A new study in the Journal of Energy Policy from Montana State University offers a synopsis of federal and state energy transition policies, focused on the impacts on the people who live in rural coal communities in six Western states. By examining the policies addressing impacts of the declining coal industry in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming, the study authors found that:
1. The lack of comprehensive federal energy policy exacerbates uncertainty and challenges planning efforts in coal-dependent communities.
2. State policies vary widely–some encourage the energy transition away from coal, while others resist or prevent the coal transition by bolstering the coal industry.
3. Existing transition assistance programs do not adequately address the needs and capacity of remote isolated communities.
Taken together, these findings help to inform the search for policy that effectively addresses the needs of workers and resource-dependent communities in the energy transition.
Policies that confirm and establish a clear timeline for transition are critical to set the stage for productive community engagement – ideally, an adequate heads-up allows time to prepare for workforce and revenue impacts. For example, in Centralia, Wash., labor stakeholders negotiated the timelines of closure in order to plan and to think about the redirection of their workforce. In contrast, where state efforts have focused on efforts to postpone decline, communities are less likely to plan and end up more exposed to unexpected closures and layoffs.
Across the board, lacking plans to mitigate the impacts of revenue loss, local governments are headed toward a fiscal crisis. This is a critical missing piece of existing assistance programs. In an interview, an economic development practitioner who works for a regional development district describes how this reality affects community stakeholders’ willingness to discuss aspects of transition: “They [would] sit in a room and start talking about transitioning economies, that there’s not a direct replacement [for what is lost]… I think that the backfill of revenue support to communities is the piece that we have not figured out well on any level. If we could figure that out, communities would be much more willing to transition.”
Our interviews also revealed the limits of existing assistance policies, observing that federal assistance to coal communities has so far failed to address the needs of remote isolated communities. Not only do existing programs fail to embrace the fundamental challenge of transition in resource peripheries--the lack of obvious development options to replace the coal-based tax revenue, economic base activity, and employment--they also put an enormous burden on local actors who lack the resources and authority to implement meaningful solutions to local issues and often do not technically qualify for assistance. Furthermore, access to assistance is hampered by administrative rules that are out of step with the nature of transition impacts. As one interviewee quoted in the paper put it: “We have [a] community that was one of the most impacted by the closure of the coal mines, but they didn’t qualify for opportunities now, because their wages had not decreased during the time in which they were doing the consideration… That’s one of the challenges… They’re not always qualified to start the planning process.”
Opportunities to improve policy to address the coal transition:
As federal and state policies evolve, and as private actors like investor-owned utilities consider their responsibilities to coal communities, our study provides some actionable advice.
Federal energy policy that establishes clear timelines and strategies for transition is necessary to eliminate the uncertainty that currently undermines motivation and capacity for planning. Utilities and their regulators also have a role to play in clarifying retirement timelines for coal-dependent communities.
Federal and state policy can mandate, support, and implement comprehensive assessment of impacts of closure to identify cumulative impacts and local vulnerabilities, working with local and industry stakeholders to identify locally-appropriate strategies to mitigate social, economic, and environmental impacts of closure.
Expanding federal, state, and industry assistance programs in scope and scale will help to deliver sustained, predictable funding for assistance programs and significant reinvestment opportunities in impacted communities and regions. More flexibility is needed in how grant programs can be used to better meet the needs of vulnerable communities (i.e., allow access to programs before closures are officially announced).
Limited capacity and weak ties to state and federal actors currently impede meaningful transition planning. Political and industry decision-makers can facilitate and support coordinated regional planning that integrates energy system and economic development considerations.
States need to consider reforming fiscal policy to remove barriers to saving revenue and expand the range of tools that enable communities to unwind fiscal dependence on coal revenue.
ARTICLE
Kelli F. Roemer, Julia H. Haggerty, Coal communities and the U.S. energy transition: A policy corridors assessment. Energy Policy, Volume 151, 2021, 112112, ISSN 0301-4215.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520308235
Contacts:
Kelli Roemer: kelli.roemer@montana.edu (208) 731-2444
Julia Haggerty: Julia.haggerty@montana.edu (406) 600-1766
View of the Colstrip Steam Electric Station from the lawn of the Colstrip recreation center and pool. June 5, 2019.