Federal land managers have rejected protests filed by coal mining interests — including the state of Wyoming and representatives of two of its counties — that tried to convince the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to abandon or alter course on its proposal to end coal leasing in the prolific Powder River Basin, a bulwark to Wyoming’s economy for the past 50 years.
The agency published its response to procedural protests on Sept. 20, rebutting claims by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, National Mining Association and others that its proposal violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and would do little to protect environmental and human health from human-caused climate change.
“I am extremely disappointed — but not surprised — with what has become characteristic disregard for proper process or simple respect by the Biden-Harris Administration’s BLM,” Gov. Mark Gordon said in a prepared statement last week. “The BLM has doubled down on their contempt for our local economies and the hard-working men and women who provide the clean, dispatchable and reliable energy that many take for granted.”
The federal agency in May issued its final supplemental environmental impact statement and proposed amendment to land use plans directing its Buffalo and Miles City, Montana field offices, selecting a “no future coal leasing alternative.” If the ban is implemented, mining companies could still develop existing federal coal leases in the region that extends from northeastern Wyoming into Montana.
Existing leases would allow for the region’s current rate of production to continue through 2041, according to the agency’s estimates.
The agency was court-ordered to rework its proposed Resource Management Plan updates in the region after conservation groups sued, arguing it had not fully considered environmental, climate and human health impacts resulting from further coal leasing in the region.
Next, the BLM is expected to issue a Record of Decision in December, one of the final steps in implementing the policy and opening the door to potential litigation.
Gordon has promised to sue the BLM in the matter — an action that Campbell County officials, and others, say can’t come soon enough.
“Wyoming will not stop fighting to defend our industries from the federal government’s heavy hand and their attempts to gut Wyoming’s ability to develop our resources from every angle,” Gordon said.
What’s at stake
Wyoming coal production has been in significant decline since 2016, with production down 20% during the first part of this year compared to the same period in 2023, leading top producers to shift focus to coal assets outside the state and prompting pleas for tax relief in Wyoming. Though industry experts, for nearly a decade, have pointed to a sea change in energy market forces driving the decline for Wyoming coal, mining advocates say the BLM’s proposal to end federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin — which accounts for more than 90% of the state’s coal production — is premature and threatens to unnecessarily hasten its demise with dire consequences for electrical consumers across the nation.
Powder River Basin coal is used almost exclusively to generate electricity.
“In a time of deteriorating grid reliability and soaring electricity demand, make no mistake about it — the lights are going out,” Wyoming Mining Association Executive Director Travis Deti said in May.
Wyoming coal mines directly employ nearly 5,000 people, according to the mining association, and the industry remains one of the largest contributors to the state’s annual revenue.
None of the power generation plants that burn Powder River Basin coal — more than 230 million tons in 2023, according to federal data — employ carbon capture technology to prevent greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than interfering with the state’s coal industry, others regard the BLM’s proposal as simply a practical response to the industry itself. Coal companies have not nominated a major new federal coal lease in the Powder River Basin in more than a decade, they note.
“The biggest reason behind the BLM’s proposal was economics and market [forces],” said Bob LeResche, who serves on the Powder River Basin Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Council boards of directors. “They made a rational decision. The state of Wyoming can object all they want, but it’s not the BLM that’s causing coal to decline. It’s the worldwide market and the fact that renewable energy is cheaper now.”
Protest arguments
Parties that filed formal protests to the BLM argued the agency’s proposal to ban new coal leases violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
“A complete ban fails to balance multiple uses by simply elevating a single use or resource value over all other uses,” Navajo Transitional Energy Company representatives wrote. Navajo Transitional Energy Company operates the Antelope and Cordero Rojo mines in the Powder River Basin. “It is antithetical to principles of ‘multiple use and sustained yield’ to impose a complete ban on the most significant revenue generating use of federal lands within the Powder River Basin like further coal leasing.”
Protesters also argued that weighing the climate impacts of leasing Powder River Basin coal doesn’t align with federal resource policy, nor would a ban on leasing guarantee that Powder River Basin coal customers would turn to more climate-friendly sources of energy.
“BLM’s conclusion that eliminating coal mining in the [Powder River Basin] will protect the climate change resource is arbitrary,” Navajo Transitional Energy Company representatives wrote. “The elimination of coal leasing will not ‘protect other resource values’ such as air quality and public health impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and/or climate change.”
The multiple-use policy under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act “does not require that all uses be allowed on all areas of the public lands,” the BLM responded. “Rather, the BLM has discretion to allocate the public lands to particular uses, and to employ the mechanism of land use allocation to protect for certain resource values, or, conversely, develop some resource values to the detriment of others, short of unnecessary and undue degradation.”
“No changes [to the proposal] were necessary,” the agency concluded.
