into the air in Texas.

We'd probably be all natural gas in Texas, by now if it wasn't for these idiots.

I wonder how Kerry voted in 1987 on the repeal of this?

[WFTR]

An important point that can be lost in the coal debate is that removing coal as a source of energy will have repercussions across industry throughout the country. When coal is stopped in favor of natural gas, we increase demand for gas. The increased demand in turn increases the price of natural gas. These increased prices mean lower profit margins for chemical companies that use natural gas as a feedstock and for companies that burn natural gas for power. When profits drop far enough, companies move to other countries where the energy supply is cheaper. Kerry can posture about outsourcing, but his efforts to remove a energy source of which we have ample supply will only push more jobs overseas.

Bill