Global trade: The impact of massachusetts' energy policy on columbia'S mining industry

• Author: Cynthia Wildfire
• Position: J.D. candidate, May 2013, at American University Washington College of Law
• Pages: 21-21

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY21

The United States relie s heavi ly on the asser tion that

domestic coal reserves supply the nation’s elect ricity

with a continu ing secure energy source. The oft-cited

f‌igure that a 150 year supply of domestic coal is available often

underlies the energy policy debate.1 While energy plan proposals

suggest reducing dependence on foreign oil , “clean coal” tech-

nology remains the focus for electricity gen eration.2 However,

a closer look at the types of coal available displays f‌laws in this

simplistic view of total reserves. Massachusetts already imports

over eighty percent of the coal used to produce the state’s elec-

tricity from other countries, primarily Columbia .3 The resu lts

of Massachusetts’ air quality regulations reveal how shifts in

environmental regulations can m ake domestic coa l too expen-

sive to c ompete in the market, even without serious regulation

of g reenhouse gases. 4 Meanwhile, importing c oal adds to the

environmental and social problems of the countries that produce

it. Environmental regulations need to catch up to the globaliza-

tion of markets and trade, or the air quality regulations designed

to reduce power plant emissions and acid rain in Massachusetts

may translate to polluted water and damaged land in Colombia,

rather than a net global environmental improvement.5

Coal in the United States comes primarily from Western

states, with Wyoming in the lead, and from Appalachia, the his-

toric c oal mining regi on.6 Because o f the long history of coal

mining in Appalachia, the best and most accessible coal is gone,

making mining more expensive and the region unlikely to regain

its former m arket share. 7 Much of the coal from the West is

closer to the surface and cheaper to mine, but has relatively low

energy content.8 It takes about f‌ifty percent more Western coal

to produce the same amount of electricity as Appalachian coal.9

One of the benef‌its, however, of Western coal is that it is low in

sulfur, a key pollutant targeted by Clean A ir Act regulations.10

Meanwhile, Columbia’s coal has high energy content and is low

in su lfur and ash, making it ideal for power generation under

U.S. regulations.11 Ground shipping between Wyoming and New

England is expensive, particularly given that more coal is needed

to provide the same energy output, while cheaper, high quali ty

coal from Colombia can be shipped on barges to New England

at lower total cost.12

Massachusetts has enacted clean air regulations for power

plants that are str icter in some ways tha n the Clean A ir Act

regulations in place nat ionally.13 Power plants have the opti on

of ret rof‌itting, switching to renewable o r other cle aner energy

sources, or using cleaner inputs.14 Si mply switching to lower

sulfur coal that produce s fewer emissio ns is less expen sive

GLOBAL TRADE:

THE IMPACT OF MASSACHUSETTS’ ENERGY POLICY ON COLUMBIA’S MINING INDUSTRY

by Cynthia Wildf‌ire*

* Cynthia Wildf‌ire is a J.D. candidate, May 2013, at American University Wash-

ington College of Law.

than either updating emissions controls or switching to a clean

energy source.15 Power plan ts must submit compliance p lans

to the Massachusetts Depar tment of Environment al Protection

(“DEP”), and most have chosen to comply through substitution

of cleaner coals.16 In a more globalized coal market, the United

States, and particularly Massachusetts, rely more heavily on coal

imports to obtain the best quality coal at lower prices and to con-

tinue to avoid building power plants with better emissions reduc-

tion technology.

Colombian coal has a competitive advantage in part because

shipping costs from Wyoming are so h igh and the Colombian

coal industry is relatively new, allowing companies to mine the

“easy” coal that has been mine d out in Appalachia, but largely

because regulation in Colombia is lax compared to that in the

United State s.17 In Columbia, workers have few rights and are

paid substantially less, approxi mately one-seventh the pay of

U.S. c oal miners .18 The environmental impact of Col ombian

mines, parti cularly degraded water quality, ensures that the

increased expor ts fail to improve the standard of living in coal

communities .19 Colombia boasts t he world’s larges t open pit

coal mine, the scale of which increases the environmental and

social problems attendant with mining.20

If M assachusetts, or any other state, t ruly wants to lower

emissions and improve t he environme nt, regulat ions need to

mandate genu inely clean energy so urces and not merely trans-

fer the environmental costs across the globe or across sectors.

Rather tha n a llowing utilities to mee t t he requirements by

switching to low-sulfur coal from South America, Massachusetts

should t ake a longer view approach by investing in renewable

energy sources. As long as coal continues to be used, regulations

should ensure that power plants a re equipped to burn it cleanly

rather than sourcing low-sulfur coal from developing countries.

While domestic coal reserves ensure that dependence on foreign

coal wi ll not car ry the s ame risks an d foreign pol icy implica-

tions as dependence on foreign oil, states should combine their

environmental polic ies with local energy rather than searching

farther af‌ield to remain dependent on coal and resistant to a more

meaningful shift in energy policy.

Endnotes: Global Trade on page 40