[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


              EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RECORD
                        ON FEDERAL COAL LEASING

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                        Wednesday, July 12, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-44
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-931 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023             
      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA		     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA		     Jared Huffman, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ			     Ruben Gallego, AZ
Garret Graves, LA		     Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	     Mike Levin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA		     Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		     Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Pete Stauber, MN		     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT		     Kevin Mullin, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI			     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Jerry Carl, AL			     Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT		     Seth Magaziner, RI
Lauren Boebert, CO		     Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR			     Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA			     Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU			     Susie Lee, NV
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
                                     
                                     
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, July 12, 2023.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Luthi, Randall, Chief Energy Advisory, Office of the 
      Governor, State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, Wyoming..............     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
    Driscoll, John, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Port of 
      Mobile, Alabama Port Authority, Mobile, Alabama............    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
    Kendall, Sara, Interim Executive Director, Western 
      Organization of Resource Councils, Washington, DC..........    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
    Adams, Matthew, Vice President and Senior Tax Counsel, Navajo 
      Transitional Energy Company (NTEC), Broomfield, Colorado...    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    30

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:


    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Alabama Port Authority, letter to Senator Shelby, dated 
          December 12, 2022......................................    57
        Rep. Stauber, letter to Secretary Haaland, dated June 28, 
          2023...................................................    58
        Governor of Alabama, letter to Secretary Haaland, dated 
          September 20, 2022.....................................    60

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Boebert

        Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Briefing, 
          February 2023, ``China permits two new coal power 
          plants per week in 2022''..............................    51
                                     


 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RECORD ON 
                          FEDERAL COAL LEASING

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, July 12, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Wittman, Fulcher, 
Rosendale, Boebert, Hunt, Collins; Ocasio-Cortez, Huffman, 
Kamlager-Dove, and Magaziner.
    Also present: Representatives Carl and Hageman.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Alabama, 
Mr. Carl; and the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Mrs. Hageman, be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Today, we are here to discuss the Biden 
administration's record on the Federal Coal Leasing Program.
    U.S. coal production has been targeted by administrative 
policies starting in the Obama administration. New coal leasing 
was halted in 2016, interrupting market forces and jeopardizing 
the livelihoods of thousands of coal miners. The Trump 
administration rightfully ended this moratorium, but the ban 
was unfortunately reinstated by the Biden administration in 
April 2021.
    We have heard this Administration say that coal is no 
longer needed for energy and is too emissions heavy to fit into 
a lower emissions future. This is an inaccurate and, frankly, 
ironic statement. While it is true that coal has decreased as a 
percentage of energy mix, much of that decrease was 
deliberately caused by intentional anti-coal policies, not by 
market forces.
    Today, coal still supplies over 20 percent of America's 
electricity, and remains the primary power source in many parts 
of the world, including Asia. China approved 106 gigawatts of 
coal-fired power last year. That is equal to two new coal 
plants a week. China and other nations are not going to stop 
using coal because the Biden administration thinks they should.
    Simply put, if the coal doesn't come from us, it will come 
from somewhere else, somewhere else with far inferior 
environmental and labor standards. America has some of the 
lowest emissions and highest grade coal in the world. As a 
witness today will testify, domestic operators have invested a 
collective $127 billion in emissions reductions. Global 
emissions will continue to decrease through technological 
innovation, as coal producers and other industries have already 
demonstrated.
    Rather than demonizing coal, we should recognize it as an 
important part of our energy mix. Over the past 2 years, we 
have seen Europe struggle to keep its lights on in the wake of 
the global energy shortage and invasion of Ukraine. Cut off 
from Russian gas, many countries turned to coal instead. 
Germany now gets about a third of its power from coal plants. 
Coal will continue to be needed for many decades to come, 
particularly as the share of renewable energy increases.
    When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, it 
is reliable forms of energy like coal that continue to power 
our world. Coal is enabling these new forms of energy. And 
since the Biden administration refuses to approve new hardrock 
mines like those in my home state of Minnesota, we are nowhere 
near the massive buildout of battery storage and other 
infrastructure needed to make renewable energy truly 
functional. Without reliable baseload power, we risk rolling 
blackouts, like those that have threatened California in recent 
years. Simply stated, it is energy sources like coal that are 
keeping the lights on across America.
    Speaking of renewables, let's not forget one of the core 
components of wind turbines: steel. Metallurgical coal, also 
known as met coal, is a specific variety of coal crucial for 
making steel. Global steel demand is undeniable, but the same 
harmful policies that block new thermal coal leasing also 
threatens met coal projects such as the Warrior Met Mine 
expansion in Alabama, which we will hear about from our 
witnesses today.
    Finally, I need to stress coal's economic importance to 
communities across the country. Federal coal production 
generates hundreds of millions of dollars for the Treasury and 
state budgets. State revenues are then used for critical 
services like education, public safety, and local 
infrastructure. The Biden administration's actions to block or 
endlessly delay coal projects deprives the United States and 
our allies of energy security, forgoes millions of dollars in 
revenue, and risks thousands of high-paying American jobs.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    I will now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This 3rd of July, we passed a milestone. It was the hottest 
day ever recorded on planet Earth. The next day, the 4th of 
July, was again a record-breaking day as the hottest day ever 
recorded on planet Earth. Just 2 days later, the global 
temperature record was broken once more. In fact, our planet 
reached the hottest day ever recorded 4 days in a row last 
week.
    For millions of Americans who are unable to access shelter 
or air conditioning, this past week was deadly. At least 14 
people died in Texas and Louisiana, and hundreds were sent to 
emergency rooms. In my home state of New York, flash flooding 2 
days ago left one person dead and entire neighborhoods flooded. 
This is the climate crisis, and this is just the beginning.
    It is for this reason that immediate and bold action is 
necessary to rapidly decarbonize every single sector of the 
U.S. economy. Coal on public lands has an especially big role 
to play in this energy transition. Coal creates the most carbon 
pollution of any energy source.
    Today, we get about 25 percent of our electricity from 
coal, but coal accounts for 55 percent of the electricity 
sector's emissions. Over 40 percent of all coal mining in the 
United States happens on public lands, and the vast majority of 
this coal is burned for energy production. In fact, the U.S. 
Geological Survey found that the Federal coal program alone is 
responsible for 13 percent of our total greenhouse gas 
pollution.
    I will say that again: the Federal coal program alone is 
responsible for 13 percent of our total U.S. greenhouse gas 
pollution.
    It is clearly time to end all new Federal coal leasing on 
public lands and invest in domestic renewable energy 
production. As part of this transition, however, we must ensure 
that we are not simply trading coal barons for solar barons. We 
must make sure that new jobs are good union jobs, and that 
miners and mining communities are given what they are owed. 
Miners not only supplied American industry and energy for more 
than a century, they literally fought and died for workers' 
rights in this country at a time when union-busting was 
enforced by private militias.
    I urge everyone in this room who is unfamiliar to look up 
the Ludlow Massacre or the Colorado Coalfield Wars to 
understand just a piece of this history.
    During the New Deal, it was coal mining organizers who led 
the way in the founding of the Congress of Industrial 
Organizations and the unionization of not just coal mining, but 
sectors like automobiles, steel, and electricity. It was these 
coal miners who formed the core of the New Deal Coalition and 
built an economy that worked for millions of Americans. Any one 
worker today who has a pension, a union, or a weekend owes some 
thanks to a coal miner, and our coal miners must be first in 
line for new jobs in the green energy economy.
    My colleagues across the aisle often point the finger at 
the Biden administration's policies, saying that they are 
hurting coal jobs. But the truth is that coal production has 
been in decline for over a decade as the market moves to 
cheaper, cleaner forms of energy.
    We know that there is only enough Federal coal under lease 
today to support around 20 more years of mining at current 
levels. We will hear from one of our witnesses today about how 
the development of metallurgical coal, which is used for steel 
production, not electricity generation, represents an 
opportunity for workers in Alabama. Nearly all metallurgical 
coal in Alabama comes from private lands, so this testimony is 
likely related to a proposed lease from the company Warrior Met 
to produce metallurgical coal on Federal land, which is 
currently under environmental review. But the idea that this 
project will spur the local economy is spurious.
    In a break from tradition, Warrior Met has not even 
approached the union for this new mine. This isn't surprising, 
as Warrior Met spent the last 2 years fighting with striking 
workers in Alabama, the longest strike in Alabama history. 
Rather than spending money on good union local jobs, Warrior 
Met has chosen to spend it on billboards in West Virginia to 
hire scab workers. Coal communities do not deserve empty 
promises from coal barons. They deserve opportunity and 
diversified economies, and they deserve to be first in line.
    This Administration created the Energy Communities 
Interagency Working Group to deliver Federal resources to help 
revitalize America's coal communities. Last Congress, we passed 
billions of dollars to create good-paying jobs, spur innovation 
and economic revitalization, and clean up abandoned mine lands 
through the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, the 
Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act. I and 
my colleagues are working tirelessly to ensure that this 
historic investment reaches the people who need it most.
    This transition will not be easy, but it is essential. And 
the future of our planet and every single working American 
depends upon it.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Now I will yield 30 
seconds to Representative Hageman to introduce our first 
witness, Mr. Randall Luthi.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my honor to 
introduce Randall Luthi, Chief Energy Advisor to Governor Mark 
Gordon, an attorney, rancher, and former Speaker of the Wyoming 
House of Representatives from Lincoln County. Randall brings an 
extensive background in government service in the private 
sector to the Governor's Office. He joined the Gordon 
administration after serving nearly 10 years as President of 
the National Ocean Industries Association. And prior to joining 
NOIA, Randall worked at the Department of the Interior, serving 
as Director of the Minerals Management Service and Deputy 
Director of the Department's Fish and Wildlife Service.
    He served in various other capacities specifically focusing 
on energy and environmental issues. And on a personal note, he 
also served with my father in the Wyoming Legislature, and I 
have known Randall for over 30 years.
    Thank you for being here and providing us with your 
valuable testimony and information.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Luthi, you have 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF RANDALL LUTHI, CHIEF ENERGY ADVISORY, OFFICE OF 
       THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF WYOMING, CHEYENNE, WYOMING

    Mr. Luthi. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you for this opportunity to 
meet with you today and talk about the importance of coal to 
Wyoming's people, her economy, and to our nation.
    Today's hearing is to examine the Biden administration's 
record on Federal coal leasing. And from an overall energy and 
economic view, I would give it the following grades: D for 
disappointing; E for a Federal program that is basically 
extinct; F for failure to capitalize on the economic and 
environmental benefit of coal. And I would even go for an I for 
inaction on important permits.
    The most glaring defect of the Federal coal leasing program 
is the fact there is no coal leasing program. In Wyoming, the 
last Federal coal lease was offered in 2012, long before the 
current Administration. However, this Administration has done 
nothing to correct the situation.
    Wyoming embraces an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We 
recognize the need and value in having a diverse energy 
production portfolio, including coal. And thank you, 
Representative Hageman, for that kind introduction.
    Approximately 48 percent of Wyoming's surface land is 
federally managed, 67 percent of the mineral estate is 
federally controlled. Over 80 percent of the federally leased 
coal comes from the Wyoming Powder River Basin. And due to that 
ownership, it is nearly impossible for any operator to continue 
mining in the short- and long-term future if the coal leasing 
does not resume, even though it takes 10 to 12 years for a coal 
lease to go through the evaluation process. Unfortunately, 
these permitting time frames are not limited to coal. It took 
15 years to permit the TransWest transmission line, which will 
carry electricity from the nation's largest onshore wind farm, 
located in southern Wyoming.
    It is also important to note that there are increasing 
warnings from various regional transmission organizations and 
even members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that 
the rapid deployment from fossil fuel plants is causing grid 
reliability concerns in part of the country, often when it is 
needed most. The reliability of coal-fired power plants is 
essential.
    So, back to I for inaction. There are two plan amendments 
pending at Interior. These are not new leases, but involve coal 
that was sold years ago that are part of a phased development. 
The Black Butte Mine amendment was submitted in January 2021. 
The coal within this plan has gone through three NEPA reviews 
and three public comment processes. Given that length of time 
and the increase in enhanced security, I can only surmise that 
this is a deliberate delay.
    The other one is the West Antelope lease. My written 
testimony also identifies no action on approval of a proposal 
to let old wind turbines be placed into coal mines that are 
being reclaimed. This amendment was published on August 4, 
2021. There was no public comment received, so it shouldn't 
have taken any time to analyze those public comments. This 
proposal would lessen the pressure on local landfills, benefit 
wind companies, and benefit people working in the reclamation 
of coal mines, yet no action.
    My closing comments concern the failure to use coal as a 
tool to meet even the Administration's climate goals. Wyoming 
exports about 93 percent of our energy. If we use technology to 
decarbonize our energy production, it benefits consumers across 
the nation. Governor Mark Gordon was one of the first governors 
to set a net zero carbon emissions goal. However, changes in 
the Wyoming energy are going to be on our terms.
    As the Governor has often said, burning coal is not the 
issue. It is a release of CO2. We embrace 
technologies like carbon capture, utilization, and storage. 
Some of Wyoming's and the nation's coal-fired power plants are 
ideal for carbon capture. Coal and emission goals are not 
incompatible.
    Wyoming, along with the Federal Department of Energy, are 
also developing alternative products from coal. Coal is a 
possible source for rare Earth elements and critical minerals 
needed for energy technologies, such as wind turbines and 
batteries. The Carbon Engineering Initiative at the School of 
Energy Resources focuses on the ability to manufacture value-
added high-carbon content products from coal. Products under 
development include asphalt, roofing materials, building 
materials, graphene oxide, soil amendments, polymer products, 
carbon membranes for water purification, and graphite, which is 
an important component of electric vehicle batteries.
    Why halt these promising innovations due to a lack of coal 
leasing? I can only ask why again. Again, it appears the 
Administration does not seem to value coal and its many uses 
just because it is coal.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Luthi follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Randall Luthi, Chief Energy Advisor--Governor 
                              Mark Gordon
    Good Morning Chairman Stauber, Vice Chairman Hunt and Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you 
today. I greatly appreciate the chance to talk with you about the 
importance of coal to Wyoming, our nation and its role in addressing 
energy security, and economic and environmental issues of today. The 
purpose of today's hearing is to examine the Biden Administration's 
record on federal coal leasing. From an overall energy and economic 
view, it is my belief that the record is disappointing, at best, and 
misses an opportunity to provide the nation with an all-of-the-above 
energy approach that will benefit all Americans. The most glaring 
defect with federal coal leasing under this Administration is that 
there is not any leasing. In Wyoming, the last federal coal lease was 
offered in 2012, long before the current administration. However, this 
Administration has done nothing to correct that problem.
    The policy on coal leasing, which appears to be no coal leasing, is 
only part of the misguided effort to eliminate one of the most 
reliable, abundant, low-cost energy sources for US consumers.

Coal is a vital energy and economic boost to Wyoming and the United 
States

    Wyoming is unique in that a large portion of its land and minerals 
are owned and administered by the federal government. Approximately 48 
percent of the surface land is federally managed and about 67 percent 
of the mineral estate is federally managed. Of all the coal that is 
owned and leased by the federal government, more than 80 percent of the 
federally owned coal is produced in the Powder River Basin annually. 
Due to the nature of the federal ownership it would make it nearly 
impossible for any operator to continue operations in the future if 
coal leasing does not resume. Even then, it takes an average of 10-12 
years for a coal lease to go through the evaluation process and put up 
for sale by the Bureau of Land Management. The reinstated moratorium 
further delays the process.
    Wyoming produced 244.3 million tons of coal in 2022, and this was 
not enough to meet contracted demand as producers lost an estimated 60 
million tons of production because of the inability to transport coal 
to customers. The state lost between $90-$100 million in revenue. The 
point is that federal coal from Wyoming, while it certainly has 
decreased over the past few years, is still very much in demand.
    The federal coal leasing program, when implemented, works well. 
There is no need for a coal moratorium. Wyoming is the top low sulfur 
compliance coal producing state in the nation with the vast majority of 
this production coming from federally leased coal. In 2021, the 
financial contribution from this coal to state and local governments in 
the form of taxes, royalties and fees was nearly $480 million. Wyoming 
and the federal government each received approximately $127 million 
from royalties paid by coal companies. Since 2003, approximately $4.5 
billion has been paid in bonus bids to the federal and state 
governments. These funds are split between the federal and state 
governments. Wyoming coal mines also contribute far above what is used 
in Wyoming to fund the Abandoned Mine Land Fund and for Black Lung 
compensation. Wyoming's share of bonus bids, rents and royalties is 
used to fund K-12 schools, community colleges, state and local 
governments, highways and roads, and the University of Wyoming. With 
the rural nature of Wyoming and small population, this funding is 
necessary to maintain our very way of life.
    The coal industry employs over 5,100 individuals in Wyoming 
directly with a payroll of nearly $500 million, and more than 2,000 
contractors. The average coal mining job pays more than $83,000 
annually, well above the state average. And every coal mining job 
supports another 2-3 jobs in the service and supply industry. The 
financial return on federal coal is obvious for Wyoming, and is fair by 
any reasonable measure. Since Wyoming accounts for 85 percent of all 
federal coal production, it is clear that taxpayers have received a 
fair return and excellent value from the BLM Federal Coal Leasing 
Program in terms of revenue and jobs. Again, the idea that the American 
public is somehow being ``shortchanged'' is simply untrue. Instead, 
Wyoming and the American public are truly being shortchanged by the 
lack of leasing opportunities.
    The BLM Federal Coal Lease Program created a great return for those 
who directly benefit from mining, royalties and bonus bids, like we do 
in Wyoming. It also provides value for those across America who rely on 
affordable electricity. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, in 2022, coal provided approximately 19.5 percent of 
the nation's electricity and about 34 percent of the world's 
electricity. It is also important to note that fossil fuels still 
provide 60 percent of the nation's electricity. This is 24-hour 
dispatchable power. Renewable energy sources continue to increase, 
supplying 22 percent of the nation's electricity. This includes 
significant wind development in Wyoming.
    Recent winter storms brought to light the importance of having 
well-balanced energy sources for electricity. I note concerns from 
regional transmission organizations and even from the Chairman of 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the rapid closure of fossil 
fuel power plants are putting various portions of the grid in danger 
since the demand for energy is still outpacing the ability of renewable 
sources to produce consistent, continual power.
    Wyoming embraces an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We recognize 
the need and value in having a diverse energy production portfolio. 
This strategy also recognizes the continued need for coal produced from 
Wyoming mines. The compliance coal produced in Wyoming is available to 
power the nation's baseload thermal energy production for decades to 
come. Even under the most aggressive energy transition predictions, the 
need for thermal coal baseload power will continue well into the 2040 
to 2050 timeframe.
    I have yet to see a credible projection that the US and the world 
are going to use less energy in the future. Without a broad based 
strategy for energy sources, the demand may very well outpace the 
supply. The need for the nation's security and economy will demand that 
electricity remain reliable and affordable, requiring the use of coal-
fired power.

The current Administration has a record of inaction on vital Wyoming 
projects

    The Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 
Deputy Director Ms. Glenda H. Owens testified to this committee on May 
16, 2023 that ``the proposed FY 2024 budget focuses on funding OSMRE's 
core mission responsibilities and supporting the highest priority 
efforts and activities.'' As noted in the discussion above, coal is and 
will continue to be needed now and into the future as the country 
balances its energy needs. The continued approval of mining the 
nation's coal reserves to ensure reliability and affordability of 
electricity is one of the core functions of the OSMRE. However, OSMRE 
does not appear to be providing these core activities in a timely and 
prioritized manner.
    Wyoming continues to see permitting approval delays at the federal 
level. Mines in the state are currently waiting for two federal mine 
plan approvals. For example, as outlined in Governor Gordon's letter 
dated April 25, 2023 to Secretary of Interior Haaland, Wyoming 
continues to experience extended delays in the approval of Federal Mine 
Plans from the OSMRE.
    The state primacy program approved the Black Butte mine plan 
amendment on January 15, 2021 for 9.2 million tons of coal recovery. 
This is not a new lease, it is coal that was purchased under an earlier 
lease. It is coal adjacent to coal currently being mined. Mining 
operations will cease without the Right of Entry Letter. The OSMRE has 
held the plan in review since January 15, 2021 without issuance of the 
required Right of Entry Letter. During this time period, OSMRE has 
continually requested more information for completion of their review 
and approval. At this point, the coal within the proposed Federal Mine 
Plan has been through three NEPA reviews, e.g. BLM Resource Management 
Plan, the BLM Coal Leasing Action and associated Record of Decision, 
and OSMRE Regional Federal Mine Plan NEPA and two technical adequacy 
reviews, e.g. State of Wyoming Technical Completeness, and OSMRE 
Federal Mine Plan Technical Review and has been public noticed three 
times. Based on this level of scrutiny, the only reasonable conclusion 
that can be drawn, is that the delayed processing of Federal Mine Plans 
appears to be deliberate.
    The other delayed mine amendment approval is the Antelope Coal Mine 
and the West Antelope II South Lease that contains 56 million tons of 
reserves.
    Another example concerns the disposal of old wind turbines. Like 
all equipment, wind turbine blades must be replaced from time to time 
during the life of a wind farm. To date, many of these turbines end up 
in municipal or county landfills taking up valuable and needed space. 
These large blades dramatically shorten the life of these landfills. To 
address the issue, in 2020, the Wyoming legislature passed a law 
allowing the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to 
permit the permanent placement of turbine blades in the final pit void 
at coal mines as part of the reclamation process. The Wyoming 
Environmental Quality Council approved rules for how and when the 
blades and towers could be used as fill. Those rules were signed by 
Governor Gordon on April 29, 2021.
    The DEQ then sought an Amendment to the State Plan to implement the 
program. That Amendment was submitted to OSMRE on June 4, 2021. OSMRE 
acknowledged receipt on June 14, 2021. Due to the number of blades that 
were being replaced at that time, there was and remains a sense of 
urgency of getting the program started. DEQ requested that a response 
be given by August 1, 2021. OSMRE published the proposed amendment in 
the Federal Register on August 4, 2021. They did not receive any public 
comments.
    Two years later there is still no response. This is a program that 
would benefit the wind industry, Wyoming coal communities, the coal 
industry, the overflowing county and municipal landfills. Once again, I 
can only conclude the inaction is deliberate and part of the Department 
of Interior's unannounced ``no coal policy.''
    Beyond specific project examples, there appears to be a continued 
pattern of delay and added bureaucracy when it comes to coal leasing 
and management. Bureau of Land Management proposals such as the Coal 
Leasing Moratorium, continued review of federal coal royalties, 
proposals to limit or eliminate coal leasing within defined federal 
mineral coal reserves have not been based on technical, scientific, or 
economic data.
    Actions by OSMRE further risk access to the nation's needed coal 
reserves. In Wyoming, with an approved primacy program, OSMRE's role 
should be limited to oversight through a limited audit program, 
research requested by the states, and technical assistance at the 
request of the states. Wyoming has a thorough and comprehensive regime 
for the review of permit applications and amendments for coal mines. 
This is done concurrently with review by the OSMRE Regional Offices in 
Casper and Denver. However, we have found that OSMRE in Washington is 
re-reviewing these permit actions, and questioning regional decisions 
after the state and regional reviews are complete. This lack of 
confidence and trust even within the OSMRE is, at best, concerning.
    The actions of the BLM and OSMRE have only served to lend 
credibility to the conclusion that the delays occurring with leasing 
and accessing the nation's coal reserves are not based on the best 
technical science, required rules and regulations, nor the 
administrative process. Rather, they appear based on an anti-coal 
agenda, regardless of the energy security, economic and environmental 
benefits.

The Administration is missing an opportunity to meet its climate goals

    Wyoming is an energy state and we export about 93 percent of the 
energy we produce. We are listening to our customers and understand 
that in addition to reliable, affordable energy, they want to see 
emission reductions. Governor Mark Gordon was one of the first 
governors to speak of a net-zero carbon emissions goal. However, 
changes in Wyoming energy are going to be on our terms. We embrace 
technologies like Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS).
    Some of Wyoming, and the nation's coal-fired power plants are ideal 
for CO2 capture. As the Governor has often indicated, 
burning coal is not the issue, the release of CO2 is the 
issue. If the true goal is to reduce or eliminate CO2 
emissions into the atmosphere, then CO2 should be the 
target. The reduction of CO2 can be achieved and coal can 
continue to provide reliable, low cost energy through the deployment of 
CCUS.
    Advances in carbon capture and storage technologies make coal even 
more environmentally beneficial. The Administration has recognized that 
CCUS is a commercially available technology for the mitigation of 
carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and could capture 
90 percent of the CO2 from these facilities while reducing 
other criteria pollutants. Continuing the leasing and use of coal for 
electricity generation with CCUS will mitigate the potential for 
impacts to the climate and the environment.

    The State of Wyoming is a leader in advancing CCUS and is moving 
forward to do so commercially. Wyoming has enacted legislation related 
to CCUS projects--e.g., Wyoming law defines who owns the pore space, a 
critical aspect of such projects. Wyoming is also one of the only 
states with existing CCUS-related infrastructure, such as carbon 
dioxide (CO2) pipelines and extensive expertise based on 
hosting the largest operating CCUS project in the world with 
ExxonMobil's Shute Creek facility.

     Wyoming is the only state in the nation to enact a law 
            that creates a low-carbon/CCUS-based standard for coal-
            fired power plants that are regulated as public utilities. 
            The law--H.B. 200--is related to prior legislative 
            enactments related to Wyoming's coal fleet (e.g., S.F. 
            159).

     Wyoming is one of two states to be granted primacy from 
            the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
            implementation of the CO2 injection regulations 
            under the Class VI of the Safe Drinking Water Act's 
            Underground Injection Control program.

     An international leader in many aspects of CCUS 
            technology. Researchers at UW are currently funded by the 
            U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to advance a potential 
            large-scale integrated CO2 storage project near 
            Gillette, Wyoming, known as the Wyoming CarbonSAFE project.

     Several years ago, geologic assessments were conducted at 
            another site. The University of Wyoming is negotiating with 
            the Department of Energy on another award focused on 
            designing and partially constructing a CO2 
            storage hub in southwest Wyoming.

     Wyoming is home to the Integrated Test Center, where 
            researchers test the capture and use of CO2 
            sourced from a coal-fired power plant.

    Wyoming is moving forward with deployment of CCUS and it is the 
best approach to drastically reduce emissions from federal coal, rather 
than eliminating an important source of energy.
    It is also important to note that the Department of Energy 
researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory assessed 
various types of coal in the United States. Subbituminous Powder River 
Basin coal, largely produced in Wyoming, is among the lowest in terms 
of global warming impacts. It would make sense to allow the exportation 
of such coal to replace other coal use around the world.
    This Administration appears to have a disjointed, inconsistent 
approach to meeting their goals, such as reducing greenhouse gasses 
from fossil fuels. On one hand, there are grants available for limited 
development of CO2 capture and storage, as identified above, 
but at the same time regulations such as the Ozone Transport Rule and 
the Clean Power Plan either unnecessarily cripple the coal-fired 
utilities or do not give them enough time or incentives to make these 
projects realistically achievable.

This Administration does little to promote other uses of coal

    Wyoming coal is a prolific resource and we are continuously 
supporting the evaluation of other opportunities beyond its use as 
fuel. The continued lack of action in promoting a coal leasing program 
hampers the creation of new coal related industries. Coal is an 
excellent feedstock to produce many materials and other products needed 
and of national-security value. For example, Wyoming federal coal seams 
are currently being evaluated as a source for rare earth elements and 
critical minerals needed for energy technologies, such as wind turbines 
and batteries.
    In fact, the Department of Energy is investing in identifying rare 
earth elements and critical minerals associated with Wyoming federal 
coal in the CORE-CM program (Carbon Ore, Rare Earths and Critical 
Minerals). A federal coal moratorium would result in the stranding of 
potential CORE-CM assets just when the United States needs access to 
the widest variety of geologic materials to build a robust domestic 
supply chain. Materials in or associated with coal could be used for 
advanced technology industries such as battery production, solar panel 
production, and aerospace technologies (among other advanced 
manufacturing sectors). The lack of an active federal coal leasing 
program puts these nascent industries in jeopardy.
    Wyoming is well suited to launch a new industry related to novel 
approaches to coal consumption as the infrastructure and skilled 
workforce exist that could potentially be transitioned to other energy 
related industries centered around the critical minerals and carbon-
based products supply chains. These complex supply chains offer the 
opportunity for jobs related to extraction, processing, and 
manufacturing.
    Since its inception in July 2016, the Carbon Engineering Initiative 
at the University of Wyoming, School of Energy Resources has focused 
upon identifying the feasibility and proving pathways to manufacture 
value-added high-carbon content products from coal. The State of 
Wyoming has spent more than $30 million investing in this program with 
the goal of creating high paying manufacturing jobs in the nation's 
largest coal community: Campbell County, Wyoming. If this program 
creates jobs in coal country Wyoming, it will translate to jobs in coal 
country across the US and the world.
    Products under development include, but are not limited to, 
components for asphalt for roads and roofing materials, building 
materials (bricks, foam, drywall, pavers, aggregate for roads and other 
products), graphene oxide, soil amendments that can be used in 
reclamation, and polymer products (decking material) and carbon 
membranes for water purification. Graphite, a major component of 
batteries of electric vehicles, is also being studied as a by-product 
of coal.
    The life cycle of these products, especially the greenhouse gas 
footprint, is being considered throughout this initiative. For example, 
coal char bricks are chemically cured, resulting in energy savings 
during production compared to traditional bricks. These coal char 
bricks are less expensive to produce and are half the weight of a clay 
brick, which helps with transportation costs and potentially 
transportation fuel consumption. Why halt this promising innovation 
with a lack of a coal leasing strategy?
    Coal can also be a source of one of the Administration's favorite 
fuels--hydrogen. Meeting the Administration's goals for hydrogen 
production using only electrolysis and curtailed renewable energy is 
not feasible in the proposed time frames. Gasification of coal with 
CO2 capture and storage is a lower-cost pathway to meeting 
the demand for low-carbon hydrogen from the industrial, power, and 
transportation sectors. This is a well demonstrated option for hydrogen 
production as coal gasification presently provides around 18 percent of 
the total hydrogen in the world, and is the second-largest and most 
cost-effective way of producing hydrogen.
    Gasification is the only commercial, large-scale option for 
converting solids into gasses, and the cleanest conversion technology 
for solid fuels. Hydrogen produced from coal-based gasification has 
recently been shown to be competitive with production from natural gas 
provided the cost of natural gas remains above US$4/MMBtu, and the 
reliability of gasification-based processes can be demonstrated to be 
high. The cost of producing hydrogen from coal could be reduced by 25-
50 percent, even with the capture and sequestration of CO2.
    The costs of hydrogen production for natural gas and coal/biomass 
are much lower than for electrolysis (which presently has only a 4 
percent market share) due to the production volume, which is much 
higher for hydrogen from fossil fuels, and the mature state of the 
technology.
    In summary, the current and potential uses of coal are most 
promising, both in economic and environmental terms. This innovation 
could be vital to Wyoming's economy. The Administration should embrace 
the leasing and production of coal, and not bury this valuable asset by 
keeping it in the ground. Coal is not dead, but the current federal 
policies are attempting to build the casket.
    Finally, I acknowledge that much of the above information came from 
a variety of sources, including, but not limited to, comments or 
research materials from Wyoming-based agencies provided in various 
rulemaking procedures. Those sources include the Wyoming Energy 
Authority, the School of Energy Resources at the University of Wyoming, 
the Department of Environmental Quality and the Wyoming Mining 
Association.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to supply the subcommittee with 
this information.

    Governor's letter of April 25th on Black Butte Mine is attached.

                                 *****

                               Attachment

                     Office of the Wyoming Governor

                                                 April 25, 2023    

Hon. Deb Haaland,
Secretary, Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:
    I seek your assistance in getting the approval of a mine plan 
amendment for the Black Butte Mine near Rock Springs, Wyoming. In 2019, 
Black Butte submitted their application for their amendment to the 
existing mine plan in order to continue to mine coal for the Jim 
Bridger Power Plant. The State program approved the mine plan amendment 
on January 15, 2021 for 9.2 million tons of coal recovery. The Office 
of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) held the plan in 
review since January 15, 2021 without issuance of a required Right of 
Entry Letter. During that time, the OSMRE has continually requested 
more information for completion of their review and approval, and 
apparently have deliberately delayed processing the application. It is 
my understanding that the mine has received conflicting requests for 
additional information and is unable to get clarification on what is 
actually required. After several reviews/approvals by the Office of the 
Solicitor, the approval appears to have stalled. At this time, the coal 
within the proposed federal mine plan amendment has been through three 
NEPA reviews. All of which are complete. (The BLM Regional Resource 
Management Plan, The BLM Coal Leasing Action and associated Record of 
Decision, and OSMRE's Federal Mine Plan Review).

    This approval and the coal being recovered in the public interest 
is required under the Federal Mineral Leasing Act (FMLA). This facility 
also has significant economic benefits for the region. The mine employs 
approximately 145 people, many of whom are union workers. Noting how 
urgent it is that we address climate change, it is encouraging that 
PacifiCorp is currently processing responses to their Request for 
Proposals to build carbon capture facilities on units 3 and 4 of the 
plant. Approving the mine plan will support carbon capture and 
eventually sequestration efforts and further Wyoming's long-term net 
negative carbon emissions reduction effort. Further delay only puts at 
risk our best chance to off-set carbon emissions, which continue 
elsewhere in the world unabated.

    My office has directly contacted the Acting Director of OSMRE and 
Deputy Secretary Beaudreau concerning the status of the mine amendment 
twice in the last few weeks. I have yet to receive any kind of a 
response. Simply put, the silence is deafening. A mine plan amendment 
should not require duplicative environmental reviews, nor should the 
regulatory agency simply ignore requests from the State of Wyoming.

    Madame Secretary, this is a matter of importance to me and many 
electric consumers in Wyoming, Idaho and the Pacific Northwest. 
Furthermore, if we are to avoid climate catastrophe, it is imperative 
that we move expeditiously to not only reduce carbon emissions, but to 
be diligent in removing excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as soon 
as possible. Then carbon capture and sequestration are critical to 
those efforts. I ask you to review this matter, so this plan approval 
can move forward without further delay. Should you have any questions, 
do not hesitate to contact Randall Luthi of my staff.

    Thank you for your assistance.

            Sincerely,

                                               Mark Gordon,
                                                           Governor

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for your testimony. The 
Chair is now going to recognize Mr. John Driscoll.
    Mr. Driscoll, you are up for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF JOHN DRISCOLL, DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
   OFFICER, PORT OF MOBILE, ALABAMA PORT AUTHORITY, MOBILE, 
                            ALABAMA

    Mr. Driscoll. Thank you. On behalf of the Alabama State 
Port Authority, I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez, and the members of the Energy and Mineral 
Resources Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide our 
perspective on the importance of metallurgical coal.
    My name is John Driscoll, and I serve as the Director and 
CEO of the Alabama Port Authority. We are the only deep water 
seaport in the state of Alabama, overseeing all cargo 
waterborne vessel activity at the Port of Mobile. In addition 
to the Port of Mobile, the Alabama State Port Authority owns 
eight inland docks on waterways across the state, and is 
investing in additional inland intermodal rail facilities to 
support the port's booming container business.
    In 2021, the port had an $85 billion economic impact on 
Alabama alone, created one in seven jobs in the state, and 
generated more than $2 billion in state and local tax. We are 
one of the largest and most diverse ports in the country, 
moving commodities and consumer goods that are critical not 
only for the state of Alabama, but the entire United States and 
our economic trading partners around the world.
    Of the 36.4 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of 
Mobile in 2022, more than 13 million tons of that cargo was the 
incredible natural resource we are here to discuss today: coal. 
At the Port of Mobile, we primarily handle metallurgical, or 
met coal, as it is referred. Met coal is not thermal coal, 
which has long been burned for energy. Instead, met coal is a 
primary material used to produce high-grade steel, the steel 
used to build everything from cars and computers we use daily, 
to specialized things like medical devices and heavy 
construction equipment. Whether roads and bridges, or ships and 
planes, or just kitchen appliances you have at home, met coal 
is virtually everywhere.
    Metallurgical coal, specifically, Alabama's met coal, is 
recognized industry-wide as some of the finest steelmaking coal 
and is sought after worldwide. Not only is it some of the 
highest quality metallurgical coal in the world, but its 
geographic proximity to the deepwater seaport, accessibility to 
inland waterways, and well-connected rail infrastructure render 
it one of the most competitively priced met coal available 
worldwide.
    The complete life cycle of Alabama met coal is as unique as 
it is impactful. In Alabama, met coal comes out of the ground 
in the Birmingham and Tuscaloosa areas, travels down by rail or 
barge to the McDuffie coal terminal at the Port of Mobile, 
where it is exported to steelmakers and then shipped back to 
the United States, some through the port in a finished or semi-
finished form. The next time the steel leaves Alabama, it could 
be from a new car from the Mercedes manufacturing plant in 
Vance, Alabama, or a brand new Airbus passenger jet from the 
final assembly line in Mobile.
    Meeting American and global steel needs requires a 
tremendous amount of metallurgical coal. In California, it 
required 64,000 tons of met coal to make the steel for the 
Golden Gate Bridge. Whirlpool needs over 100 pounds of met coal 
to produce a refrigerator. Boeing needs around 10 tons of met 
coal to build its 787 aircraft. Renewable energy developers 
need met coal to construct wind turbines and solar panels. 
Cities need commuter rail lines. Farmers need tractors. Chefs 
need stoves. Teachers and students need computers. Met coal is 
everywhere, and almost certainly touches at least one thing 
that the average American consumer relies on daily.
    With this commodity in such high demand, the Port of 
Mobile's McDuffie Coal Terminal operates 24 hours a day, 7 days 
a week. We are the third-largest coal handling facility in the 
United States. And with major coal industry expansions underway 
in the Birmingham and Tuscaloosa areas, exports are expected to 
double in the next 5 years.
    Other areas of the country which met coal production is in 
high demand are Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West 
Virginia. As such, the Port has embarked on a nearly $200 
million capital investment program to double our throughput 
capacity, better serve our customers, and make McDuffie the 
most modern and efficient coal export terminal in the United 
States. Through these investments, McDuffie will reach its full 
potential of more than 20 million tons exported annually, 
ensuring the Port of Mobile offers the efficiency needed to 
keep up with the growing demand of met coal.
    At the Port, a primary goal is to facilitate and facilitate 
economic growth and serve our customers. However, burdensome 
regulations hinder our customers' capabilities and impede the 
expansion of Alabama's economy. With growing global demand and 
limited alternatives, it is more important than ever for the 
United States to tap into the bounty of the natural resources 
and proceed with Federal leases to meet global needs, while 
also delivering economic and tax benefits to the United States.
    I urge the esteemed members of the Committee to consider 
this testimony, collaborate with your colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, and work with the Administration to enact the 
appropriate measures to unleash the full potential of America's 
natural resources. This is not only crucial for economic 
stability and job creation, but also for fostering global 
trade, developing modern infrastructure, producing renewable 
energy resources, and ensuring our national defense. Together, 
we can leverage our natural resources to secure a prosperous 
and sustainable future for generations to come.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for 
your time and consideration. Subject to any questions, this 
concludes my remarks.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Driscoll follows:]
  Prepared Statement of John C. Driscoll, Director & Chief Executive 
                 Officer, Alabama State Port Authority

INTRODUCTION

    On behalf of the Alabama State Port Authority, I would like to 
thank Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and all of the 
members of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee for the 
opportunity to provide our perspective on the importance of 
metallurgical coal.
    My name is John Driscoll, and I serve as the Director and CEO of 
the Alabama Port Authority. We are the only deep-water seaport in the 
state of Alabama, overseeing all cargo and waterborne vessel activity 
at the Port of Mobile. In addition to the Port of Mobile, the Alabama 
State Port Authority owns eight inland docks on waterways across the 
state and is investing in additional inland intermodal rail facilities 
to serve the Port's booming container business.
    In 2021, the Port had an $85 billion economic impact on Alabama, 
created one-in-seven jobs statewide, and generated more than $2 billion 
in state and local tax revenue. We are one of the largest and most 
diverse ports in the country, moving commodities and consumer goods 
that are critical not only for the State of Alabama but the entire 
United States and our economic trading partners worldwide. Of the 36.4 
million tons of cargo moved over the Port of Mobile in 2022, more than 
10 million tons of that cargo was the incredible natural resource we 
are here to discuss today, metallurgical coal.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Alabama State Port Authority Annual Comprehensive Financial 
Report https://www.alports.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Alabama-
State-Port-Authority-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report-September-
302022_compressed.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As you know, metallurgical, or ``met'' coal, is not thermal coal, 
which has long been burned for energy. Instead, met coal is a high-
grade coal that is a primary material used in steel production. When 
heated to high temperatures, met coal becomes a nearly elemental form 
of carbon called ``coke.'' The coke is then combined with iron ore to 
make molten steel. From ships to scalpels, met coal is used to produce 
high-grade steel that you will find in things like cars, heavy 
construction equipment, and advanced manufacturing devices.
    Metallurgical coal, specifically Alabama's met coal, is recognized 
industry-wide as some of the finest steel-making coal and is sought-
after worldwide. Not only is it some of the highest quality 
metallurgical coal in the world, but its geographic proximity to a 
deep-water seaport, accessibility to inland waterways, and well-
connected rail infrastructure render it some of the most competitively 
priced met coal available worldwide.
    With this commodity in such high demand, McDuffie Coal Terminal 
operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We are the third-largest 
coal handling facility in the United States, and with major coal 
industry expansions underway in the Birmingham and Tuscaloosa areas, 
exports are expected to double in the next five years.
    As such, the Port has embarked on a nearly $200 million capital 
investment program to double our throughput capacity, better serve our 
met coal customers and make McDuffie the most modern and efficient met 
coal exporter in the U.S. Through these investments, McDuffie will 
reach its full potential of more than 20 million tons exported 
annually, ensuring the Port of Mobile offers the efficiency needed to 
keep up with the growing demand for met coal.
    At the Port, our primary goal is to facilitate economic growth and 
serve our customers. However, burdensome regulations hinder our 
customers' capabilities and impede the expansion of Alabama's economy. 
With growing global demand and limited alternatives, it is more 
important than ever for the U.S. to tap into its bounty of natural 
resources and proceed with federal leases to meet global needs while 
also delivering economic and tax benefits to the U.S.
    I urge the esteemed members of this committee to consider this 
testimony, collaborate with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 
work with the Administration to enact the appropriate measures to 
promote the use of met coal. Together, we can leverage our natural 
resources to secure a prosperous and sustainable future for generations 
to come.

THERMAL VERSUS MET COAL

    Thermal coal is for energy production. It is burned to produce 
steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity. Metallurgical 
coal, however, is used in the production of steel. Often referred to as 
coking coal, met coal is subjected to a specialized heating and 
carbonization process to remove impurities and create ``coke,'' a solid 
carbonaceous material used as fuel in the steelmaking process. Once met 
coal is distilled down to coke, it is put into blast furnaces, 
converting iron ore into molten iron, which is then used to produce 
steel.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND MET COAL

    As we strive to achieve a sustainable and resilient future, it is 
essential that we strike a balance between being good stewards of the 
environment and supporting economic imperatives that underpin our 
industrial development.
    Steel is completely reusable. Instead of being discarded as waste, 
products or materials that have reached the end of their useful life 
and are no longer needed in their current form can be salvaged as scrap 
steel to undergo a recycling process that allows the scraps to be 
reintroduced to the steel production cycle.
    Although scrap steel recycling is a great way to support 
sustainability in steelmaking, met coal is currently the only way to 
meet global steel production demands. While research is ongoing and the 
steel industry is actively exploring more sustainable alternatives to 
met coal, the adoption of these alternative methods is many years away 
and faces major challenges such as scalability, affordability, and 
structural integrity.

ALABAMA MET COAL

    McDuffie Coal Terminal at the Port of Mobile is the third-largest 
coal handling facility in the United States. The terminal imports some 
thermal coal; however, the majority of our operations serve to export 
met coal.
    Metallurgical coal, specifically Alabama's met coal, is sought-
after worldwide. Not only is it some of the highest quality 
metallurgical coal in the world, but its geographic proximity to a 
deep-water seaport, accessibility to inland waterways, and well-
connected rail infrastructure render it some of the most competitively 
priced met coal available worldwide. On average, an underground mine 
worker can earn upwards of $130,000, and overall, Alabama's coal 
industry has an annual economic impact of nearly $3 billion.
    The complete life cycle of Alabama met coal is as unique as it is 
impactful. Met coal comes from the ground in the Birmingham and 
Tuscaloosa areas, travels down by rail or barge to McDuffie Coal 
Terminal at the Port of Mobile, is exported to steel-makers, and comes 
back through the Port in a finished or semi-finished from that can 
become a vessel for the Navy built at Austal USA in Mobile or a brand 
new car from the Mercedes manufacturing plant in Vance or a rocket test 
station at NASA in Huntsville.
    This story can be repeated over and over again nationwide. In 
California, it required 64,000 tons of met coal to make the steel for 
the Golden Gate Bridge. Whirlpool needs over 100 pounds of met coal to 
produce a refrigerator. Boeing needs around 10 tons of met coal to 
build its 787 aircraft. Renewable energy developers need met coal to 
construct wind turbines and solar panels. Cities need commuter rail 
lines. Farmers need tractors. Chefs need stoves. Teachers need 
computers. Met coal is simply everywhere and almost certainly touches 
at least one thing the average American consumer relies on daily.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MET COAL

    The extraction and production of minerals stimulate economic 
activity in local communities. Mining operations require a workforce 
that includes miners, engineers, technicians, and support staff. 
Additionally, mining activities often lead to the establishment of 
ancillary industries, such as equipment manufacturing and supply 
chains, further boosting regional economies.
    However, the economic impact extends beyond mining and includes the 
broader supply chain associated with metallurgical coal. The 
extraction, processing, and transportation of metallurgical coal 
involve various industries and sectors, such as mining equipment 
manufacturing, transportation services, and port facilities. These 
sectors generate employment opportunities and contribute to regional 
economic growth and development.
    While the U.S. is a significant consumer of met coal, we play a 
broader role in the global supply chain as well. With an increasingly 
interconnected global economy dependent on international trade, the 
United States has the opportunity to maximize the economic benefits of 
metallurgical coal and ensure the resilience of the U.S. steel and 
related sectors.
    On the export side, the United States benefits from its 
metallurgical coal reserves, which allow for the generation of export 
revenue and a positive trade balance. The demand for metallurgical coal 
is robust worldwide due to its essential role in steel production, and 
the United States' ability to supply high-quality metallurgical coal 
through natural resources in places like Alabama and globally connected 
assets such as the Port of Mobile positions this country as a reliable 
global exporter. These trade activities contribute to the nation's 
export earnings, support domestic mining and transportation sectors, 
and strengthen the overall trade competitiveness of the U.S.

GLOBAL DEMAND FOR MET COAL

    The global demand for steel continues to rise, driven by population 
growth, urbanization, and the need for robust infrastructure systems. 
Metallurgical coal plays an integral role in meeting this demand, as it 
remains the primary source of carbon used in steel production. In fact, 
Metallurgical coal accounts for approximately 70 percent of the global 
steel market, affirming its significance in sustaining industrial 
development and economic progress on a global scale.
    The U.S. was the second largest met coal exporter in 2019, 
supplying 14 percent of the global market from mines in Alabama, 
Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Approximately 70 
percent of steel worldwide is produced with met coal, and in 2022, 
global steel production reached 1.875 million tons. Each ton of steel 
made through this process requires 0.6 tons of met coal.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Mining Association https://nma.org/2021/05/20/met-
coal-steel-infrastructure/#::text 
=Metallurgical%20coal%2C%20also%20known%20as,percent%20of%20the%20global
%20market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the United States, our reliance on steel for critical 
infrastructure projects, such as bridges, roads, railways, and energy 
facilities, necessitates a stable and accessible supply of 
metallurgical coal. The consistent availability of this essential 
resource directly impacts the cost, quality, and competitiveness of our 
domestic steel industry. To maintain our nation's economic strength, it 
is imperative that we prioritize the development and responsible 
extraction of metallurgical coal reserves within our borders. Moreover, 
the mining of metallurgical coal presents valuable employment 
opportunities for communities across the United States, particularly in 
regions with significant coal deposits. These jobs provide economic 
stability and contribute to the well-being of local economies.

MET COAL AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

    The United States takes pride in having a strong and prepared 
military force. While adequate funding for defense programs and 
modernization initiatives is essential to equipping troops with the 
latest technologies and capabilities, metallurgical coal is critical to 
building the physical assets the military needs to respond to any 
threat to our national interests, protect our allies, and maintain 
peace through strength.
    From armored vehicles, aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, 
and amphibious assault ships to fighter jets, firearms, munitions, and 
communication systems, the U.S. Military relies on steel. As such, an 
investment in met coal means an investment in military readiness, 
ensuring the safety and security of our great nation and its citizens.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MET COAL

    Mining royalties on minerals from federal lands provide financial, 
economic, and strategic benefits to the United States, supporting 
various public programs, regional development, natural resource 
management, and national security priorities.
    Mining royalties generate significant revenue for the federal 
government. The royalties collected from mining activities on federal 
lands contribute to the national treasury, which can be allocated 
toward various public programs and services, including infrastructure 
development, education, healthcare, and conservation initiatives.
    Mining royalties are often shared with states and local 
governments. These revenues provide financial support for state and 
local infrastructure projects, schools, healthcare facilities, and 
other essential services. The funds can be utilized to address specific 
regional needs or invest in economic diversification efforts.
    The United States, as a major consumer and exporter, should 
prioritize the responsible extraction of metallurgical coal to maintain 
economic strength, trade competitiveness, and national security. By 
reinvesting mining royalties, the industry can ensure responsible 
resource extraction and contribute to regional development and 
environmental conservation. By ensuring a stable and accessible supply 
of metallurgical coal, the United States strengthens its trade 
competitiveness, generates export revenue, and supports domestic mining 
and transportation sectors.
    Furthermore, mining royalties on minerals from federal lands 
provide significant financial, economic, and strategic benefits to the 
United States, where revenue generated from mining activities can be 
allocated toward public programs, regional development, natural 
resource management, and national security priorities. By reinvesting 
mining royalties, responsible resource extraction, environmental 
protection, and conservation initiatives can be implemented, ensuring 
the long-term sustainability of the industry.

CONCLUSION

    The value of metallurgical coal cannot be overstated, and as the 
global demand for steel continues to rise, enacting policies to support 
responsible extraction is critical.
    The complete life cycle of Alabama met coal, from extraction to 
export and eventual use in the production of Alabama-made automobiles, 
is an excellent case study of met coal's impact not only to the 
economic vitality of communities across America but to the broader, 
global supply chain in which the United States and our vast resources 
are of paramount importance.
    From automotive manufacturing to infrastructure development, met 
coal remains the primary material for steel production, and while 
research is ongoing to find more sustainable alternatives, the adoption 
of these alternatives is still years away and faces significant 
challenges. As the world transitions to more sustainable energy 
sources, the reality is that met coal remains indispensable in 
delivering the infrastructure to support the capture of renewable 
sources such as solar and wind.
    The United States must prioritize the development and accessibility 
of metallurgical coal reserves to maintain its economic strength, 
ensure military readiness and invest in long-term renewable energy to 
support a resilient and prosperous future.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. And Jerry Carl from 
the great state of Alabama, he had a prior commitment, but he 
does have some opening comments to talk about you, Mr. 
Driscoll.
    Mr. Carl.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Chair.
    John, what a pleasure it is to work with you. I have served 
on the Port Authority, obviously, before you got there, so I 
haven't had a chance to serve with you. I understand the value 
of your job. I understand the value of Mobile.
    I understand the value of the coal industry moving through 
Mobile. Most people don't understand that. The coal that is 
dredged in Jasper, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, up in the coal 
region, most all of it comes through the Port of Mobile, and 
that is huge for our economy and huge for what we do in south 
Alabama in the port. And that port supports so many families, 
always has, and always will.
    It is very crucial from a military standpoint. There are so 
many things, coal plays such a huge part in that, and I 
appreciate the job. I appreciate you coming up and actually 
speaking about this issue with us and for us, and representing 
my district. So, thank you. I wanted to make sure you 
understood that.
    I think I will see you later on today, but I will be in and 
out all day, so don't let me be a distraction.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Representative Carl.
    The Chair will now introduce Ms. Sara Kendall, Interim 
Executive Director for the Western Organization of Resource 
Councils, right here in Washington, DC. Ms. Kendall, you are 
now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF SARA KENDALL, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN 
       ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Kendall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My 
name is Sara Kendall, and I am the Interim Executive Director 
of the Western Organization of Resource Councils.
    Our organization is a regional network of nine grassroots 
community organizations in seven states in the Northern 
Rockies, in Great Plains, and we are headquartered in Billings, 
Montana. The first organizations in our network were formed in 
the early 1970s, when ranchers who owned private land over 
Federal coal deposits needed to protect their homes, 
livelihoods, and private property rights from proposed strip 
mines.
    The Federal Government owns about one-third of all U.S. 
coal reserves, and almost half of annual domestic coal 
production comes from Federal coal, with the vast majority 
produced from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. 
The BLM currently administers 283 coal leases that will supply 
coal production for at least 20 years, and likely decades 
longer as coal production continues to decline.
    As was noted earlier, Federal coal fuels power plants 
across the country and accounts for 13 percent of all U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions. Continuing to lease coal from public 
lands is fundamentally incompatible with the urgent action 
required to combat climate change at the scale and pace 
required.
    In addition to climate change impacts, Federal coal leasing 
and subsequent mining creates significant and, in many cases, 
irreversible impacts. Our members are particularly concerned 
about extensive depletion and degradation of surface and 
groundwater supplies and delayed reclamation that results in 
lands not being returned to former productive uses, as well as 
the loss of private property rights. BLM has exchanged Federal 
coal out from under private landowners who then lose their 
right to consent before leasing for strip mining on their 
ranches.
    The decades-long history of the Federal coal leasing 
reveals a deeply flawed program that has mismanaged taxpayer-
owned resources and cost local, state, and Federal governments 
billions of dollars in revenue, as documented by dozens of 
investigations over multiple decades. The last major revision 
of the program occurred three decades ago. Energy markets have 
changed dramatically since then.
    Domestic coal demand and production have generally been 
declining since 2008, in large part because coal has lost its 
competitive edge over natural gas and now renewables. Yet, in 
2016, coal companies were proposing to increase the rate of 
leasing significantly, despite having more than 20 years of 
reserves already leased. Their plan was to increase exports of 
Federal coal primarily to Asian markets, where profits were 
significantly higher.
    In our view, scaling up exports for coal companies' profit 
would effectively send taxpayer-subsidized energy supplies to 
our overseas competitors, and continuing the mining and burning 
of our most carbon-intensive energy source just as the United 
States was attempting to regulate emissions at home.
    The leasing pause was not designed to limit the mining of 
Federal coal. It was designed to provide time for the 
government to review the program and institute needed changes 
before new leasing occurred. And, in fact, the leasing pause 
did not limit leasing. When Secretary Jewell issued the order 
to conduct a complete review of the Federal coal program and 
pause leasing while the review occurred, coal companies had 
proposed leases for over 2.9 billion tons of Federal coal. 
Fourteen leases were not covered by the pause. That was an 
additional 1 billion tons. And the pause allowed for emergency 
leasing if supplies run short at any mine.
    More than 85 percent of the coal identified in BLM's 2017 
pending lease list is located in the Powder River Basin. And 
since publication of that list, coal companies have withdrawn 
lease applications for 55 percent of the tonnage in the Basin, 
and paused applications for more than one-third. During the 4 
years when the pause was lifted, less than 1 percent was sold, 
and just 8.16 percent is actively pending today.
    The Biden administration's record on Federal coal leasing 
has yet to be determined. In 2021, BLM initiated a notice of 
intent to review the Federal coal program. In 2022, the pause 
was reinstated by a court order. And in April, BLM initiated a 
court-ordered environmental review of the pause. Thus far, the 
agency is simply doing what the courts have told them they 
must, and it is not clear when or even whether the review will 
be completed.
    Our organization is deeply concerned that none of the 
problems that prompted the Federal coal leasing pause in 2016 
have been addressed. The real leasing pause is being driven by 
the market and competition from less expensive energy sources 
by depleted coal reserves that are now more expensive to mine, 
a growing consumer and business demand for cleaner sources of 
energy, and a carbon-constrained world.
    In closing, coal communities deserve policies that 
recognize reclamation as an important economic opportunity and 
necessity, ensuring that reclamation occurs in a complete and 
timely way. We need to focus on creating new, sustainable, and 
diverse local economies, and preserving the benefits and 
respect that coal miners and their families have earned over 
generations of hard work powering our country.
    The Inflation Reduction Act unlocked significant Federal 
investments to assist energy communities, and the Interagency 
Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities is rallying a 
whole-of-government response. Now the Federal coal leasing 
framework needs to acknowledge the historic market changes, 
ensure taxpayers receive a fair return for the leasing and 
mining of public coal, and appropriately minimize environmental 
and climate impacts. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sara Kendall, Interim Executive Director, Western 
                   Organization of Resource Councils
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify. My name is Sara Kendall and I am the Interim 
Executive Director of the Western Organization of Resource Councils 
(WORC). WORC is a regional network of nine grassroots community 
organizations in seven states in the northern Rockies and Great Plains 
that include 19,935 members and 39 local chapters.
    For more than fifty years, our network's work on coal has been 
grounded in our long-standing commitment to representing people in 
western coalfield communities. Our mission includes protecting water 
resources and clean air, family farms and ranches, and providing 
community members with the information and tools necessary to raise an 
effective voice in the decisions that impact their lives.
    The first organizations in our network were formed in the early 
1970s, when ranchers who owned private land over federal and state coal 
deposits needed to protect their homes, livelihoods and private 
property rights from proposed strip mines. We have worked since then to 
address the environmental, health and economic impacts of mining, 
transporting and burning coal.
    Many of our members' livelihoods depend on clean air and water, 
native soils and vegetation, and lands that remain intact and 
productive, but decisions regarding how our nation leases federal coal 
resources have significant consequences for all Americans.
    The federal government owns about 88 billion tons of recoverable 
coal, or about one-third of all U.S. coal reserves and nearly ten 
percent of the world's known reserves of coal. More than 45% of the 
U.S.'s annual coal production comes from federal coal, with the vast 
majority being produced from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and 
Montana, where 77% of the mineral estate is federally owned, and 84% of 
the federal mineral estate is overlain by privately owned, deeded 
surface. The BLM administers 283 coal leases constituting almost eight 
billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. These existing leases will 
sustain coal production for at least twenty years, and likely decades 
longer.
    Federal coal fuels power plants across the country, and accounts 
for 13 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Continuing to 
lease coal from public lands is fundamentally incompatible with the 
urgent action required to combat climate change at the scale and pace 
required by the problem. The effects of climate change observed to date 
and projected to occur in the future include more frequent and intense 
heat waves, more and/or severe wildfires, degraded air quality, more 
heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea-level 
rise, more intense storms, spread of invasive species, harm to water 
resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems. 
Virtually every natural system in our region and the world is already 
being impacted by global climate change. These impacts will continue to 
become more and more severe unless the use of coal is dramatically 
curtailed.

    In addition to climate change impacts, federal coal leasing and 
subsequent mining creates significant--and in many cases irreversible--
impacts to air and water resources, wildlife habitat, and ecosystems in 
the areas where mining occurs. Impacts include:

     Groundwater depletion, surface water depletion and 
            degradation: Coal mining has caused complete dewatering of 
            aquifers formerly used for drinking water and livestock 
            watering, and physical and chemical changes to surface 
            waters.

     Delayed or lack of reclamation resulting in lands not 
            being returned to productive former uses: Just 17% of mined 
            lands in Wyoming and 20% in Montana have met regulatory 
            requirements for reclamation, re-vegetation and aquifer 
            restoration and been fully released from bond.

     Degraded air quality: Powder River Basin mines routinely 
            cause violations of the 24-hour standard for particulate 
            matter and emit significant amounts of toxic air pollution, 
            contributing to regional haze and higher ozone levels. 
            Orange noxious clouds of nitrous oxides have been found as 
            far as 11 miles from mine boundaries.

     Private property rights: BLM has exchanged federal coal 
            out from under private landowners, who then lose their 
            right to surface owner consent before leasing.

     Multiple rail transportation issues: Traffic delays cut 
            off roads and clog traffic, and each train car can lose 500 
            pounds of coal dust en route, increasing exposure to toxic 
            heavy metals and rates of asthma, especially in children.

    The Biden administration's record on federal coal leasing is yet to 
be determined. One of the President's earliest actions was to sign an 
executive order pausing further leasing of federal oil and gas, but 
coal was conspicuously excluded from the pause. The pause was 
reinstated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana in 
August 2022, and in April, BLM initiated a court-ordered environmental 
review of the pause. Thus far, the agency is simply doing what the 
courts have told them they must do to comply with the law. In 2021 BLM 
initiated a notice of intent to review the federal coal program and 
accepted comments regarding the scope and content, but it is not clear 
what the process is, and when or even whether that review will be 
completed. Our organization is deeply concerned that none of the 
problems that prompted the federal coal leasing moratorium in 2016 have 
been addressed.
    In 2016, the announcement by then-Secretary Jewell that the 
Department of the Interior would conduct a complete review of the 
federal coal program and pause leasing while the review occurred was 
made in response to calls from citizens from across the country, 
including many from the coalfield communities of Wyoming and Montana. 
WORC supported the programmatic review and the pause on leasing then, 
and we continue to.
    The Department of Interior's (DOI) federal sale of publicly-owned 
coal has been plagued by scandal from its earliest days. There is a 
decades-long history of a deeply flawed program that has mismanaged 
taxpayer-owned resources and cost local, state, and federal governments 
billions of dollars in potential revenue.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1463&context=faculty-articles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2012, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 
estimated that taxpayers lost $28.9 billion in revenue from coal leases 
over 30 years as a result of the BLM failing to get fair market value 
for coal mined from public lands.\2\ The IEEFA report, coupled with 
inquiries from members of Congress, led to audits of the federal coal 
leasing program by the DOI Office of Inspector General \3\ and the 
Government Accountability Office \4\ that exposed flaws in DOI's coal 
valuation methodology and called DOI practices outdated. Based on 
confidential information reviewed by GAO, Senator Markey estimated in 
2014 that recent coal leases could potentially have yielded an 
additional $200 million in revenue.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://ieefa.org/articles/ieefa-report-almost-30-billion-
revenues-lost-taxpayers-great-giveaway-federally-owned-coal
    \3\ https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2013/06/11/
document_pm_01.pdf
    \4\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-140
    \5\ https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-
report-on-public-coal-leasing-shows-taxpayers-losing-money
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The last major revision of the federal coal program occurred more 
than four decades ago. Energy markets have changed dramatically since 
then, and our understanding of the environmental and social effects of 
coal leasing and mining has greatly improved.
    Domestic coal demand and production have generally been declining 
since 2008, in large part because coal had lost its competitive edge 
over natural gas and now renewables. Yet, in 2016 coal companies were 
proposing to increase the rate of leasing significantly--by over four 
billion tons--despite declines in domestic market and production, and 
more than 20 years of reserves already leased. Their plan was to 
increase exports of federal coal, primarily to Asian markets, where 
energy prices are significantly higher and profits greater, even with 
transportation costs--a plan that seemed at odds with the interests of 
the American people, since federal coal prices were set low during the 
energy crisis of the 1970s, and remained low in the name of affordable 
energy and national security. Scaling up exports for coal industry 
profit would effectively send taxpayer-subsidized energy supplies to 
our overseas competitors and continue the mining and burning of our 
most carbon-intensive energy source just as the U.S. was attempting to 
regulate emissions at home.
    BLM has a limited role in setting leasing levels because it 
decertified coal production regions, eliminating the agency's role in 
setting leasing levels and designing leasing tracts, and instituted a 
``lease by application'' system in 1992. The LBA system supplanted the 
competitive bidding system envisioned by Congress. It improperly skews 
the valuation of lease tracts, garners significantly reduced bids, and 
shrouds crucial information in secrecy. The Inspector General of the 
Department of Interior found that more than 80 percent of leases in the 
Powder River Basin over the last 20 years had only one bidder. This is 
because individual companies play a large role in delineating the 
tracts for leasing--a process that results in tracts that do not 
generate competitive bids, which is the best mechanism for ensuring 
fair market value and fair return for federal coal. And, the LBA system 
does not have a mechanism for BLM to consider whether leasing publicly 
owned coal to foreign markets at artificially low prices is in the 
public interest.
    National energy markets are undergoing fundamental changes as 
energy generating resources other than coal become more competitive for 
electricity production and as the world works to combat climate change 
and reduce all associated environmental harms. The federal coal leasing 
framework needs to acknowledge these changes and equitably address the 
true and broad array of challenges driven by the mining and burning of 
coal. Heavily subsidized federal coal leasing artificially distorts 
electrical power markets; reduces royalty payments to federal, state 
and local governments; accelerates climate change; and negatively 
affects a range of critical ecological resources.

    A programmatic review is an important step to ensure taxpayers 
receive a fair return for the leasing and mining of public coal and 
that the Bureau of Land Management's systems appropriately minimize 
environmental impacts.

    During BLM's year-long scoping process in 2016, the agency received 
many hours of public testimony and hundreds of thousands of comments in 
support of updating the federal coal program from a broad spectrum of 
Americans, including ranchers, hunters and public lands recreationists, 
small business owners, conservationists, academics and economists, and 
climate activists. BLM's scoping report (vol. I, vol. II) focused on 
these problems and identified a variety of policy solutions.

    Priority areas where the Administration can take action that would 
benefit American taxpayers, protect our climate and public lands 
include:

     Reinstate the pause on federal coal leasing, and restart 
            the programmatic review of the federal coal program.

     The Department of Interior has a legal duty to ensure that 
            leasing is in the ``public interest,'' and should develop 
            new rules and management criteria by which leasing and 
            mining of federal coal resources is evaluated under this 
            mandate, including protection of land, water, air, 
            wildlife, taxpayers, and the global climate.

     Consider policy options that help to plan and manage the 
            decline of federal coal leasing and development in an 
            orderly, structured way that provides time, space, and 
            opportunity for a just and equitable transition for 
            workers, communities, and coal-dependent state economies;

     Address the legacy issues of decades of federal coal 
            mining, including ensuring that reclamation bonds are 
            adequate and leased areas are reclaimed in a complete and 
            timely way before new leases are offered;

     End subsidies on federal coal production by implementing 
            new fiscal policies, such as increasing royalty and rental 
            rates, as well as discontinuing royalty rate reductions.

     Deny requests for additional coal mine royalty rate 
            reductions. Numerous requests for royalty rate reductions 
            are currently pending before BLM, including some for the 
            largest mines reliant on federal coal in Wyoming's Powder 
            River Basin. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 
            1976 and implementing regulations amended the Mineral 
            Leasing Act to require a royalty rate of not less than a 
            12.5% royalty rate on the sale of coal from surface mines, 
            and not less than 8% for coal from underground mines. 
            However, in 2013 the Government Accountability Office found 
            that actual rates are far lower in many states due to 
            royalty rate reductions: 12.2% in Wyoming, 11.6% in 
            Montana, 11.6% in Utah, and 5.6% in Colorado.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-140

    The leasing pause was designed to provide time for the government 
to review the program and institute needed changes before new leasing 
occurred. It was not designed to limit the mining of federal coal, and 
did not limit leasing. It is the historic market downturn that is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
limiting leasing.

    When Secretary Jewell issued her order, companies had proposed 
leases for over 2.9 billion tons of federal coal, even though enough 
coal was already under lease to continue production at current levels 
for 20 years. Fourteen leases were not covered by the pause, totaling 
1.003 billion tons, and the leasing pause allows for emergency leasing 
if supplies run short. More than 85% of the coal identified in BLM's 
2017 pending lease list is located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming 
and Montana. Since the publication of that list, coal companies have 
withdrawn lease applications for 55 % of the tonnage in the Basin, as 
demonstrated in the table below, and paused applications for more than 
one-third. Less than 1% has been sold, and just 8.16% is actively 
pending.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The economic headwinds facing the coal industry are the result 
of competition from less expensive energy sources, depleted coal 
reserves that are more expensive to mine, growing consumer and business 
demand for cleaner sources of energy, and a carbon-constrained world.
    Numerous communities, including tribal communities, are already 
feeling the economic impacts of coal retirements even after having 
borne the brunt of air and water pollution from mining and burning coal 
for decades. The federal government must ensure timely cleanup of coal 
pollution and provide local jobs and economic diversification for these 
communities. The Inflation Reduction Act unlocked significant federal 
investments to assist ``energy communities'' in these ways. The 
Administration must now partner with communities to ensure these 
investments are realized in ways that provide durable benefits to 
impacted individuals, families, and communities.
    Coal communities deserve policies that take advantage of the coal 
regions' existing assets; ensure the strongest possible standards for 
reclamation bonds; focus on creating new, sustainable, and diverse 
local economies; recognize mine reclamation as an economic opportunity; 
and preserve the benefits and respect that coal miners and their 
families have earned over generations of hard work powering our 
country.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony. I will now 
introduce Mr. Matthew Adams. He is the Vice President and 
Senior Tax Counsel for Navajo Transitional Energy Company based 
in Broomfield, Colorado.
    You are now recognized, Mr. Adams, for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF MATTHEW ADAMS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR TAX 
COUNSEL, NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL ENERGY COMPANY (NTEC), BROOMFIELD, 
                            COLORADO

    Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, I 
appreciate the time and the honor to present to you today.
    I represent Navajo Transitional Energy Company. We are 
owned by the Navajo Nation. We are the third-largest coal 
producer in the United States. In addition to being a coal 
producer, we also have investments in rare earths, in helium, 
in the Four Corners Power Plant, so we have the utility side, 
as well. We are an instrumental economic partner with the 
Navajo Nation. We provide 40 percent of the general fund on an 
annual basis.
    So, as we look at the current policies, laws, and 
regulations which will eliminate fossil fuels, which we 
absolutely feel is the target, to eliminate fossil fuels, it 
will absolutely cause an extinction event of the Navajo Nation. 
Forty percent of the annual fund of the Navajo Nation is 
provided by our company. So, if we look at the $22 billion that 
the U.S. government received from mineral royalties last year 
compared to the just short of $10 trillion of revenue. The 
United States could offset that. The Navajo Nation, 40 percent 
of its revenue, could not offset that.
    This is an extinction event to eliminate this from the 
Navajo Nation. I want to be very clear in what we are talking 
about here. There is no conversation about how to replace that. 
The Navajo Nation is just one of many tribes that rely on 
natural resources for its revenue.
    As the Navajo Nation, we produce about 53 million tons: 48 
of that stays in the United States, we export 3 to 5 million 
tons. We have exported as NTEC, historically; we acquired the 
Cloud Peak assets. As Cloud Peak, we have historically 
exported, as well, into the export market. So, we are very 
conscious of what that market is, and we believe that we need 
to continue to play into that export market. As was just 
mentioned, there is a very viable market in the export, and we 
actually think that we need to develop more into that space.
    There are several points that I want to make sure that I 
get out within the 5 minutes.
    We believe that coal continues to be an essential resource 
for the United States. This is true from an energy reliability 
perspective, as well as from a Federal revenue perspective.
    The reliability aspect, as we heard in the opening 
comments, the temperatures were warm, climate is changing, the 
temperatures are getting warmer. We can't imagine that reducing 
the amount of power available is the answer, and that is what 
we are seeing the policy is. Closing power plants, making it 
harder to open gas and power plants, will eliminate power. I 
can't imagine that getting rid of air conditioning is the 
answer for how to deal with climate change. But that is the 
policy that we are seeing and we understand.
    And the facts have shown that over the last 120 years, 
unfortunately, people don't die when it is hot. People die when 
it is cold. The heat, people adjust. There have been 
significantly more deaths due to cold than there have been to 
heat. Typically, we adjust.
    We need to shift our focus away from worrying about what 
fuels the plant, whether that is natural gas, whether that is 
wind, whether that is solar, whether that is coal, and shift to 
the emissions, if that is what the concern is. We need to 
develop deliberate strategies for that conversion from fossil 
fuels that doesn't put lives at risk, that doesn't threaten our 
economy, our national security.
    We can't just go on whims, and prayers, and hopes. The new 
EPA rules are literally looking at technologies that do not 
exist yet. We are asking utilities to make a commitment to 
close coal plants in 3 years in hopes that we develop a new 
technology in 2030. It doesn't make sense. It is asking us to 
get rid of cars, as an example, and hope that we figure out how 
to use a flux capacitor by 2032. It simply doesn't make sense. 
Let's develop the technology to have in place before we get rid 
of the technology that we currently have.
    Eco-colonialism is not the answer. Going to other countries 
and telling them that they cannot have power to develop their 
citizens is not the answer. We have enough coal in this country 
to help the energy poverty that exists in this world. We can 
step forward and help in Africa.
    In 2022, the EIA said that it was the first time since they 
have been keeping stats, that last year was the first time in 
recorded history that more people went without electricity than 
had in the prior year. In 2022, it was the first year in 
recorded history that more people didn't have electricity than 
the prior year. That is scary. So, we have been adding 
electricity to the global population, and all of a sudden last 
year, for the first time, fewer people had access to 
electricity. That should be a concern for us.
    We should be looking at increasing the inhabitability of 
the world. We should be looking at empowering the world. We, in 
the United States, have the ability to use our resources to 
empower and better the world to ensure that reclamation is 
taken care of, to ensure that that is done without child labor, 
to ensure that that is done in an environmentally friendly way. 
And instead of doing that, we are pushing it away.
    With that, I will wait for comments. I appreciate the time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Matthew Adams, Vice President and Senior Tax 
             Counsel for Navajo Transitional Energy Company
    Good morning. My name is Matthew Adams. I am Vice President and 
Senior Tax Counsel for Navajo Transitional Energy Company--also known 
as NTEC.
    As way of background, I would like to include some information on 
NTEC.
    Navajo Transitional Energy Company was formed in 2013 as part of a 
ground-breaking initiative by the Navajo Nation to assert and assume 
full sovereignty over its vast mineral and energy assets. NTEC was 
established under Navajo law as an autonomous limited liability company 
whose sole shareholder is the Navajo Nation. NTEC's initial objective 
was to acquire ownership and control of the Navajo Mine located 
entirely on the Navajo Nation just outside of Farmington, New Mexico. 
In 2019, NTEC went on to acquire substantially all the assets of Cloud 
Peak Energy after they filed bankruptcy. Through this acquisition, NTEC 
became the 3rd largest coal producer in the United States. Our coal 
portfolio includes the Navajo Mine--which is a mine mouth operation 
feeding the Four Corners Power Plant located on the Navajo Nation; the 
Antelope and Cordero Mines in Wyoming; and the Spring Creek Complex in 
Montana. In 2022, NTEC produced 52 million tons of coal; of which 49 
million tons were sold domestically and 3 million tons were exported to 
the Asian Pacific rim.
    In addition to owning and operating coal mines, NTEC owns and 
operates producing helium wells on the Navajo Nation, we have an 
ownership percentage in the Four Corners Power Plant, we have an 
ownership interest in the Round Top rare earths deposit in Texas, and 
we just announced a partnership with Arizona Lithium for development of 
the Big Sandy lithium project in Arizona. Further, we are working 
closely with the respective owners of the FCPP to develop large-scale, 
merchant power solar facilities on reclaimed mine land. I would be 
remiss if I did not mention that in May NTEC was selected by the 
Department of Energy as one of 8 Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects, 
and we will are partnering with DOE's Office of Clean Energy 
Demonstration to determine if carbon capture is feasible at the Four 
Corner Power Plant on the Navajo Nation. We truly represent and strive 
for All of the Above solutions to the energy needs of the Navajo 
Nation, the United States and beyond. If a new technology is developed 
which we believe can help us provide energy and support the Navajo 
Nation--we will be analyzing it.
    In addition to what we do, we are very proud of how we do it. Our 
steadfast focus on safety gets our people home safe and our stewardship 
for the land leads by example.
    Last year, the Navajo Mine was the first mine in the United States 
to ever earn both the National Mining Association's Sentinel of Safety 
Award, one of the highest safety honors in mining, and the U.S. 
Department of Interior's National Reclamation Award in the same year.
    We are an essential contributor to the Navajo Nation. Through 
royalties, taxes and other payments, NTEC provides 30% of the Navajo 
Nation General Fund on an annual basis. Further, the Four Corners Power 
Plant provides another 9%. That power plant is currently scheduled to 
be shut down in 2031.

    In addition to significant royalties and taxes, NTEC provides 
critical support on the Navajo Nation in numerous other ways. We 
provided over 12,000 tons of free coal to Navajo and Hopi families in 
2022 through our Community Heating Resource Program (CHRP) program to 
ensure houses stay warm in the winter months. Due to high energy costs 
and local energy shortages, we expect to exceed that amount this year. 
In all, NTEC has provided over $315 million directly to the Navajo 
Nation and to Navajo charities since 2013. Of our almost 1,400 
employees, 354 voluntarily identified as Native American--including 318 
Navajo employees. The average salary of our employees identifying as 
Native American is $82,600. These high paying jobs are essential to the 
Navajo community. The Navajo Nation is one of the most impoverished 
communities in the United States, so to put this in perspective,

    On the Navajo Nation:

     Median household income is $26,862 ($57,652 for the U.S.),

     36% of households have income below the poverty line 
            (12.7% in the U.S.),

     19% of households are in Extreme Poverty,

     40% of homes lack running water,

     32% of homes lack electricity,

     86% of homes lack natural gas,

     Unemployment rate is just above 40%,

     More than 50% of Navajo on the Nation live more than 20 
            miles from the nearest grocery store (there are 13 grocery 
            stores on the 27,000 square mile Nation),

     2020 census numbers provide 32.9% of homes have broadband 
            access.

Navajo Transitional Energy Company's Position on Energy

    We truly believe in an `All of the Above' energy strategy. We don't 
just believe in it, we live it. However, we strongly believe that all 
of the above should include coal. Coal continues to provide reliable, 
inexpensive energy for United States industries and citizens. Whether 
the sun is out or not, whether the wind is blowing or not, whether it's 
120 degrees in peak summer or -50 below as a winter storm comes 
through, coal continues to be the most reliable, dependable, affordable 
source of energy to keep homes warm and safe and industry moving.
    As personal background, I have been working in the extractives 
space for 20 years as a legal and tax professional. I was on the 
Royalty Policy Committee under the Trump administration and co-chair of 
the Fair Return and Valuation Subcommittee. I represent NTEC as a 
member of the Board, or on committees, for National Mining Association, 
American Coal Council, America's Power, Wyoming Mining Association, 
Rocky Mountain Mining Institute, Washington Coal Council and several 
other industry groups. I can testify today that I have never been at a 
meeting, nor ever had a discussion with a member of any of these 
organizations where the goal was to eliminate solar, wind, hydro or 
other `renewable' forms of energy. That is not a focus or priority of 
any of these groups. However, I have been party to many conversations 
where the focus was around how to ensure that baseload power--the power 
needed to keep homes warm and safe, to keep incubators on in the 
hospitals, and the modern machinery in industry running--can be borne 
by the most reliable energy sources available in our country.
CONTINUED KEY POINTS:

     Coal continues to be an essential resource for the United 
            States. This is true from an energy reliability perspective 
            as well as from a federal revenue perspective.

          +   All of the Above, should be ALL of the Above.

                 -  Coal generated 21% of the electricity in the United 
                States in 2022.

     We need to shift the focus away from what fuels the plant, 
            to how we can utilize technology and innovation to ensure 
            emissions are where we want them to be.

          +   The United States coal fleet has invested approximately 
        $127 billion in emissions controls through 2022.

          +   In 2021, the United States coal fleet emitted 909 million 
        tons of CO2, which was 18.5% of the total emissions of 4.9 
        billion from energy-related CO2 globally.

          +   The total GHG emissions from United States coal fleet 
        (from inception to closure) is estimated to be less than 1.5% 
        of global GHG emissions.

     We need to develop a deliberate strategy for a conversion 
            from fossil fuels that does not put lives at risk, does not 
            hinder the economy, and is thoughtful and practical.

          +   A coal plant should not be retired before stable, 
        replacement energy is in place.

          +   Technology has NOT advanced to policy mandates.

     There are significant issues with the current permitting 
            process that is having significant impacts on developing 
            additional coal resources as well as development of new 
            gas, wind and solar projects.

          +   Too much redundancy in evaluations and analysis.

          +   The internal strategy of delay, ponder and further delay 
        is pushing our energy infrastructure to the brink of 
        catastrophe.

          +   The level of judicial advocation around permitting and 
        environmental issues needs to be resolved.

     The United States should look for ways to maximize coal 
            exports.

          +   The outcome is additional revenue to the Treasury and 
        ensuring that our high-grade coal, which is mined with 
        significant focus on environmental and labor concerns, 
        continues to fuel the development of the global economy.

          +   When Asian utilities cannot secure their coal 
        requirements from the United States and Australia, they are 
        forced to consider and use Russian coal.

     The amount of coal burned in the United States is 
            immaterial compared to China. China and India continue to 
            build and develop coal-fired generation and will continue 
            to increase burn rates through the remainder of the decade.

          +   We estimate that there will be approximately 8 billion 
        tons of coal burned worldwide in 2023. Approximately 500 
        million of that will be in the United States and over 4 billion 
        will be in China.

          +   The United States currently has 200,000 MW of coal 
        capacity--of which 127,000 MW are scheduled to be retired or 
        eliminated by EPA regulations in the next 7 years.

          +   China has over 1,100 coal plants with a capacity over 
        1,000,000 MW currently active and they are adding significantly 
        to that amount through 2029.

          +   The world's existing coal fleets will emit 276 billion 
        tonnes of CO2 during their collective lifetimes. The U.S. fleet 
        will emit 9 billion tonnes over its lifetime--3% of the global 
        emission.

     Eco-Colonialism is NOT the answer for dealing with 
            Tribes--or international partners.

          +   According to the International Energy Agency, there are 
        775 million people in the world without access to power.

          +   In the United States, the economic impact of not allowing 
        or marginalizing mineral develop on Tribal Lands would be 
        catastrophic.

          +   Not allowing countries to establish energy independence 
        to further advance their own growth and economic independence 
        should not be the policy of the United States.

          +   Tribal consultation should be consultation with Tribes, 
        not dictating to a desired outcome.

EXPORTS

    NTEC is one of a few companies that is exporting thermal coal out 
of the Westshore Terminal in Southwest Canada. We export between 3 and 
5.1 million tons per year--depending on the quality of rail service we 
get. If we could get 40 million tons available for export, the Asian 
market would gladly purchase it. The coal they are purchasing from 
United States mines is high quality, consistent coal and it burns very 
efficiently in their boilers. There are some significant side benefits 
to the exportation of U.S. coal as well. First, the vast majority of 
the coal that is being exported is on state or federal land--therefore 
it is subject to a 12.5% royalty. Second, the coal that we are able to 
place into the market displaces coal that is mined in countries that do 
not have the same environmental and labor laws that are prevalent in 
the United States. However, we have extreme constraints on getting coal 
into the export market. As I mentioned, we are exporting through 
Canada. Canada, and the province of British Columbia, have actively 
discussed legislation that would ban coal trains from the United States 
passing through their territory. Further, all of the projects that were 
initiated to build a new coal terminal in Oregon and Washington were 
shut down by either the Army Corp of Engineers or Washington Governor 
Inslee. As such, there is a very significant challenge in being able to 
place United States coal into the Pacific. Starting over a year ago, 
there have been significant transportation disruptions and we have not 
been able to get rail service adequate to deliver coal to meet our 
customers' demands in Asia. The demand for coal in Asia is being met by 
other suppliers, including Russia, in absence of sufficient U.S. 
supplies. That did not have to be the case--it shouldn't be the case.

FOCUS ON EMISSIONS, NOT THE FUEL SOURCE

    There is such an overwhelming focus on `eliminating coal'. The 
Powering Past Coal Alliance's current website states ``The End of Coal 
is in Sight'' as an almost celebratory statement. Over the past decade, 
a significant number of companies in the financial and insurance 
sectors have told coal companies they will no longer work with them . . 
. not because they were high risk or bad business, but because they 
were coal producers. Headlines across the globe are available on a 
daily basis demonizing coal, coal workers, and supporters of the most 
reliable, dependable and affordable producer of energy on the planet.
    We should have a very consistent focus of what comes out of the 
stack rather than what runs the turbine. If we are truly concerned 
about greenhouse gases, then the focus should be on minimizing/
eliminating emissions regardless of what is running the generator 
within the plant. We believe carbon capture may be one possible 
solution to reduce emissions. However, CCUS is NOT a solution that will 
work for every power plant, nor is it viable for every geographical 
location. Further, the permitting necessary to get Class 6 wells in 
place is not streamlined and currently looks as if the process will 
take years. Additionally, there are MANY Other potential solutions 
which may either exist or are yet to be found. Perhaps harnessing and 
storing the power of lighting is possible. Perhaps the technology to 
separate elements within our atmosphere to breakdown GHGs will prove 
possible. There are areas that are focusing on innovation, but nowhere 
near enough if we want to truly find a solution.
    One example is C-Valley in Campbell County, Wyoming. C-Valley has 
established a site where companies and researchers are able to not only 
work on carbon capture projects; but look for new and innovative ways 
to transform coal into other products--such as asphalt, graphite, 
carbon fiber and more. Additionally, the University of Wyoming 
continues to move forward with research on alternative uses for coal. 
They recently filed a patent for a building material that uses coal 
rather than clay. The new product has shown in tests that it is 
lighter, stronger, more energy efficient and cost effective.
    From a policy perspective, I believe the focus on demonizing coal 
rather than finding ways to solve the concerns has led us down a path 
with some extraordinary challenges and devastating consequences.

REVENUES

    Coal has clearly been in a decline over the past 6 years. In 2017, 
federal coal revenues (includes bonus payments, rents, royalties) 
totaled $558 million. After years of declines, 2021 revenue totaled 
$382 million. There was a rebound in 2022 and the preliminary revenue 
is $526 million. This revenue for the Department of the Interior is 
essential to the federal government and the states in which coal is 
mined.

PERMITTING

    There has been 1 Lease by Application (LBA) in Wyoming in the last 
15 years.

    Over the past 20 years, the process of acquiring additional coal to 
mine has gone from a 3-5-year process to the current 12-year process. 
There are several reasons for this lengthy process including redundancy 
of reviews by different agencies, litigation delays, Department of the 
Interior's timing of handling its workload just to name a few. One of 
the most significant causes of delay is the well understood use of 
``lawfare'' that is supported by a judicial review process that permits 
virtually unlimited re-considerations of challenges to pending permits 
and agency rulings. Also, under the current rules, when a company is 
awarded an LBA, it pays for that coal in the immediately following 5 
years. The winning bids for coal between 2000 and 2012 ranged from a 
low of $42.8 million to a high of $793 million. In other words, if a 
coal company is interested in acquiring additional coal on federal land 
(where the vast majority of the coal is located west of the Mississippi 
River), the company would need to pay the bid of hundreds of millions 
of dollars without obtaining a penny of revenue from the purchased coal 
for 12 years. This economic reality has created a situation where the 
currently leased coal in the Powder River Basin could be mined in the 
next 15-20 years. Unless the economics around thermal coal 
significantly change, or the permitting process is significantly 
shortened, the amount of coal coming out of Wyoming and Montana will be 
a pittance of what we see today.

REST OF THE WORLD

    We estimate there will be approximately 8 billion tons of coal 
burned in the world in 2023. That includes thermal and met coal. Of 
that amount, only 500 million tons burned in the United States--leaving 
a balance of 7.5 billion tons burned elsewhere. Of that, approximately 
4 billion tons will be burned in China.
    Today, the U.S. coal fleet is around 200,000 MW. Of that, 
approximately 50% is supposed to retire by the end of 2030. Further, it 
is anticipated that the regulations about to come out of the 
Environmental Protection Agency will eliminate another 27,000 MW of 
coal generation in the U.S. by 2027. This at a time when moving to an 
EV economy is expected to at least double the demand for electricity in 
the next 25 years.
    Currently, China has the world's largest coal fleet with over 
1,000,000 MW. Five times the U.S. fleet. India is currently second with 
233,000 MW. China and India are both increasing their coal generation; 
together, they have 347,000 MW under construction or in development. 
Chinese President Xi Jinping has pledge to `strictly control' coal 
consumption until 2025 and start cutting coal use in 2026 in order to 
reach their maximum CO2 emissions before their `before 2030' deadline.
    As of December 2022, there were 2,439 coal plants in the world. Of 
those, 225 are in the United States. It is currently estimated that the 
world's existing coal fleet will emit 276 billion tonnes of CO2 during 
their collective lifetimes. The U.S. fleet will emit 3% of the world's 
total.
    The concern is that while the U.S. policy is to eliminate reliable 
and available coal generated electricity, a country that has a stated 
goal of being the single global superpower is dramatically increasing 
its available power. China currently consumes over 50% of the global 
coal consumption, and it is highly likely that allocation will continue 
to grow.

                                 ______
                                 
Questions Submitted for the Record to Matthew Adams, Vice President and 
         Senior Tax Counsel, Navajo Transitional Energy Company

             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
    Question 1. As our nation continues to experience severe energy 
reliability issues, how does coal stand in the way of rolling blackout 
and grid failures?

    Answer. Thermal coal provides on demand, reliable energy during 
day, night, rain, snow, wind, heat, cold, calm, cloudy, sunny and every 
other weather condition. Furthermore, thermal coal supports the 
national electric grid by providing baseload electricity at 
approximately 60 hertz--which is necessary for the stability of the 
grid. With baseload electricity established and transport frequencies 
established at approximately 60 hertz, other providers of electricity 
are then able to supplement the grid with wind, solar, hydro resources. 
Without coal (or nuclear or gas) maintaining baseload levels, the grid 
is simply not able to safely carry electricity from these other 
sources. It's a matter of physics.

    The nation's coal fleet provides many attributes that are necessary 
for resource adequacy and operational reliability of the grid:

     Coal has a high accredited capacity value, which is a 
            measure of the dependability of a resource when electricity 
            demand peaks. The accredited capacity value for coal is 
            almost 90%. Only nuclear plants have a higher accredited 
            capacity. Coal is more than two to 40 times more dependable 
            than wind and solar power, according to PJM's accredited 
            capacity values.

     Coal provides ``essential reliability services.'' Voltage 
            control, frequency support and ramping capability are 
            critical to operational reliability. Coal and other thermal 
            resources provide these services. Wind and solar do not.

     Coal provides other reliability attributes such as fuel 
            assurance, dispatchability, availability in all seasons, 
            long duration at high output, and flexibility.

    Winter Storm Elliott provided a recent example of the importance 
and dependability of the coal fleet in 2022. During the peak of the 
storm, coal provided close to 40% of the additional electricity that 
was needed to keep the lights and heat on in impacted regions of the 
country. By comparison, wind and solar contributed a negligible amount 
when additional electricity was needed most.

    Question 2. It has been quite a long time since a coal fired power 
plant was built in the U.S. Has technology advanced since that time, 
particularly in regard to emissions and other air quality controls, and 
are other countries deploying this new power plant technology? To what 
affect?

    Answer. The three most recently built coal power plants in the U.S. 
began operation in 2013 and 2014. In 2013, the 805 MW Edwardsport 
(Indiana) and 1,008 MW Sandy Creek (Texas) plants began operation. 
Edwardsport utilizes integrated gasification combined cycle technology, 
and Sandy Creek utilizes supercritical technology. Both are highly 
efficient technologies. In 2014, Spirit Wood #1 (North Dakota), a 
cogeneration plant, began operation. This plant uses fluidized bed 
combustion technology.
    Generally, ultra-supercritical (USC) technology is considered to be 
the most efficient coal-based electric generating technology. (However, 
supercritical technologies can sometimes be as efficient as USC.) The 
609 MW Turk power plant in Arkansas, brought online in 2012, utilizes 
USC technology, which operates at higher pressures and temperatures 
than other coal technologies. These capabilities translate into higher 
efficiency and lower CO2 emissions. Turk is the only USC plant in the 
U.S., whereas China and other countries have almost 400,000 MW of USC 
coal plants in operation.
    Combining efficient coal technologies with advanced emission 
controls for NOx, SO2, particulate matter, mercury and other hazardous 
air pollutants contributes to a much smaller environmental impact. 
These emission control technologies in use today by the coal fleet 
include, but are not limited to, dry and wet flue gas desulfurization 
systems (scrubbers), selective catalytic reduction systems (SCR), 
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), low-NOx burners, 
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filter systems (baghouses), dry 
sorbent injection systems, and activated carbon injection. Over the 
past several decades, emissions of conventional air pollutants have 
been reduced by over 90% per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. 
Utilities have invested more than $90 billion in emissions controls 
over the past two decades. In addition, a number of coal plants are 
considering the installation of carbon capture technology to further 
the development of the technology.
    The technology in the world has advanced to the point where a coal 
plant built today can: 1) burn thermal coal for electricity; 2) 
separate hydrogen from the coal for further power; 3) separate rare 
earth minerals from the coal ore for further refinement and 
utilization; 4) sequestration of the carbon from the plant; all while 
eliminating more `pollutants' than at any other time in history. 
However, the United States has turned away from pursuing this highly 
efficient use of our massive coal resources which would have 
significant industrial impacts well beyond providing efficient, cost-
effective electricity. Rather, our current energy policy leads us down 
the path toward black-outs, significantly higher energy costs and 
energy limitations on our economic growth going forward.

    Question 3. Do regulations and policies placed on the coal mining 
industry match the demand for electricity, especially considering the 
administration's push to electric vehicles and ongoing grid reliability 
concerns?

    3a) Do you think that the speed of increasing renewable energy 
sources is outpacing our ability to sustain electricity demand, should 
conventional energy sources like coal continue to be stymied?

    Answer. Some studies have estimated that the electric vehicle 
incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act will increase the peak demand 
for electricity by as much as 40% by 2030. In addition, some regions 
face additional demands for electricity. For example, the PJM region is 
home to the world's largest concentration of data centers. Because of 
the increase in demand growth and coal retirements, PJM indicated in 
February of this year that new electric generating capacity ``would be 
insufficient to keep up with expected retirements and demand growth by 
2030.''
    At the same time electricity demand is growing, coal retirements 
continue to increase. In fact, announced coal retirements total almost 
80,000 MW during 2023-2030. These announced retirements represent 
approximately 40% of the existing coal fleet--which has already 
experienced more than 100,000 MW of retirements through last year--and 
do not include the impact of new EPA rules. While there is a large 
amount of wind and solar capacity lined up in interconnection queues, 
only 14% of this amount is estimated to be brought online, and 
interconnection wait times have increased to roughly five years.
    In addition, EPA regulations will cause even more coal retirements 
and exacerbate the risk of electricity shortages in many regions of the 
country. EPA has proposed or finalized four rules over a period of only 
three months this year: Effluent Limitations Guidelines (proposed), 
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (proposed), Clean Power Plan 2.0 
(proposed) and Ozone Transport Rule (finalized). Each is projected to 
cause more coal retirements unless steps are taken to moderate them.

    Question 4. How would abandoning coal mining as a source of energy 
impact communities like Navajo Nation or the Crow Tribe that seek to 
develop and utilize their own energy resources?

    Answer. The abandonment of thermal coal as a source of energy 
before we have the technology to replace it will impact each and every 
community in America and beyond. It is not hyperbole or embellishment 
to state that elimination of thermal coal power would be catastrophic 
if it happens before there is a replacement that is: 1) reliable, 2) 
readily available and 3) for a substantially similar cost or less.
    There are two distinct impacts from the elimination of coal in 
communities like the Navajo Nation. The first impact is the loss of 
revenue and jobs associated with the mining and production of coal and 
electricity. The Navajo Nation is one of the most marginalized 
communities in the United States, with shocking unemployment rates, 
meager wages, and minimal infrastructure over its 27,000 square miles. 
Through the taxes and royalties paid to the Navajo Nation, NTEC 
accounts for nearly 1/3 of the annual general fund. When combined with 
the taxes and revenue from our 7% interest in the Four Corners Power 
Plant (which is fed from the coal at the Navajo Mine), NTEC is 
currently responsible for 40% of the Navajo Nation general fund on an 
annual basis. There is no replacing that level of funding, especially 
from `green energy'. If the Biden Administration wins its war on coal, 
the end result may very well also be the elimination of the Navajo 
culture through economic starvation.
    The second impact of elimination of coal as a source of electricity 
is the straight reduction of cheap, reliable, ever available power. 
Electricity through the central corridor of the country is managed by 
three Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs); Midcontinent 
Independent System Operator, Inc (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and 
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Each of these RTOs have 
very easy to use mobile apps or websites where you can see the energy 
mix they are utilizing in real-time. The PJM Interconnection (PJM) also 
has a mobile app with real-time data for their region (which include 
the mid-Atlantic region and Washington DC for those who may be 
inclined). Whether the day is hot or cold, windy, sunny, cloudy or calm 
it is rare to see a fuel source other than coal or natural gas dominate 
the electricity production throughout MISO, SPP and ERCOT. In other 
words, The middle corridor of the United States--from Louisiana up 
through Michigan and Wisconsin; Texas up through the Dakotas and 
Eastern half of Montana--all heavily rely on coal power.
    When the electricity shuts off (brownout, blackout, rationed power) 
not everyone is impacted the same. As pointed out in a Reuters article 
from February of this year (South African Cities Scramble to Keep the 
Lights On, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/south-african-cities-
scramble-keep-lights-2023-02-21) those that are harmed the most from 
the push away from fossil fuel generation plants are those that cannot 
afford solar units for their homes. On Navajo Nation, the per capita 
income was $10,220 in 2020 (about 1/3rd the national level). If the 
Biden Administration is able to accomplish their goal of shutting down 
cheap, reliable coal and gas generating plants across the country, 
those harmed the most with be those most at risk. Inner-city and rural 
populations, low income and fixed income citizens will be most affected 
by higher energy costs. The Biden energy policy end-results will be 
devastating to those that we should be working the hardest to protect. 
To note, NTEC has approximately 350 registered Navajo on our payroll at 
the Navajo mine with an average salary of approximately $87,000. 
Obviously, under the Biden Administrations war on coal all those jobs 
are at risk.
    Of note, NTEC is working very hard to try to meet some of the 
requirements that have been laid out by the EPA over the past two 
years. We were recently selected as a Department of Energy CCS project 
for the Four Corners Power Plant. However, EPA requirements as 
presented in the ``Clean Power Plan 2.0'' rules are simply not 
attainable and we doubt that any company will be able to meet any of 
the standards required to stay open. For example, coal plants must have 
CCS up and running at a 90% level on 1/1/2030 under the rules. This is 
a completely unrealistic deadline given the amount of engineering that 
has yet to be analyzed, created and deployed. The permitting alone will 
take years (if not a decade) at current rates. There are currently 117 
Class 6 wells on the waiting list. It certainly appears to NTEC that 
EPA's intention is not to develop rules that allow for development of 
technology to enhance emissions. Rather, EPA's intention appears to be 
to develop rules that are not attainable, thereby requiring the 
elimination of all power plants that have any emissions. This 
philosophy will undoubtedly lead to a significant reduction in reliable 
power, a massive decrease in economic output from our nation's 
industry, a material change in our national security and a complete 
change in our way of life.

    Question 5. You testified about making bonus bid payments years in 
advance of getting approval to actually mine a federal lease. If NTEC 
made the determination to invest differently, could NTEC terminate that 
federal lease and obtain return of its bonus bid payments? If so, what 
is the process? If not, why not?

    Answer. Under current law and regulations, if NTEC had made some 
(or all) of the bonus bids related to a Lease by Application or a Lease 
by Modification then `changed its mind' on the investment, NTEC would 
not only forfeit all payments made to date, but it would also require 
permission from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to avoid future 
payments as well.
    Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (``MLA'') and the Mineral 
Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, BLM is responsible for the 
leasing of Federal coal and regulation of the development of that coal 
on the acres of mineral estate owned by the Federal Government. With 
limited exceptions, Federal lands available for coal leasing must be 
sold by competitive bid, with BLM receiving fair market value for the 
lease. BLM coal leasing regulations provide for two separate 
competitive coal leasing processes: (1) regional leasing, where BLM 
selects tracts within a region for competitive sale; and (2) leasing by 
application, where an industry applicant nominates a particular tract 
of coal for competitive sale. The Federal Government receives revenue 
from coal leasing in three ways: (1) a bonus that is paid at the time 
BLM issues a lease; (2) rental fees; and (3) production royalties.
    Under BLM's regulations, a lessee can surrender a coal lease by 
filing a relinquishment with the BLM office that has jurisdiction over 
the leased lands. A lease relinquishment must be approved by an 
authorized officer and can only be approved upon a determination that 
the relinquishment will not impair the public interest, that the 
accrued rentals and royalties have been paid and that all the 
obligations of the lessee under the regulations and terms of the lease 
have been met. If a lease is relinquished (or canceled or terminated), 
all deferred bonus payments must be paid immediately and all rentals 
and royalties, including advance royalties, already paid or due, are 
forfeited to the United States.
    Accordingly, under BLM's regulations, a Federal coal lessee would 
not be able to recover its advance royalties if it decides to 
relinquish its lease prior to its expiration. There is no case law 
providing an exception to these regulations for situations where the 
lease cannot be successfully operated.
    The MLA's mechanism for addressing changed circumstances during a 
lease period is the suspension, waiver, or reduction of the rental or 
the reduction of royalties. The MLA and its implementing regulations 
empower BLM to waive, suspend or reduce the rental, or reduce the 
royalty, on a Federal lease (1) for the purpose of encouraging the 
greatest ultimate recovery of Federal coal, and (2) in the interest of 
conservation of Federal coal and other resources, whenever (a) in his 
judgment it is necessary to promote development, or (b) if he finds 
that the Federal lease cannot be successfully operated under its terms. 
The MLA prohibits BLM from waiving, suspending, or reducing advance 
royalties. While the MLA's implementing regulations state that the BLM 
may not reduce to zero any royalty on a producing Federal lease, the 
MLA does not contain such a restriction.
    In practice, a lessee would typically seek a reduction in the 
royalty rate when a lease cannot be successfully operated. BLM has 
issued Supplemental Guidance on Processing Royalty Rate Reduction 
Applications (``Supplemental Guidance'') to its Washington Office and 
Field Officials. In the Supplemental Guidance, BLM includes a checklist 
of items to be analyzed within a royalty rate reduction decision. One 
of the criteria is to ``[a]nalyze, describe, and document how mining 
operations are not profitable under the terms of the lease.'' While 
BLM's website states that the BLM can ``temporarily reduce the royalty 
rate'' for a specific area of coal, neither the MLA nor its 
implementing regulations require that the reduction be temporary.
    In addition to reducing a royalty, as mentioned above, BLM can also 
waive, suspend or reduce the rental on a Federal lease. Under the MLA's 
implementing regulations, a lessee can request that BLM waive, suspend, 
or reduce the rental or, reduce the royalty, by submitting an 
application with BLM that includes certain mine information and ``a 
detailed statement of expenses and costs of operating the entire mine, 
the income from the sale of coal, and all facts indicating whether the 
mine can be successfully operated under the Federal rental and royalty 
provisions fixed in the Federal lease or why the reduction is necessary 
to promote development.''

    Question 6. If you could change the federal coal leasing law, would 
you include a bonus payment reimbursement provision to enable coal 
lessees to obtain a refund of their money if they are not able to 
access their lease within a reasonable time frame?

    Answer. I believe there are a number of changes that need to be 
considered for the current leasing laws and regulations as a result of 
the impacts of legal pressure and economic pressure on the industry 
over the past 4+ decades. The rules have been put in place to enable, 
and to entice, the production of minerals from federal land for the 
benefit of the owners--the United States citizens. With respect to 
thermal coal, citizens benefit from ownership of the mineral in a 
number of ways. First, the United States receives payment for the 
purchase of the coal (bonus bids). Second, the United States receives a 
percentage of the value of the mineral sold as a royalty (regardless of 
whether or not the sale is profitable to the producer). Third, in the 
case of domestically sold thermal coal, the vast majority of the coal 
is utilized for the production of low cost and reliable electricity.
    Under current regulations, if a producer abandons a coal production 
project after a winning bid--but prior to production from the lease, 
the producer may not recover any bonus bid payments made toward 
acquisition of the lease. Historically, this was never/very rarely a 
concern since the time lapse between a winning bid and production from 
the lease was a matter of less than 5 years at most. However, in 
today's litigious and heavily regulated environment a producer has no 
expectation of revenues from a new lease within 8 years--and perhaps 
longer then 12 years after winning a bid. Under this scenario, and 
given the rapidly changing viewpoints on whether or not the United 
States should have reliable electricity on demand, it is egregious that 
there is no mechanism for a producer to have no recourse should they 
change strategies.
    For illustrative purposes, assume hypothetical company Coal Co is a 
coal producer in Wyoming which also owns a coal generated power plant. 
Assume Coal Co won a bid for coal in Wyoming in 2018 for 500 million 
tons at $1 per ton with the expectation that the tons will be used by 
the power plant in 2040 through 2060. This new lease would require 
payments of $100 million in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and a final payment 
in 2022. If the Carbon Rule that was issued by the Biden EPA in 2023 
goes final in 2024, Coal Co's power plant will need to convert to 
carbon capture by January 1, 2030 (which is an impossible task but 
assume otherwise for this illustration). Under the current federal coal 
lease rules, Coal Co would not be able to terminate the process of 
obtaining the new coal lease to reallocate the $500 million toward 
building carbon capture facilities. As such, it is high possible in 
today's environment that the fact that Coal Co was being prudent and 
using advanced planning in 2018 to acquire coal to generate electricity 
for its customers for decades to come could actually end up forcing its 
economic downfall.
    The rules around federal coal leasing need to be examined and 
changed. If the timeframe cannot be dramatically shortened between 
winning a lease bid and economic production from the coal, then 
allowance for contingencies needs to be permitted. Further, the 
provision of coal for reliable electricity needs to be viewed as a 
positive `return' for the citizenry. While this is not an `economic 
return' per se, it is a very real benefit that is being provided to the 
owner of the land, which is allowing utilities to provide lower cost 
electricity than they would otherwise. Producers are struggling 
economically due to significantly increased legal costs related to 
frivolous lawsuits, dramatically increasing compliance standards, 
increased costs of capital due to ESG movements and lower efficiencies 
at mines due to low employment. Royalty rates, bonus bids and rents 
should all be analyzed to seek a balance between the risk factors, 
costs and provisions of electricity.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Before we get into Members' questions, I have just a couple 
of comments, I wrote some things down.
    There are some people that are ``OK with the process, even 
if it takes 20 years, so long as mining never happens.''
    And as I was told in one of the committees, a witness said, 
``I don't know why they use coal when we have electricity.'' 
So, I think that is the educational component that we can talk 
to the American people about.
    And you talked about energy poverty. I think that is a 
really, really important conversation to have.
    Before we begin, I normally would recognize myself, but I 
want to recognize Representative Carl from Alabama for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Carl.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me go out of 
order. I appreciate that, it is so uncommon, and I appreciate 
that courtesy, and the Ranking Member, for giving me a few 
minutes.
    And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I am 
thrilled to have my own constituent sitting here at the table 
and speaking for my folks. It is such an honor when I can get 
folks from my district to come up and actually speak for me.
    Coal production is critical in this country, and I am 
extremely concerned about protecting the production and export 
of met coal. We have a tremendous amount of met coal in the 
state of Alabama, and the Interior Department has agreed met 
coal does not fall under this coal moratorium, but we still see 
them dragging their heels getting permits issued. It is still a 
nightmare for us.
    From my time on the Port Authority that I mentioned 
earlier, when I was a county commissioner I understand 
firsthand just how important met coal is to the Port of Mobile 
and, in turn, how important the Port is to our local, regional, 
and state economy. For several months, I have been doing all I 
can do to push this Administration to take action on the 
pending met coal leases.
    Warrior Met, which is up in the Jasper area, Jasper, 
Tuscaloosa, has been working for years on permit issues. 
Despite all of these efforts, this Administration continues to 
throw more and more hurdles at this project to slow it down.
    The government incompetency here has gone on long enough, 
and I have a huge concern about the impact this could have on 
the thousands of jobs impacted by the coal mining in the state 
of Alabama. So, Mr. Driscoll, I have a question for you. Can 
you walk us through the potential impact that the Port would 
experience if our met coal could not pass through our port, and 
if this pending lease is not approved, which it has been 
approved, they just can't seem to get the paperwork processed, 
FYI.
    Mr. Driscoll. Thank you, Congressman. Yes.
    The impact on the Port specifically would be incredibly 
impactful in a negative fashion. Forty percent of the revenue 
that we generate is through coal, which the majority is 
metallurgical coal. And as I stated previously, the Port 
Authority for the state of Alabama has an economic impact for 
the state of about $85 billion. The one I am most proud of is 
that there are over 313,000 Alabamians that are employed as a 
direct result of the Port's activities. So, the impact on those 
specific items would be devastating, and would be reduced 
significantly.
    We employ union labor at the Port. We deal with eight 
different labor unions. We also have non-union labor, but we 
have eight different labor unions. I would be afraid to say 
that they would be impacted because the volume of cargo would 
go down significantly, and we would lose some of those very 
good-paying jobs, too, because we didn't have the work. So, the 
impact associated with that would be tremendous for the Port 
Authority.
    That is just the Port. That is not our customer base. That 
is not some of the met customers that are in, and that is why 
we are in business, for the people of Alabama, to generate jobs 
and generate business. And the impact to them would be equally 
detrimental.
    Mr. Carl. Where is most of this met coal going?
    Mr. Driscoll. It is all around the world. It is the steel-
producing countries around the world. It is Japan, South Korea, 
Germany, Austria, South American countries, Brazil. China, they 
just started sending some product to China about 2 years ago 
because of the disputes between Australia and China. So, we do 
some business with China for this met coal product, but 
primarily it is around the world of these countries that 
produce the steel products around the world.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Director. I appreciate your testimony 
and highlighting how important met coal is to the Port of 
Mobile: 313,000 jobs in the state of Alabama, in a small state 
like we have, that is a lot of jobs. That is a huge impact.
    And you did say billions, with a B, not M?
    Mr. Driscoll. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carl. Right? OK. See, we get numbers up here mixed up. 
There are so many zeros. We have been known. But with that, 
thank you for coming and speaking to us.
    Mr. Driscoll. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Carl. I yield my time back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair will now 
recognize the Ranking Member, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We just heard a 
little bit about Warrior Met Coal and its leases and permits. 
But so far this conversation has left out the other major news 
about the company: its ongoing labor dispute with the United 
Mine Workers of America. In March of this year, UMWA workers at 
Warrior Met Coal ended a 2-year strike with no improved 
contract. This was the longest strike in Alabama's history and 
a disappointing outcome on many levels.
    These workers had personally sacrificed to keep the mine 
running when the previous owner, Walter Energy, went bankrupt 
in 2016. And I think it is important to talk about this, 
because this is exemplary of not just one company's treatment 
of its mine workers, but an industry's treatment of its 
workers. These workers agreed to significant pay cuts, 
increased health care costs, and reduced retirement benefits 
just to keep the mine running. Workers took those cuts with the 
understanding that they would be reversed when the mine was 
profitable again.
    Mr. Driscoll, do you know how much profit Warrior Met Coal 
made last year?
    Mr. Driscoll. I don't.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. According to their 2022 annual report, 
Warrior Met made over $641 million in profit last year. And 
this is not a fluke. With the exception of the 2020 pandemic, 
Warrior Met has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit 
each year since purchasing the mine in question.
    And in that same report, Warrior Met Coal calls itself 
socially minded. But less than 2 weeks ago, a judge with the 
National Labor Relations Board found that Warrior Met Coal 
violated labor laws during the strike. And, unfortunately, 
Warrior Met is not the only coal company with this kind of 
track record.
    Coal started declining in 2008, as cheaper and cleaner 
forms of energy became more available. And since then we have 
seen significant waves of bankruptcies in the industry. Ms. 
Kendall, when a coal company goes bankrupt, can you briefly 
explain what happens to worker pay and benefits?
    Ms. Kendall. Part of the answer probably depends on the 
company and the particular circumstances. But, in general, 
workers are very vulnerable. I mean, we have had members who 
are former coal miners who have lost their jobs overnight, lost 
their paychecks overnight, and lost their retirement benefits, 
as well.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. When these coal companies go bankrupt, 
they shed their liabilities for health care and pensions. They 
no longer have to cover workers' health care, workers' 
pensions. If a new company like Met Coal buys that previous 
bankrupt company's assets, the contract will, almost without a 
doubt, be worse for those workers, as well.
    And in addition to those workers forfeiting pension, health 
care, and other employee benefits through bankruptcy, 
reclamation also becomes a significant issue.
    [Slide.]
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And we see some photos right up here of 
some of the environmental damage that happens with some of 
these mines. But those companies are supposed to be responsible 
for reclamation responsibilities here. Can you speak to some of 
the environmental and public health impacts on coal country 
communities in these instances?
    Ms. Kendall. Many of our members are ranchers in coal 
country, and they have experienced groundwater depletion and 
surface water depletion. I think for folks who are familiar 
with ranching, you know how important water sources are, and 
especially natural springs and watering holes. So, to lose 
those due to coal mining in an area is a huge concern.
    And the general experience of our members has been that 
those resources are not replaced. So, that means they have to 
haul water at great expense. It takes a great deal of time. We 
are extremely concerned about reclamation delays in our area. 
Just 17 percent of the mined lands in Wyoming and 20 percent in 
Montana have been completely reclaimed over decades. And it is 
a very big concern that the reclamation bonds that are in place 
are not sufficient to ensure that reclamation occurs. So, it is 
a big concern when bankruptcy is a prospect.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, not only when these companies go 
bankrupt do they strip workers of their benefits, workers don't 
get health care, they don't get pensions, but then also they 
don't fully meet the responsibilities of reclamation in 
repairing harm to local lands because the bonds are 
insufficient. Is that correct?
    Ms. Kendall. Well, we haven't seen that yet, but the bonds 
are the backstop. And the fact that bonds are not sufficient to 
cover the costs of reclamation, and the fact that self-bonding 
is still allowed by the law, even though it has been phased out 
in many states, is a big concern that needs to be addressed.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. How could the Federal coal program be 
improved to make sure that mines are quickly and fully 
reclaimed in the industry?
    Ms. Kendall. Well, I think when we talk about the Federal 
coal program we are talking about BLM leasing Federal coal. So, 
their role is really, in our view, they could consider things 
like setting a target for mines to reclaim perhaps 50 percent 
of their existing disturbed lands before they get future 
leases. Maybe that is not the right level, but I think they 
could be looking at creative policies that would encourage 
reclamation, or they certainly could require that sufficient 
bonds be posted to cover the costs of reclamation.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair will now 
recognize Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
our witnesses for joining us today.
    Mr. Driscoll, I appreciate you pointing out the importance 
of met coal, as you talked about, metallurgical coal, the 
supply of carbon that is needed for steel production. We know 
how incredibly important that is as we talk about supply chain 
today, about us being reliant on other countries for things 
like steel.
    We know the whole debate about tariffs on steel. We know 
that steel here in the United States is needed for anything 
from refrigerators to aircraft carriers. That is a fundamental 
element of why coal production here in the United States is 
important. And any effort to reduce coal production creates, I 
think, both a strategic and economic challenge for the United 
States to make sure we can sustain critical production of 
things like steel. The last thing we want to do is to continue 
to be reliant on China for increasing amounts of steel.
    In your testimony, you talked about met coal accounts for 
about 70 percent of the global steel market. We also know, too, 
that China leads the effort in coal production, but also that 
the United States and Australia are No. 1 and 2 as far as coal 
exportation, and that China imports about 24 percent of their 
coal, again, because they want to lead in production of steel 
to build their economy, but also what they are doing to build 
their military. Can you give us your perspective on what 
happens if we continue to fail to promote met coal production 
here in the United States for the U.S. domestic steel industry?
    Where does that leave us as far as being self-sustaining, 
but also just doing the fundamental things for our U.S. economy 
and for our nation's defense? I just want to get your 
perspective on that.
    Mr. Driscoll. Yes, I mean, I am a shipping person, right? 
But my perspective is, if you increase the reliability on 
foreign supplies, it reduces your options to import or to 
manufacture. I think it is very important to have both.
    The business we are in is the importation of international 
cargo and the exportation of U.S.-supplied raw materials and 
finished goods. So, I think, a balance is required in this 
regard. And I think we need to keep our eye on the fact that we 
have to continue to have a robust economy that supports the 
steel industry, and met coal is one of the resources that 
enables us to do that, domestically and globally.
    Mr. Wittman. I appreciate you pointing out how fundamental 
met coal production is to steel production in the United 
States, and we know what happens with China. They dump massive 
amounts of steel on the open market. Depressed prices create 
challenges for U.S. steel production to continue to maintain.
    Give me your perspective. You spoke a little bit about it. 
Give me your perspective on how reduction in total coal 
production here, including met coal, exacerbates that issue of 
China dumping massive amounts of steel on the market that 
already challenges the U.S. steel industry. And now, as we talk 
about sourcing, as we talk about the idea of being able to have 
for your production, from the source of that raw material to 
the actual end consumer, where any interruption of that creates 
problems for our country, give us your perspective on what 
impact that has.
    Mr. Driscoll. Yes, I think if you reduce this high-quality, 
low-sulfur met coal that we produce in Alabama and other places 
around the country, it will force them to go to other sources 
of met coal that are not as high-quality, high-grade. And you 
would have to produce more of that. You would have even more 
pollution that would be the result of that.
    Again, I am not a scientist but that is my impression of 
what would happen. So, I think that is why it is very important 
to keep the supply of met coal for the United States and for 
foreign, because we do have a good type of product that we 
supply.
    Mr. Wittman. And what has been done with tariffs on steel, 
which we know has at least tried to level the playing field 
between the United States and China, even in that particular 
situation, if we have a reduction in met coal production here, 
what does that do overall for U.S. steel production, even in 
the face of where tariffs are today?
    Mr. Driscoll. It would probably reduce the coal production.
    Mr. Wittman. And our current steel mills are reliant upon 
the coal produced here in the United States for coke 
production, which is critical for the production of high-
quality steel. Can you give us a little bit of metallurgy about 
what role coal plays in the production of steel, especially the 
high-quality steel that we need here.
    Mr. Driscoll. Metallurgical coal is what they call coking 
coal. So, it is a process that, it is just the chemical makeup 
of this particular type of coal, metallurgical coal. It has the 
fundamental flows and things associated with what you need to 
be able to do steel with the iron ore that is introduced into 
the vat. So, I think that would be the answer.
    Mr. Wittman. And we have the highest-quality coking steel 
of any place in the world right here in the United States.
    Mr. Driscoll. I think so.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We have heard a lot about the Biden administration's 
policies and how they are supposedly throttling coal 
production. I would like to make sure we have a few facts 
straight. Ms. Kendall, when did absolute use and coal 
production start declining in the United States?
    Ms. Kendall. The EIA data shows that coal use in the United 
States began declining in 2007, and production began declining 
after 2008. Federal coal production also started declining 
after 2008.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And was this decline due to 
Federal policies limiting the mining of Federal coal?
    Ms. Kendall. There were no policies limiting the mining of 
Federal coal, I mean, the existing mines still had 20-plus 
years of coal under lease, and permits to mine much of that 
coal. So, there was absolutely no reason driven by the Federal 
coal program that would have led to that decline.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. In fact, in 2020, coal made 
up, I think, 19 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Is that 
correct, would you say?
    Ms. Kendall. I don't have those numbers at my fingertips, 
but that sounds right.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. It does sound right. So, despite what my 
colleagues across the aisle are saying, the Biden 
administration did not cause the decline in coal production, 
and few people are betting on a long-term comeback for coal. In 
fact, the CEO of Arch Resources, the second-largest coal 
producer in the United States, said in a 2022 sales call that 
their long-term plan is to exit the Powder River Basin, despite 
an uptick in profits last year. So, we need to take the coal 
transition seriously.
    According to analysis by Headwaters Economics, 66 counties 
around the United States will experience a full or partial 
closure of a coal mine or power plant by the end of this 
decade, not because of Biden, but because of the market.
    As many folks in my committee know, my district is home to 
the United States' largest urban oil field. It is the Inglewood 
oil field. And LA recently banned all new oil drilling in the 
city, with a plan to phase out existing production within 20 
years. With that, the city created a Just Transition Task Force 
to create concrete support for oil workers to transition to 
jobs with comparable family-sustaining compensations, involve 
communities and Tribal Nations in land remediation and 
redevelopment planning, and leverage public and private funding 
to finance this transition equitably and sustainably.
    Ms. Kendall, could this type of transition planning work 
for the coal communities that you work with?
    Ms. Kendall. It is a challenging situation. I think Mr. 
Adams laid that out when he discussed the Navajo Nation's 
experience. I think, in our view, advance planning helps and I 
think, from the community perspective, for communities to be 
able to plan and, frankly, for the Federal coal program to plan 
for the future, so that they can look at how are they 
addressing concerns related to safety and reclamation, workers, 
job loss, tax base.
    I think to look at the issue of how revenue is managed now 
and how it can be replaced for the communities that are most 
dependent on it is critical.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Absolutely. It is challenging because it 
is also precipitated by fear. If a plant closes, the economies 
stall, jobs leave, and people get very nervous because they 
feel like they are being forgotten, which is why we should be 
making sure that the Federal Government is doing all that we 
can to help coal communities transition.
    So, Ms. Kendall, how could reforms to the Federal coal 
program help communities prepare to transition?
    Ms. Kendall. Well, I think, one key thing is revenue. And 
several Members have referred to the share of royalty revenue 
and other revenue that goes to states and local governments.
    I think there have been proposals from Headwaters Economics 
and others to look at how much revenue is brought in, what the 
rates are, and how it is distributed, and whether that should 
be changed. I think that is a great example of how the Federal 
program can be helping communities prepare.
    The other area in our view that is absolutely essential is 
reclamation. Our reclamation program right now is broken. We 
are deeply concerned that those strip mines that you showed 
earlier will not be fully reclaimed. And what will happen then 
with agriculture and wildlife, which have really been the prior 
productive uses of those lands?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you. My time is up.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Adams, in your testimony you noted that GHG emissions 
from the U.S. coal fleet from inception to closure is estimated 
to be less than 1.5 percent of global GHG emissions. In 
comparison, China is responsible for nearly 30 percent of 
global GHG emissions year after year. Given that emissions from 
U.S. coal is close to negligible compared to the global total, 
do you think that it would make any measurable difference to 
climate change if U.S. coal production stopped overnight like 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
advocating for?
    Mr. Adams. No.
    Mr. Stauber. Do you want to expand on that?
    Mr. Adams. Yes. To climate change, no, it would not make 
any negligible change. To our economy, to our national 
security, to the lives and well-being of American citizens, 
absolutely.
    And the issue that we are talking about here isn't making 
up for the jobs and the finances of coal community. It is the 
fact that we are cutting out 25 percent, or 20 percent, of U.S. 
power without a replacement in a time when we are saying we 
need more power. There is no replacement plan for the power 
that we are saying go away. That is the concern.
    If there were pixie dust and unicorns to replace it, then 
coal country would get behind it. But there is not. We are 
concerned that American lives are going to be lost, that the 
U.S. economy is not going to survive. That is what coal country 
is worried about.
    There is this misconception on these last questions that 
the U.S. coal country is simply concerned about itself. OK, of 
course, people are concerned about their jobs. Of course, we 
care deeply about America. But we care deeply about America. 
And losing 25 percent of our energy without a replacement being 
there, we are shocked and concerned that that is not a concern. 
How can we get rid of our energy without being concerned about 
there not being a replacement in line taking its place?
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. As the United States rushes to 
bring renewable energy on-line, what does this rapid increase 
mean for the reliability of our energy grid?
    And what kind of role does easily dispatchable baseload 
power, like coal, play in maintaining that reliability, Mr. 
Adams?
    Mr. Adams. Again, I think, on the reliability factor it 
gets very technical in the physics. And with Storm Uri in Texas 
2 years ago, we almost learned a horribly painful lesson where 
we were within 4.5 minutes, literally 4.5 minutes, of learning 
what it was like to lose power for 5 weeks in the entire state 
of Texas because the frequency of the electricity on the grid 
has to be at 60 degrees, it can't be intermittent.
    Wind and solar cannot support the entire grid. Gas, coal, 
some future technology of hydrogen, some nuclear, whatever it 
is, there has to be a baseload that keeps the grid solid at 60 
megahertz. It has to sit there. And if that drops below, then 
there is a systemic issue that will shut the grid down.
    Mr. Stauber. In Minnesota, when it is 40 below for 2 weeks 
at a time, we need that baseload to keep us alive.
    Director Driscoll, my home state of Minnesota has been 
mining iron and taconite used in steel making for over 140 
years. Met coal, as you explained in your testimony, is the 
other key component in the steel produced today. My district 
understands very well how vital steelmaking is at the national 
level and for local economic prosperity. My constituents know 
firsthand how harmful these administration resources policies 
can be. In your estimation, what would be the impact on 
steelmaking potential if the millions of tons of met coal at 
the Warrior Met Project are left in the ground?
    Mr. Driscoll. Could you repeat your question, sir?
    Mr. Stauber. What would be the effect, the impact, on 
steelmaking potential, if the millions of tons of met coal at 
the Warrior Met Project are left in the ground?
    Mr. Driscoll. It would be dramatic because you wouldn't 
produce that steel. You wouldn't have the raw resource to be 
able to produce that steel. So, it would be dramatic.
    Mr. Stauber. As you know, the Iron Range in northeastern 
Minnesota mines over 80 percent of the taconite that makes 
steel in this country. That would most likely result in lay-
offs. And when we talk about American-made steel, met coal is 
needed. Would that be correct?
    Mr. Driscoll. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Mr. Luthi, in your testimony, you 
mentioned two mine plan amendments in the state of Wyoming that 
have been pending at the Department of the Interior. This is 
despite completed reviews at the state level and at least one 
letter sent by your governor to Secretary Haaland to inquire 
about the delay. Can you explain as best you can why there have 
been delays?
    Mr. Luthi. Mr. Chairman, I would love to be able to explain 
that. I cannot.
    We have volunteered to give them more information. We have 
tried to work with them. So, far the silence has truly been 
deafening. These are simple mine amendments that it should be, 
I would think, an easy thing to approve.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Luthi, we had one of our witnesses make 
the comment, and I wrote it down, this Administration needs 
``time to review the program.'' That is a delay tactic. And we 
are seeing it in northeastern Minnesota in the mining. They are 
OK with the process, as long as the process takes, so long as 
mining does not take place. That is their end goal. And we have 
to remove that type of thinking if we want to be energy 
dominant and critical mineral dominant.
    With that being said, Mr. Magaziner, you are up for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman.
    Let's get right to the heart of the matter here. Climate 
change is real. It is costing lives. It is costing jobs. It is 
costing money out of the pockets of working people. It is man-
made. It must be reversed. And in order to do that, we need to 
phase out of coal.
    Last week, the world had the 4 hottest days on record 
globally. The 4 hottest days in human record happened last 
week. We are on pace for 2023 to be the hottest year in human 
recorded history. Less than a month ago, we had record-breaking 
wildfires that put U.S. cities in the top 10 worst locations in 
the world for air pollution. Rhode Island, my state, is 
experiencing rapid sea level rise. Entire neighborhoods in my 
state are being wiped off the map. It is hurting the fishing 
industry, killing jobs, impacting asthma rates for children. 
And these events are not coincidental, they are man-made.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Magaziner. And the data is clear. It is not even 
complicated. This chart behind me here shows world average 
temperature over the last 160 years compared to CO2 
prevalence in the atmosphere over the same period of time. It 
is a direct relationship. This is undisputed in serious 
science. The data is clear.
    The United States is also one of the highest per capita 
emitters among major countries. We are not the only one. Others 
have to act, as well. But we have a responsibility to act 
because we are one of the highest per capita emitters. And 
within U.S. emissions we know that, of all sources of 
electricity, coal is by far the most greenhouse gas intensive. 
And it is not even close. More than natural gas, more than oil, 
certainly more than solar and wind.
    And the harmful effects of coal extend beyond climate 
change. Coal combustion can release sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
dioxide, particulates contributing to acid rain, and smog, and 
worsening respiratory illnesses and cancer risk. So, the answer 
is clear: We have to build out clean, renewable energy that 
will reduce emissions, lower costs for consumers, strengthen 
American energy independence, and create jobs.
    And let's not forget about the jobs, because job creation 
in renewable energy is exploding and already well exceeds jobs 
in electricity production in conventional energy. The Inflation 
Reduction Act will bring even more Americans into the clean 
energy sector, with experts projecting that these investments 
will create 9 million, 9 million, good-paying, clean jobs over 
the next decade.
    So, our mission is clear. To help the working people who I 
represent, who we all represent, who are seeing their tax 
dollars have to go to climate resiliency, to preventing 
neighborhoods from being flooded, health care costs associated 
with higher asthma rates in kids and in vulnerable communities 
and in seniors all across the country, we have to responsibly 
transition to clean energy.
    And it is unconscionable that many of our colleagues are 
trying to slow that progress, trying to slow the progress 
toward rolling out solar and wind and grid resiliency, which 
would have done a lot to help with the electricity crisis in 
Texas, slowing the progress on job-creating clean energy 
development to do the bidding of the coal industry that is 
poisoning communities and leading the warming climate that is 
impacting so many people.
    With that, I want to yield my final minute to the 
Representative from California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, and just 
urge once again that we take climate change seriously, and we 
make this transition to clean energy as rapid as possible. I 
will yield.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Representative Magaziner. I 
just wanted to respond to some of the testimony that came from 
Mr. Adams.
    You mentioned that it is not about getting rid of power. 
No, it is not. It is actually about innovating green power.
    You stated that people are not dying from the heat. They 
are dying when it is cold, because with heat they can adjust. 
Well, in fact, we know that 62,000 folks died last year in 
Europe. We know that millions are dying around the world 
because of extreme heat. I come from Chicago, where seniors are 
dying every year in the summer because of heat, not the cold.
    And lastly, you said using our resources to empower and 
better the world, probably the way we see it in the United 
States, that actually sounds like nouveau colonialism to me. I 
recently visited a country in Africa, and they say the reason 
why we are not there is because we are not sophisticated in our 
approach with them.
    So, I just want to set the record straight from some of 
that stuff that I was hearing from you.
    Thank you, and with that I will yield back my time.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the Vice Chair of this Committee, Representative Hunt, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, witnesses, 
for being here.
    China is set to take advantage of the global urgency 
surrounding climate change. They lead the world in the 
manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines, and largely 
because this Administration will not let Americans mine for 
critical minerals that are in abundance right here at our feet, 
the ones that God gave us.
    China also leads the world in producing energy from 
hydraulic dams, and it is building more nuclear power plants 
than in any other country. And some of my colleagues on the 
left would not even consider nuclear as a legitimate power 
source today.
    But China also burns more coal than the rest of the world 
combined, and they will continue to do so as they outmaneuver 
us in energy production and manufacturing. Currently, China 
emits almost a third of all man-made greenhouse gases, more 
than the United States, Europe, and Japan combined. China 
accomplishes this by burning petroleum coke. I am not talking 
about the coke that was found in the West Wing last week. I am 
not going to say that. I am talking about this cheap by-product 
of heavy refining that burns six times dirtier than coal. And 
they are burning that every single day.
    Clearly, as I have described, China is our biggest 
adversary and competitor with this world problem. But this 
Administration continues to put forth policies that strengthen 
China and weaken our own country. If ending climate change was 
the true intention of this Administration, then they would 
fully embrace carbon capture and, of course, carbon storage 
technology. The war would be on carbon; it wouldn't be on coal. 
It is just that simple.
    But control is the true intention of this Administration, 
as we have seen for the past 2\1/2\ years. In 2021, coal was at 
a nearly equal ratio with renewable sources of energy as a 
share of the total U.S. energy consumption. And coal is the 
dominant energy source for most developing countries.
    At my home in Houston, Texas I have some neighbors, and 
they own two Teslas. And my home is powered by coal, and so are 
their Teslas. Because when you plug it in, it is on a coal-
powered grid. You are welcome, and thank you very much for 
providing that kind of energy for their Teslas and for my home. 
And Houston, by the way, is quite hot, and it is quite air-
conditioned, as well. Thank you very much for what you do.
    Energy addition is the word. There is no such thing as a 
transition. We have to stop talking like that, because the only 
way we are going to continue to fuel our country and the world 
is going to be a mix. It is energy addition because the world 
is going to need more electrons. Not just us, the globe.
    If the Russian invasion of the Ukraine has shown us 
anything in the energy sector, it is that an energy mix is 
important, and that foremost mix, and the biggest piece of 
that, is going to be natural gas and a mix of coal. LNG saved 
Europe during the past winter, and without American LNG the 
lights in Europe would have literally been turned off. And that 
LNG left the ports of Louisiana and, of course, my home state 
of Texas, and not only provides great, good-paying American 
jobs, but also provides heat, power, and life for our European 
friends.
    If you want to beat Putin in the Ukraine, stop printing 
money we don't have and unleash American energy. That is how 
you beat Putin.
    And lastly, coal is one of the building blocks of America. 
Not only is coal an energy source, but it is paramount in our 
ability to continue to improve our infrastructure, which is 
crumbling around us. And as we invest in other countries and 
spend hundreds of billions of dollars around the world, we 
aren't investing in our own infrastructure. And met coal is 
essential to the production of iron and steel in our own 
country.
    As I discussed, we have an old infrastructure in this 
country, and it desperately needs updating, and we cannot do it 
without you and we cannot do it without coal. We cannot update 
our systems, we cannot update our future, we cannot update our 
future for our children if we don't continue to use coal as a 
fundamental building block to get to the future.
    I am from the energy capital of the world, Houston, Texas, 
which, in my opinion, makes me the energy Congressman of the 
world. I know this issue is very important to all of us, but we 
need redundancies, we need assurances, and we need affordable 
energy not just for us, but for the entire world. And we are 
literally sitting on it. And this country and this 
Administration refuses to let us use it.
    Sir, it is right in your district.
    Yet, we continue to empower the world by not empowering our 
own country. We must do better. Thank you all for being here.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank 
you, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez for holding this hearing.
    To try to create the narrative that the market is phasing 
coal out is simply false. You completely disregard the policies 
that have been put in place, not just by this Administration, 
by the Obama administration, as well, going back to 2017, when 
he was passing these same types of policies that are making it 
difficult for us to develop coal. And what it has done is 
chased investment out of the industry. It has taken the 
industries themselves, the businesses, and made it very 
difficult for them to produce this, and yet we have seen the 
bankruptcies and the closures of several mines.
    The simple mandates that have been placed on our 
electricity producers so that they have to fill their 
portfolios with a certain amount of renewable energy has made 
it difficult for them to continue to rely on the dependable 
baseload electricity that is produced by coal. In Montana 
alone, I don't know where there is a greater example of this 
than where production has been decreased from March 2022 to 
March 2023. Our production was down 900,000 tons over the same 
period the year before. We saw Decker Mine closed. The baseload 
electricity is going away.
    And as my good friend, the energy Congressman of the world 
stated, we have to increase the production. We cannot replace 
the production. This is a critical part of that.
    We also have in Montana a checkerboard nature of the 
landownership. So, we have Federal lands, we have state school 
trust lands, and then we have private property. And this 
checkerboard effect makes it very difficult for a private 
developer to come in and utilize those resources without having 
the agreements in place from the Federal Government.
    And, unfortunately, I have a mine in Rosebud, Montana, the 
Signal Peak Mine, which is experiencing the exact same thing 
that you are, Mr. Luthi, they have leases that are in place, 
but they are going back now and they are rescinding the 
agreements that are on those leases for the Federal ground, and 
keeping Signal Peak from accessing the coal that they had tied 
up and had depended upon for many years.
    And right now, we are in a position where, based upon the 
coal that they are producing that is available on the private 
property, is only going to sustain them for about another 20, 
24 months. And then they have this great big checkerboard 
square of Federal lands that they had leased that is in the way 
that is going to shut this whole mine down because they will 
not be able to proceed, to continue to develop the resources 
that they had actually already leased. And that is a major, 
major problem.
    Mr. Luthi, you mentioned your state's producers lost an 
estimated 60 million tons of production due to the inability to 
transport coal to your customers, resulting in state revenue 
loss of $90 to $100 million. How can we in Congress make sure 
that these producers are able to transport their coal to their 
customers?
    And how is the Biden administration currently impeding that 
process?
    Mr. Luthi. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rosendale, thank you 
for that question. The last series of questions you might have 
seen me sitting up pretty high, because these are important.
    You are absolutely right. Wyoming is the largest producer 
of coal. We actually had a reprieve from the decline that has 
happened the last few years largely because, we believe, of the 
amount of coal plants that have been taken out of production 
before they needed to be.
    And, frankly, renewable is great. It provides about 22 
percent of the energy in the nation, electricity. We suspect 
that is going to increase. But we are not dealing with the 
energy gap. That is, as we close those plants down, we do not 
have enough renewable power, batteries, and storage for 24-hour 
dispatchable power. We need that type of fuel. Even today, 60 
percent of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.
    Vice Chairman Hunt, Wyoming is glad you are the largest 
consumer of Wyoming coal. Thank you. We appreciate that.
    Mr. Hunt. You are welcome, sir.
    Mr. Luthi. And I really appreciated some of the Minority 
witnesses talking about CO2. That should be the 
target. CO2 is the issue, not coal that is being 
produced. We have technology. We have the ability to use that 
technology. Carbon capture does work. It will work. It needs 
time. It needs investment. But I can tell you that we can make 
it work.
    I just wanted to touch on a couple of other things. We 
talked about jobs, 5,100 jobs in Wyoming directly related to 
coal. When you close a coal plant down, even if you build a 
wind farm right next to it, those jobs are not comparable in 
terms of money, salary, or the number. There are going to be 
fewer jobs. It just takes less.
    And $4.3 billion since 2003 have come to the Federal and 
State Treasuries. Renewable projects under the current Federal 
scheme will not give that kind of return to state and the 
Federal government. It just does not exist.
    And when we talk about transition, what we have seen so far 
is that when we talk about transition from coal country, it 
means they move, they leave their homes.
    We need to deal with this sooner. We need to be able to 
keep them in their homes, their communities, rather than move 
to other places where they could become computer coders, or 
whatever it might be. Miners to coders is a difficult 
transition.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I see that my time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Fulcher for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the panel for your 
testimony, both in person and in writing. Just the fact that 
you came here is important to us. Please understand that a 
number of us are doing the Committee juggle today, so not being 
rude on coming and going, but it is just doing more things at 
the same time.
    But Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. It is good to 
be talking about the impact of coal extraction and leasing, 
especially on Federal lands for states like mine in Idaho, 
where there are so many Federal lands.
    And I too am dismayed by the efforts that the current 
Administration has had on hindering domestic coal production 
when our energy needs are at an all-time high. And this is 
especially true when it comes to baseload capacity. I have 
heard you talk about the importance of baseload, and coal is 
also used in the production of steel.
    And, currently, Mr. Chairman, I just came from an E&C 
meeting. We were talking about the shortage for steel, 
particularly for the use in utility transformers, and the 
impact that that is having, which is impacting all of our 
constituents directly right now.
    Mr. Luthi, in your written testimony, you noted how recent 
winter storms brought to light the importance of having well-
balanced energy sources for electricity. Just remind the 
Committee, if you will, just how important coal is to the 
baseload. I underscore the word baseload energy needs.
    Mr. Luthi. Thank you, Representative Fulcher. And I might 
add I am from about as close to Idaho as one can be. So, I 
appreciate----
    Mr. Fulcher. Just go a little bit further, and you will be 
in heaven.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Luthi. Well, that is one way to put it.
    Again, baseload is what is important. Baseload is 
dispatchable 24-hour power. And renewables, again, have their 
place. Wyoming supplies about 16 percent of the renewables that 
are on the market today. We feel seriously about being able to 
provide a wide variety of energy sources, but you do need 
baseload, 24-hour power that is available on demand. Frankly, 
right now it is fossil fuels that can provide that.
    And, again, the goal should be to reduce greenhouse gases. 
If that is truly the Administration's goal, that is where our 
focus should be.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you for that. And a related note. 
Also in your written testimony, you talked about how FERC said 
the rapid rate of coal plant closures are putting the grid in 
danger. How much additional capacity does Wyoming have to meet 
the needs of the country in terms of coal production, 
specifically on Federal lands?
    Mr. Luthi. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Representative 
Fulcher. Wyoming has plenty of coal. We are willing to use it. 
We are willing to be able to make that also available to the 
power companies that need it, and we are happy to do that. As 
we saw just last year, we had more coal than we could actually 
ship out. We had more demand for our coal from power plants 
than we could actually ship.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. I have one more quick one 
for you, Mr. Luthi, and then I am going to try to go quick 
because I have one for Mr. Driscoll, as well.
    But I understand that the coal export terminals on the West 
Coast have been consistently blocked by Federal and state 
regulations. What would be the impact on Wyoming coal 
production if exports were supported on the West Coast?
    Mr. Luthi. Thank you for that. And the question, I think, 
would be easy to answer. We would be able to export more coal. 
We would be able to keep our coal communities whole. We would 
be able to move forward.
    Mr. Fulcher. All right. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Driscoll, I am going to go off, and I am open to 
anyone, but I am just looking at your background. You might be 
the best one to address this. And this is something that just 
popped into my head as we were talking and I was listening to 
the other testimony, as well.
    Sometimes we have the ability to learn from some of our 
friends or other countries from around the world. And you may 
or may not know anything about this, but it is my understanding 
that over the last few years, our friends in Germany have 
struggled with some of their previous energy sourcing 
decisions, and it is my understanding that they have migrated 
back to coal and coal production for their energy needs. And I 
realize it is not immediately in your wheelhouse, but does 
anyone on the panel have any insight to that question, and what 
the experience has been with our friends in Germany and the 
migration back to coal?
    Mr. Driscoll. I know they have opened some of their closed 
facilities, because they were migrating completely away from 
coal-produced electric plants, and they have now brought them 
back on-line, taking them out of the mothballs and put them 
back on-line, quite a few of them.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Chair, can I, just as a comment to you, 
while I know we have touched on that a little bit here within 
the Committee, but I just think it is of note that we have been 
blessed with a resource, and we have decided ourselves to 
restrict the use of that blessing and, as elsewhere exemplified 
in the world, that may not be the wisest decision. So, Mr. 
Chairman, thank you for the time. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. I thank you very much. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Boebert for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses for joining us today.
    Ms. Kendall, why do you think the EPA sides with extremist 
environmentalists on bogus regional haze mandates to shut down 
coal plants under the guise of improving visibility in national 
parks?
    Ms. Kendall. I think that there are real issues with 
regional haze that affect national parks, and EPA is fulfilling 
their statutory duty under the Clean Air Act.
    Mrs. Boebert. With all due respect, I think the regional 
haze rule is just another way for leftists to arbitrarily 
target fossil fuels they are philosophically opposed to. In 
Craig, Colorado, a community in my district, they have been 
forced to close a $3 billion power plant because of a regional 
haze settlement which will kill hundreds of good-paying jobs 
and devastate the local community. And we are already seeing 
the impacts of that: 36.92 percent of property taxes in the 
county come from the Craig Coal Power Plant.
    Ms. Kendall, in your testimony you state, ``Decisions 
regarding how our nation leases Federal coal resources have 
significant consequences for all Americans.'' How do you and 
other leftists ignore the devastation you are causing to 
minorities and people in rural America who are hit hardest by 
these anti-fuel mandates?
    Ms. Kendall. I am not sure what anti-fuel mandates you are 
talking about with regard to the Federal coal program, because 
the declines have been due to market responses and to coal 
companies withdrawing----
    Mrs. Boebert. Would that be the Federal Government's heavy 
hand tipping those scales with the subsidies in the market? 
Because I don't think the Federal Government is doing a good 
job of letting the markets decide. It seems that people and 
their decisions that are made here in this building choose 
winners and losers for that market.
    Ms. Kendall. I think you could also look at the Federal 
coal program with that line of argument. From the beginning, 
the Federal Government intentionally set the price of coal for 
Federal coal leases to be below market in order to keep energy 
costs down for Americans.
    Mrs. Boebert. And energy costs were down. They are not 
anymore. We have 20 million Americans who cannot afford their 
utility bills.
    This is not the first example of leftists regulating our 
rural communities into poverty under the guise of climate 
change. Colorado's Western Slope used to have a booming energy 
production economy. More than 1,700 coal mines have operated in 
Colorado in the last 160 years, and there are only 6 coal 
plants remaining, which will be closed or converted by 2031.
    Ms. Kendall, why is the EPA inaccurately attempting to 
interpret Clean Air Act emissions control authority to 
fundamentally transform how an entire sector of the U.S. 
economy generates power today with this proposed power plant 
rule?
    Ms. Kendall. Could you repeat the question?
    Mrs. Boebert. I just want to know why the EPA is 
inaccurately attempting to interpret the Clean Air Act 
emissions control authority. This is job-killing. It is 
proposed rules that puts the Green New Deal agenda ahead of 
rural America and communities that rely on affordable and 
reliable energy.
    Ms. Kendall. I was not prepared to come today to speak to 
the EPA's rules.
    Mrs. Boebert. Perhaps we will have you better prepared next 
time you visit.
    How many coal lease sales has the Federal Government held 
since Joe Biden took office?
    Ms. Kendall. I don't know the exact number. I believe there 
have been one or----
    Mrs. Boebert. The exact answer would be zero.
    Ms. Kendall. OK.
    Mrs. Boebert. And how many coal-powered plants did China 
permit last year?
    Ms. Kendall. I do not know.
    Mrs. Boebert. Well, according to a report done by the 
Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and 
Clean Air, which I ask unanimous consent to submit into the 
record, China permitted more coal power plants last year than 
any time in the last 7 years, which is the equivalent of about 
two new coal power plants per week.

    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Boebert

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The full report can be viewed at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230712/116134/HHRG-
118-II06-20230712-SD006.pdf

                                ------                                

    Mrs. Boebert. Now, we have heard a lot about carbon 
emissions and, of course, we are in favor of carbon capture and 
producing that. But wildfires in my district emit more carbon 
emissions in just a few short days than every vehicle in my 
home state of Colorado, running 24/7 for an entire year. So, I 
think we need to bring forest management into this equation.
    But since we are talking about coal here, do you know the 
rate that China is outpacing the rest of the world with 
building new coal-fired power plants?
    Ms. Kendall. I am not familiar.
    Mrs. Boebert. China has six times as many plants starting 
construction as the rest of the world combined.
    American energy is not the issue. It is our adversaries who 
are doing so irresponsibly throughout the world. We need good, 
clean energy production here, and we would appreciate it if the 
extremists would get out of the way and the Federal Government 
would stop choosing winners and losers so Americans can afford 
their energy once again.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is odd, Mrs. 
Boebert, we were just talking about wildfires and how they are 
not managing the forest.
    Mrs. Boebert. They are not.
    Mr. Collins. So, that is a different problem, a huge 
problem. Just like most everything in the Federal Government, 
the Federal Government is the problem.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have had hearings in various 
areas across this country, and every time we have these 
hearings and we are out there, it is pretty much we see the 
same thing. It is just an over-reach from a Federal Government 
that is bent on pushing an Administration socialistic, woke 
agenda.
    And I want to give you a little bit of my background. I am 
in the trucking industry. And Mr. Luthi, I know you said you 
were sitting tall. And where I come from in Georgia, we always 
say I am kind of like a cat on a hot tin roof. If you saw me 
squirming, I am ready to talk.
    Now, I haul for a living, and I am also in the tire 
recycling industry. But we have a product that is called TDF, 
or Tire Derived Fuel, which is mixed with coal. And it actually 
provides electricity for a manufacturing facility that deals 
with waste paper, but it also sells power back to the grid. So, 
obviously, there is technology there to scrubbers in those 
chimneys to clean this air up after it has been burned, the 
coal.
    So, maybe it is just a personal question, but Mr. Luthi, 
can you expand on that and tell me about that technology?
    Mr. Luthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Collins. I can't 
help you with much, because that really isn't my expertise. But 
Wyoming coal companies have been putting scrubbers on their 
coal plants--or, I am sorry, Wyoming electric utility companies 
have been putting scrubbers on plants for years. That reduces 
what we call nitric oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, as well 
as helps to address the regional haze.
    I did want to say, you mentioned trucking, and I am an old 
politician, so I am going to take this opening while I have it. 
We mentioned a little bit about the ozone transport rule, and 
that is one of the things we are fighting in Wyoming, again 
with EPA. And part of the problem we are having is that their 
modeling, we believe, just does not fit the country that is out 
there, and doesn't take into effect exceptional events like 
wildfires. The East Coast has seen that exceptional event. I 
will be real curious to see if EPA recognizes that now as an 
exceptional event.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you.
    Would anybody else like to weigh in on that? I don't know 
if it is something that is in your wheelhouse or not. I just 
find it odd that we have been hauling this product for the 
better part of 20 years, so there is technology out there.
    And the other thing that I am curious about, what we have 
been seeing, is the EPA has, obviously, been playing a big role 
in suppressing people from being able to mine coal. Mr. 
Driscoll, can you attest to that? Can you expand on that? Is 
the EPA playing a large role in preventing coal from being 
mined?
    Mr. Driscoll. I am not prepared to talk about that. No, 
sir, I don't know.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Luthi?
    Mr. Luthi. Thank you. I get the opportunity again. 
Absolutely. And let me give you a good example of what I think 
is somewhat a disjointed approach.
    On one hand, some in the Administration are talking about 
how great carbon capture is, how great it should be on a coal-
fired plant. And then we have the power plant rule that comes 
out, and it doesn't give enough time or enough incentive. It is 
long on sticks and very short on carrots to allow utility 
companies to do that.
    Mr. Collins. You know what? I know I am getting short, but 
I think what we have been seeing, too, is just a moving of the 
goalpost. Every time it seems like you are getting close to 
being able to comply, then the compliance rules change. And I 
don't know if that is something that you have been seeing in 
the coal industry, but we have certainly been seeing it in all 
the other hearings that we have been talking about here.
    And I think that is why one of the big things that I 
espouse out there in all industry is that we need tort reform 
in this country, these out-of-control environmentalists that 
are out there suing and just bringing lawsuits with no 
consequences just to make it harder on people out there trying 
to make an honest living.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Hageman for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special thank 
you to each of the witnesses for your attendance at this 
important hearing today.
    Coal plays an essential role in the Wyoming and U.S. 
economy. More than 40 percent of the coal produced in this 
country comes from the state of Wyoming. Coal mining provides 
thousands of jobs and produces billions of dollars in direct 
state and Federal revenue. Coal production helps fund our 
schools, our hospitals and clinics, and other essential 
services.
    Aside from the hundreds of millions of dollars Wyoming coal 
provides for the state, it also contributes hundreds of 
millions in royalties to the Federal Government. Despite all of 
the contributions of the coal economy to the prosperity and 
progress of this nation, this Administration has perpetuated a 
lie that coal production is the problem. They have fed the 
American people a false narrative that so-called green energy 
is reliable. However, we have been reminded time and time again 
that there are consequences for weakening our baseload energy, 
the most recent example of this being in Texas in 2021.
    The Federal leasing program has been essential to 
strengthening the baseload, particularly in Western states, 
whose lands are heavily controlled by the Federal Government. 
The Federal coal leasing program has been a means of securing 
affordable and reliable baseload energy for decades, with 
significant returns to both the states as well as the Federal 
Government.
    Mr. Luthi, how would you anticipate changes to the Federal 
coal leasing program from the Biden administration to alter our 
ability to secure a reliable baseload in the future?
    Mr. Luthi. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Hageman, thank you.
    Basically, what we need is we actually need to resume the 
coal leasing program. There has been a lot of testimony, facts, 
and figures that some companies have great reserves. But what 
isn't shown is how those reserves fit in with the overall 
company's ability to get to the coal.
    I will give you a slight example. As you move forward with 
coal, as you take the coal out of the mines, as you well know, 
you also start your reclamation on the back end. And 
Congresswoman Hageman, you missed some very interesting 
pictures of what was purported to be lack of reclamation. But 
what we didn't see were pictures of actual thousands of acres 
of reclamation that has been completed. In fact, I would invite 
this Subcommittee to come visit and look at some of this 
reclamation to see what is available.
    But to circle back, Congresswoman Hageman, we need the 
process to open up again. It takes years to get through the 
environmental reviews. Let's once again give those companies 
some surety that they can move forward. We need coal. We need 
carbon capture.
    Ms. Hageman. And one of the things that I would say about 
the reclamation, having been there myself on numerous 
occasions, is seeing the incredible habitat that has been 
created for a variety of wildlife species.
    I would also say that it is so critically important to 
continue to be able to access our coal resources for the very 
reason that it is one of the very few things that stands 
between us and energy poverty.
    The Green New Deal, the green energy that is being pushed 
by this Administration, is causing and will continue to cause 
energy poverty. And I believe that people who pursue policies 
that result in energy poverty are immoral. And I think that 
that adequately describes this Administration.
    Will keeping coal in the ground provide any return to 
taxpayers, Mr. Luthi?
    Mr. Luthi. Thank you, Congresswoman. No, it does not. 
Currently, there are royalties, bonus bids, and rentals that 
would be shared between the state and Federal Government. Doing 
nothing gets exactly that: nothing.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Adams, in the current state of the market 
we have been hearing a lot from Wyoming coal companies that the 
onerous bonus bid process of having to pay hundreds of millions 
up front is a huge hurdle for new leasing. And we also hear 
that the price per ton is grossly inconsistent with coal 
prices. Mr. Adams, can you expound on how bonus bids have acted 
as a major hurdle to MTC?
    Mr. Adams. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman.
    The way the process works right now is they are on a lease 
by application or a lease by modification. Application is a 
larger swath of coal that I would obtain. A modification is a 
smaller bid. In this case, I am going to talk about a lease by 
modification, because I can shoehorn in one of the experiences 
that we are actually dealing with right now with the BLM.
    The way it works is that a company goes and applies for 
more coal. For example, in 2016, we went and applied for a very 
small tract of land, or small tract of coal, just 15 million 
tons. It was very small, and we obtained that and then we had 
to pay for that coal over 5 years. So, it was divided into 
fifths, and we paid for that entire amount of coal. We then 
paid for that, and now we have been waiting since, while the 
ASLM, the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals, has been 
sitting on that project, it is in her bottom left-hand drawer, 
waiting to give us permission to enter that land so we can 
actually go get the coal. I think it is right underneath the 
file where our Montana lawsuit is also sitting there.
    But the problem is that if we wanted to go get a larger 
tonnage, for example, you heard earlier that the Ranking Member 
said that there are only 20 years of coal left in Wyoming, 
which is a problem because, as Mr. Luthi testified earlier, it 
takes 8 to 12 years to get new coal. So, that means there is a 
gap. If we want more coal for the future, we need to be acting 
now to get more coal.
    So, historically, LBAs, a lease by application, is a large 
bid to go get coal for the future, would be a half a billion 
tons, 500 million tons. I would go get that. And let's say I 
get that bid at a dollar a ton. That is not my royalty, that is 
just the bonus bid to go buy that. So, that is a half a billion 
dollars that, as a company, I am committing. Right now, in 
today's environment, a half a billion dollars is a whole lot 
for the largest coal company in the world, which I am not.
    So, it is just economically not feasible, but let's pretend 
it is. Let's say we win Powerball tonight. And as a tax-exempt 
entity, we decide to take that whole winner and flip it into a 
coal bid. I would have to pay that in the next 5 years. I would 
have to come up with that half-billion dollars and give it to 
the Federal Government.
    Then I am going to wait 8 to 12 years before I can put a 
shovel in the ground in hopes of getting a penny of revenue 
from that coal. So, I have a 3- to 8-year gap after paying a 
half a billion. That doesn't make sense. That is not an 
investment that, if I am a public company, I can take to my 
shareholders and keep my job. That is just not an investment 
that makes sense in today's day and age. We have to be able to 
reform that.
    And then after I get that, then we are talking about the 
royalties. And I am making all of my expenses along the way to 
develop that land. I still have all my consulting fees, my 
legal fees, all my development fees. I have to get my 
overburden removal taken care of, there are so many expenses 
between here and there. The economic burdens of getting to that 
new coal and getting that new ton, it is just an overwhelming 
prospect, and margins are nowhere close to what they were 
decades ago.
    The economic realities of being a coal miner and providing 
energy for America today, we just don't understand. The general 
public doesn't understand anymore of what it is. It is a very 
difficult business.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, Mr. Adams, I thank you for that answer. 
I know that we are out of time, but I think what you have 
described is that our government has become the enemy of the 
people. It is something we need to fix, and we will work on it.
    I also would like to invite the Committee to come to 
Wyoming to see the beautiful work we do to make everybody's 
life better.
    Thank you for letting me participate. With that, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Stauber. You are welcome. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Adams, when you were talking I am thinking this is 
exactly what is happening in northern Minnesota with this 
Administration stopping mining, 20 years in a permit.
    Mr. Adams. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. And then they have the EPA remand a Corps of 
Engineer permit. Never happened in the history of this country. 
Yet, we provide 80 percent of the taconite that makes the steel 
in this country, and we are on the cusp of helping this 
country's strategic national security with critical minerals 
mining. And this Secretary of the Interior banned 225,400 acres 
without even knowing there were critical minerals in there. I 
mean, this is what we are dealing with.
    And I will just say to the Members here, thank you for your 
questions. And to the witnesses, thanks for your expert 
testimony, all of you. It is needed. It is a great discussion. 
Again, thank you.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Monday, July 17. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, this 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber

                         Alabama Port Authority

                             Port of Mobile

                                              December 12, 2022    

Hon. Richard Shelby
United States Senate
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Senator Shelby:

    Please accept this letter as a statement of my support for approval 
of the federal coal lease application #ALES-55797 made by Warrior Met 
Coal (Warrior). This application, which is currently under review by 
the Department of the Interior, would permit Warrior to mine 24 million 
tons of metallurgical (met) coal on federal land in Alabama.

    As you are aware, met coal is a component used for steel production 
and is not thermal coal, which is used for energy generation. This 
distinction is important as met coal is not subject to the recent 
reinstatement of the Obama Administration's coal lease ban. In fact, 
Warrior is dedicated entirely to mining non-thermal met coal, and its 
highly efficient longwall operations in Alabama supply exports of 
premium met coal to metal manufacturers around the world. In the 2022 
fiscal year, McDuffie Coal Terminal at the Port of Mobile exported 
approximately 10M metric tons of met coal.

    In addition to supporting the exportation of clean and efficient 
met coal mining products, approval of this application will help 
support jobs and the economy. Warrior's Alabama mine directly supports 
hundreds of high-paying jobs with an average annual wage of more than 
$90,000. Its production also supports jobs here at the Port of Mobile, 
where Warrior is our largest customer. An economic impact study 
conducted during the 2021 calendar year showed that McDuffie Coal 
Terminal operations at the Port of Mobile created more than 2,000 jobs 
directly and a direct revenue impact of more than $350M.

    Based on the results of our 2021 economic impact study, we can 
confidently say this lease would generate additional hundreds of 
millions of dollars for the State of Alabama, the federal treasury, and 
the Port of Mobile, collectively. Supporting high-wage jobs and 
bolstering the economy are among the Port's top priorities, as is the 
responsible stewardship of Alabama's tremendous natural resources. To 
this end, I fully support the approval of Warrior Met Coal's lease 
application.

            Sincerely,

                                             John Driscoll,
                                                   Director and CEO

                                 ______
                                 

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                                                  June 28, 2023    

Hon. Debra Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    Coal is essential for American energy security, providing reliable, 
inexpensive baseload power and gainful employment for thousands of 
Americans. The U.S. has vast domestic coal reserves, with the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration estimating that there are about 251 
billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves in the U.S.\1\ Notably, 
the Department of the Interior (DOI) plays an important role in 
domestic coal production as the Federal Coal Leasing Program continues 
to be a major source of federal and state revenues. In addition, coal 
mining and associated mine reclamation is regulated by the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.) and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement (OSMRE) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 
responsible for coal leasing on over 570 million acres of federally 
owned land.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, `` How much coal is in 
the United States,'' https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-
coal-is-left.php.
    \2\ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Coal Statistics Table, 
https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/coal/coal-data.

    From the time of the Obama Administration, in which President Biden 
served, DOI has taken multiple actions to block coal production on 
federal lands. On January 15, 2016, then-Secretary Jewell initiated a 
new Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to study, among 
other things, the purported environmental effects of federal coal 
production.\3\ The Secretary placed a moratorium on new federal coal 
leases until the completion of the PEIS.\4\ This moratorium was 
subsequently lifted in 2017 by then-Secretary Zinke, who called the 
proposed PEIS ``costly and unnecessary.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Department of the Interior, press release, ``Secretary 
Jewell Launches Comprehensive Review of Federal Coal Program,'' January 
15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-launches-
comprehensive-review-federal-coal-program.
    \4\ U.S. Department of the Interior, press release, ``Secretary 
Jewell Launches Comprehensive Review of Federal Coal Program,'' January 
15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-launches-
comprehensive-review-federal-coal-program.
    \5\ Dylan Brown, ``Zinke ends coal ban, creates panel to review 
royalties,'' E&E News, March 29, 2017, https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/1060052294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Political interference hit coal production once again with the 
issuance of Secretarial Order 3398 on April 16, 2021, which reversed 
Secretary Zinke's 2017 decision and directed a new review of the 
federal coal program.\6\ Unfortunately, on August 12, 2022, a federal 
judge ordered the BLM to fully reimpose the Obama-era moratorium on new 
leasing. On May 1, 2023, DOI announced the intent to initiate yet 
another environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts of 
maintaining or revoking the coal moratorium.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Order No. 3398, April 16, 
2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-
508_0.pdf.
    \7\ 88 FR 26588.

    Even beyond the reimposed moratorium, the Biden Administration 
continues to delay and otherwise impede federal coal production, even 
where the moratorium does not apply. For instance, Warrior Met Coal, 
located in Brookwood, Alabama, hopes to develop new coal resources that 
are excluded from the reimposed moratorium. However, despite the fact 
that scoping for Warrior Met's lease-by-application began on August 10, 
2014,\8\ this lease has continued to await final approval. BLM 
currently lists this project as ``paused.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-02/ALES-
55797%20BLM%20ES%202022 _0.pdf.
    \9\ https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/53496/510.

    Continued delays on this project, other lease-by-applications, and 
federal coal permitting overall have major economic impacts at multiple 
levels of government. Coal royalties provide significant revenues to 
the Treasury and state budgets, and also contribute to major economic 
growth and employment opportunities in local communities. Blocking or 
substantially delaying coal production deprives taxpayers, states, and 
local communities millions of dollars in revenues and potentially 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
thousands of good-paying jobs.

    Furthermore, coal demand continues to be high both domestically and 
abroad. The global energy shortage in late 2020 and early 2021 was 
greatly exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, culminating in a huge spike 
in energy demand in Europe and elsewhere. As U.S. operators attempted 
to ramp up oil and gas production after a year of stoppages imposed by 
the Biden Administration, our allies in Europe turned to coal to heat 
their homes and run their businesses. Over one-third of Germany's power 
now comes from coal, a 13 percent increase over last year.\10\ Coal is 
also the largest source of power in Asia,\11\ driving about 37 percent 
of the world's total power generation.\12\ The United States is ready 
to meet that demand--by the end of the third quarter of 2022, the U.S. 
had exported 63,926,000 short tons of coal.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Fokuhl, Josefine and Gillespie, Todd, ``Germany Revives Coal 
as Energy Security Trumps Climate Goals,'' Bloomberg, December 21, 
2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-22/germany-
returns-to-coal-as-energy-security-trumps-climate-goals.
    \11\ International Energy Agency, coal factsheet, updated Oct 12, 
2021, https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/coal.
    \12\ International Energy Agency, coal factsheet, updated Oct 12, 
2021, https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/coal.
    \13\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. coal summary 
statistics, 2016-2022, https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/
pdf/teslp01p1.pdf.

    Domestic operators should be allowed to produce and export their 
product as required by the market, and not be hamstrung by overly 
burdensome regulations, egregious permitting delays, or arbitrary 
moratoria on production at home. As such, we ask that you respond to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the following inquiries by July 19, 2023:

  1.  How many lease-by-applications for coal operations on federal 
            lands are currently pending at the Department of the 
            Interior?

  2.  How many days has each such lease-by-application been pending?

  3.  How many permits or other authorizations for current coal 
            operations on federal lands are currently pending at the 
            Bureau of Land Management?

  4.  How many days has each such permit or other authorization been 
            pending?

  5.  DOI recently began soliciting comments for an EIS to maintain or 
            revoke Secretarial Order 3338, issued by former DOI 
            Secretary Sally Jewell, which imposed a moratorium on 
            thermal coal leasing. Since no EIS was required on the 
            decision to impose the moratorium under Secretarial Order 
            3338 in the first place, explain the need for an EIS now 
            being considered in the decision to maintain or revoke the 
            moratorium.

    Please contact the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 
Majority staff at (202) 225-9297 with any questions about this request 
and to coordinate the delivery of your response to room 1324 of the 
Longworth House Office Building.

    This issue is critical to coal-producing states across the country, 
and to American energy reliability overall. We appreciate your 
attention to this important issue.

            Sincerely,

                                      Pete Stauber (MN-08),
                     Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources  
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                         Office of the Governor

                            State of Alabama

                                             September 20, 2022    

Hon. Debra Haaland, Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    Please accept this letter as a statement of my support for approval 
of the federal coal lease application #ALES-55797 made by Warrior Met 
Coal (Warrior). This application, which is currently under review by 
your department, would permit Warrior to mine 24 million tons of 
metallurgical (met) coal on federal land in Alabama.

    As you are likely aware, met coal is a component used for steel 
production and is not thermal coal, which is used for energy 
generation. This distinction is important as met coal is not subject to 
the recent re-instatement of the Obama Administration's coal lease ban. 
In fact, Warrior is dedicated entirely to mining non-thermal met coal, 
and its highly efficient longwall operations in Alabama supply exports 
of premium met coal to metal manufacturers around the world.

    In addition to supporting the exportation of clean and efficient 
met coal mining products, approval of this application will help 
support jobs and the economy. Warrior's west Alabama mine directly 
supports hundreds of high-paying jobs with an average annual wage of 
more than $90,000. Its production also supports jobs at the Port of 
Mobile, where Warrior is the largest customer. This lease would also 
generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the State of Alabama, the 
federal treasury, and the Port of Mobile, collectively.

    As Governor, supporting high-wage jobs and bolstering the economy 
are among my top priorities, as is the responsible stewardship on 
Alabama's tremendous natural resources. To this end, I fully support 
the approval of Warrior Met Coal's lease application. And I thank you 
for your consideration of the same.

            Sincerely,

                                                  Kay Ivey,
                                                           Governor

                                 [all]