What Laws Favor Coal in Missouri?

Posted April 10th, 2009 at 1.54pm in Energy and Environment.

In an otherwise fine article on how cap and trade legislation would lead to exploding energy bills that would hurt families and kill economic growth, the New York Times reports:

But few pay attention to the origin of their little-noticed savings: 21 coal-fired power plants that emit more than 75 million tons of carbon dioxide annually and generate 80 percent of Missouri’s electricity. Even residents who endorse wind and solar energy have grown accustomed to the benefits of state policies that favor coal by putting a premium on low-cost electricity. So the idea of federal climate legislation that could increase electricity bills by putting a price on emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide is unsettling.
…
Here in Missouri, economic incentives built into the state’s laws, history and habits encourage burning as much coal as possible. Peabody Energy started as a local business a century ago and now promotes itself as the world’s leading coal merchant. Trainloads of Wyoming coal cross Missouri daily.

Now the NYT does link to the Energy Information Administration state profile of Missouri when they write “economic incentives built into the state’s laws, history and habits”, but no where on the EIA website, or in the rest of the NYT article, is it explained which Missouri “laws” or “policies” “favor” or “encourage” producing electricity from coal.

If the NYT is going to accuse the coal industry of recieving state subsidies, the very least they could do is identify how exactly they are neing subsidized.

Author: Conn Carroll
Interact: Sphere
Share This

4 Comments

April 10, 2009 Barb -mn writes:

It’s quite TRANSPARENT that Obama and his cohorts appreciate covering up and then setting up. Only to provoke future crisises.

April 12, 2009 Bud MacGuire writes:

I t would seem fairly obvious that the reason for not publishing the info on the subsidy is that there is none. thje coal industry has never had a subsidy from any govt. agency; but has been taxed by all of them.

April 13, 2009 Florida writes:

How does the current Administration continue to say that “main street” is at the heart of every decision, while special interest (clear minority of the minority groups) is driving most, if not all, of their decisions. Every day Joes and Janes are suffering today, and even more tomorrow, because of a seriously flawed ideology - steeped in bad principles. At what point will people stop listening to what this Administration is saying and start “listening” to what they are doing?

April 13, 2009 Cathie in Missouri writes:

I agree with Bud MacGuire that there is no subsidy on coal usage in Missouri. The reason most of missouri can keep its energy prices low is because most of the state uses engery co-ops that are owned by the customers. I inquired recently of my co-op about sustainable enery and in my area of the state. I found out that about 30% of our energy is purchased from wind power bought from the northern part of the state. Missouri is working very hard on making sustainable and clean energy a viable choice and keeping that energy at a sustainable price for its customers. It’s too bad other states cannot follow that lead and do the same. I get the feeling that “Missouri bashing” about coal energy is a product of jealousy stemming from the fact that my $70 per month energy bill is more like $300 per month just about anywhere else you go in the country. I say, “Lead, Follow, or get out of the way”.

The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

The Foundry