United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Researc
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-130 Sept. 1981
Project Summary
Final Report on the
Workshop on Energy
Development Issues
Affecting Appalachia
Benjamin L Blaney, Victor F. Jelen, Michael Waldman, James Evans, and
Robert Bovee
In January of 1979 a workshop
involving representatives of private
industries, government agencies, and
public interest groups was held to
raise and discuss issues related to
Appalachian energy development.
The workshop was sponsored by the
Environmental Protection Agency
with the assistance of the Appalachian
Regional Commission. The final work-
shop report that is summarized here
describes the issues identified by
these individuals. It also indicates that
participants felt future studies of
Appalachian energy should be devel-
oped to assist the decision makers
who ultimately will act -on these
issues'.
This Pro/act Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cin-
cinnati, OH, to announce key findings
of the research project that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
This workshop was held to provide its
sponsors and participants with a better
understanding of the principal issues
associated with energy activities in
Appalachia. Of particular interest were
the impacts on the environment. With
the increased demand for coal in the
United States, Appalachia's coal
resources are expected to be exploited
at an increasing rate during the re-
mainder of this century. Given this
possibility and in light of the numerous
interest groups that will be affected by
the way in which such development
takes place, members of the EPA Office
of Research and Development held a
workshop to discuss the energy issues
that would affect Appalachia in the next
20 years.
The workshop, which was held during
a two day period in 1979, in Atlanta,
Georgia, was attended by 37 invited
participants, representing Federal and
state* government agencies, private
enterprise, and public interest groups.
All had been closely involved in various
aspects of Appalachian energy activities
for some time. Prior to 'the workshop,
participants agreed to join one of three
small discussion groups. Each group
focused its attention on one of the
following parts of the energy supply
chain:
1. Resource Extraction.
2. Energy Conversion Facilities.
3. Energy End-Use.
The group facilitators provided some
structure to each group's discussion,
but the amount of direction was limited;
participants were relatively free to
shape their conversations within the
confines of each topic area. A plenary
-------
session was held at the end of the
workshop. At that point, the findings of
each group were summarized for all the
participants.
Broadly stated, the objectives of the
workshop were three-fold. The first goal
was to identify participants' common
concerns about future energy activities
in the region. Second, members of the
conference sought the basis for any
differences in opinion about how energy
development might best occur. Third,
they attempted to learn where there are
gaps in our knowledge about the
alternatives for energy growth, and to
determine the means of managing
growth (where necessary) and of
minimizing the problems that growth
creates for Appalachia. Suggestions for
research were phrased in terms of what
the focus of an overall assessment of
possible future Appalachian energy
activities might be, such a study being
referred to as an "Appalachian energy
technology assessment."
Throughout the workshop emphasis
was on environmental issues, but many
other technical, economic, and insti-
tutional subjects were discussed be-
cause of the close interrelationship.
For the research offices of a govern-
ment agency such as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), a workshop of
this type has two primary benefits. The
agency gains a better understanding of
how energy activities form part of the
social fabric of a particular region of the
country and how those involved in the
region would like to see change occur.
Such insights help to reveal the social,
as well as physical, environments
within which agency decisions will have
to be implemented. In addition, the
workshop shows where the agency
might focus research efforts to improve
the comprehensiveness of its own
decisions and to help residents of the
region understand the options available
to them.
This article highlights the findings of
the workshop. A more detailed de-
scription of those two days of discussions
is provided in the full Project Report.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Resource Extraction Session
The discussion of the Extraction
Session progressed through two phases.
The first phase addressed issues
pertaining to the scope and objectives of
an Appalachian energy technology
assessment. During the second phase,
the discussion turned to the identifica-
tion of issues to be investigated during
the course of such research.
It was suggested that one contribu-
tion that a technology assessment of
Appalachian energy development would
provide is the documentation of both the
formal and informal institutional
arrangements underlying energy-
related development. The formal
institutional structure is provided by the
laws and regulations that must be
complied with in order to pursue energy
activities. The informal structures are
the unwritten rules and patterns of
conduct adhered to in the day-to-day
business of private industry, as well as
in societal interactions and government
operations. Future research should
seek to identify the nature of these
relationships and, in particular, to
analyze the effects on them of formal
legal requirements.
Three scenarios were suggested to
provide a framework within which the
interplay to technological, environ-
mental, economic, and social concerns
could be examined:
1. A continuation of existing tech-
nology, regulations, and institu-
tional relationships, with no new
extraction development in the
region.
2. A continuation of existing tech-
nology, regulations, and institu-
tional relationships, increased
levels of coal production.
3. Increased levels of environmental
and economic regulation designed
to meet existing air, water, and
land use standards and to main-
tain the quality of life at an
acceptable level.
These scenarios reflect different
assumptions about the level of future
coal development and the stringency of
environmental and economic regulation
of energy activities. Thus, they provide a
method for drawing out and illustrating
the relationship of the factors that
influence specific issues.
The remainder of the discussion in
the Resource Extraction Session cen-
tered on two issues. One was the impact
of the regulatory environment on coal
extraction. The other concerned how
increased coal mining affected the
quality of life in the mining areas. The
discussion led to the development of
specific questions that future research
could examine. The following list
highlights the major questions that
resulted from the session:
• How do environmental regulations
affect small coal mine operators?
• What is the effect of increased
government regulation on the
competition of coal with oil and
gas?
• Will extraction technology improve
substantially in the near future?
• What are the effects of current
regulations on technical innova-
tion?
• Would area-wide environmental
regulations be more effective than
site-specific permitting?
• Who will assume the increased
economic burdens of coal produc-
tion on social institutions?
• How can quality-of-life issues
achieve a larger role i n the decision-
making processes associated with
coal extraction?
Energy Conversion
Facilities Session
The discussion in this session began
with an examination of the benefits and
problems resulting from the continued
expansion of coal-fired electric gen-
erating facilities. Later in the session,
the group turned to a discussion of the
possible alternative energy sources
available to the region, including gas,
oil, biomass, and solar energy. Although
these other sources of energy are viable
alternatives in Appalachia, the group
participants agreed that any discussion
of energy in the region would be most
productive if initially focused on coal.
It is anticipated by the workshop
organizers that many of the issues
arising in an initial examination of the
technology involved with the coal-fired
generation of electricity would be
related to other energy technologies, for
example synthetic fuels production. For
this reason, discussion focused first
upon coal-fired generating facilities.
The benefits and problems resulting
from the expansion of such electric
plants were identified From these, the
group developed a list of problems and
constraints faced by those involved in
facility development. This list is
presented in Table 1.
Each member of the group was then
asked to choose three of the listed items
that were most important to the interests
he or she represented, and also, to
consider the choice of the item by
weighing its relevance to future research ^
on Appalachian energy development, m
-------
Table 1. Problems/Constraints
Associated with Expansion
of Coal-Fired Electric
Generating Facilities
1. Electricity demand ("load")
management - redistribution
rather than expansion.
2. Facility siting /including small
plants for local power generation
and use) - regulations and costs.
3. Financing - taxation and capital
investment.
4. Availability of fuel.
5. Public policies not yet available
for coal.
6. Mining practices • regulation
and strikes.
7. Interest group participation •
lack of communication.
8. End-use patterns - forecasting
uncertainties.
The choice made by the participants
indicated that environmental regulations
and facility siting were given a high
priority by most present. Public policies,
defined as Federal and State policies
toward energy development, were of
particular concern to private industry.
The participation of interest groups in
policy and regulation formation was
ranked high by government represent-
atives, while the public interest repre-
sentative felt that socio-economic
considerations were more important
Based on these results, the conversion
facilities group was directed to a dis-
cussion of the following five factors and
their implications to Appalachian energy
activities:
1. Environmental impacts - air, health,
water - and their regulation.
2. Facility siting.
3. Interest group participation.
4. Public policies.
5. Socio-economic and cultural con-
sideration.
As a result of discussing these five
topics, a list of problems which might be
addressed in an Appalachian energy
technology assessment was composed.
That list is presented as Table 2.
fnergy End-Use Session
The Energy End-Use Session resulted
in a group consensus that one general,
central issue and four specificsubissues
represented the group's concerns:
A. Central Issue: Lack of a 9onsistent
national policy on fuel utilization.
Table 2. Conversion Facility Session List of Problems to be Addressed in an
Assessment of Appalachian Energy Development
• What mechanisms exist for dealing with the long-range transport and
cumulative effects of air pollution?
• What will be the impact of air regulations on state and regional economic
development? In particular, what tradeoffs must be considered when allocating
air pollution increments for Prevention of Significant Deterioration fPSD)?
• What effect would clean air regulations have on developing energy technology?
• What are the net economic costs and benefits to various government
jurisdictions that would result from establishment of different types of insti-
tutional frameworks to manage the development of energy facilities and their
associated impacts?
• What impact would the promotion of alternative energy sources /synthetic
fuel, biomass, etc.) have on regional development?
• What mechanisms exist, or could be created, to deal with the inconsistencies
between state and Federal EPA air pollution control regulations?
• How many differing attitudes of Appalachian communities toward development
affect the type and location of future growth?
• What are the health tradeoffs associated with different energy conversion
alternatives?
• What mechanisms exist for community control of, or at least involvement
in, the conversion facility siting process?
• What will be the effects of different levels of energy production, as well as
various energy conversion technology mixes, on the Appalachian region?
• What mechanisms exist for public participation in the siting and development
of decision-making processes at both the state and multicounty levels?
• What effects do differing policies at different levels of government have on
energy development?
B. Specific Subissues: •
• Communication among different
levels of government (local, state,
and Federal) and between govern-
ments and the public.
• Centralization vs. decentralization
of power generation.
• Growth management and devel-
opment.
• Technological applications.
It was generally felt by session
participants that a consistent national
policy on fuel utilization is essential to
assessing future impacts of energy
growth. Such a policy would provide a
framework for decision making. Modi-
fication of the current fuel and energy
regulations to provide consistency may
or may-not be possible, but they must be
examined to determine the climate in
which growth would occur. It is espe-
cially important to examine these
regulations with respect to Appalachia
energy production and use in general,
and to coal production and use in
particular.
One of the major factors that results
in conflicting regulations and programs
is the lack of communication and
cooperation between various levels of
governments (local, state, and Federal).
Such communication also often appears
to be lacking among the various de-
partments of government at each level.
Thus, the states may set standards or
have policies that are inconsistent with
those at the Federal level; or one Federal
department may be pushing for in-
creased coal utilization, while another is
limiting power plant emissions, thereby
placing economic constraints on coal
utilization.
Communication with the private
sector is also limited in many respects.
This can cause long delays as those
private or public interest groups which
were not heard during the planning
phase make their views known through
lawsuits and court injunctions. Better
communication channels between all
those associated with energy develop-
ment and its regulation would help
minimize such problems.
-------
When the question of choice of fuels
to generate energy was evaluated, the
issue of whether to centralize or
decentralize generating facilities arose.
Centralization would lend itself to
exporting energy. Decentralization
would lend itself to local development in
which the generating facilities would
serve load centers. This could lead to
stimulating the growth of Appalachian
manufacturing industries, thereby
moving the region away from an
economic position which is heavily
dependent upon exporting mineral
resources and power. It*was noted that
the availability and economics of
alternative fuel types would have an
important effect on the centralization/
decentralization issue.
Implementing centralization, decen-
tralization, or some mix of the two will
require a program of growth manage-
ment to effectively guide changes in
local and regional growth patterns.
Growth management in Appalachia will
include- promotion of the growth of
industry and population, ft will also
necessitate the management of expan-
sion resulting solely from free-enterprise
forces, as well as that resulting from
government programs. A comprehensive
growth management plan would elim-
inate much wasted motion and could be
used as a means to involve the private
sector of Appalachia.
Another important area to be con-
sidered is the technological applications
used to accomplish the foregoing plans.
This would include pollution control
technology. This is a unique opportunity
to construct utilities and industries from
the "ground up" thus reducing the need
to modify existing facilities in the future.
A logical presentation of the energy and
control technology alternatives available
to accomplish growth will be a necessity
for any assessment of future Appala-
chian energy development.
An analysis of the current research
and development programs and their
future direction will also be required.
This would certainly aid in predicting or
stimulating growth in Appalachia.
Some R & D efforts may even be
redirected to assist in solving problems
highlighted by the proposed assessment.
Four questions that represent the
thrust of the End-Use Session were
developed by the group. It was thought
that the following questions should be
addressed in the course of an assess-
ment of Appalachia's energy future:
• What are the alternative proce-
dures for communication among
the various levels of local, state,
and Federal governments; within
those government levels; and
between those government levels
and the Appalachian private and
public sections?
• Would the energy development
goals of the Appalachian Regional
Commission be best served by
centralization or decentralization
of generating facilities or some
combination of the two strategies?
• By what mechanism will growth
management in Appalachia, in-
cluding transportation, be accom-
plished?
• Can technological application be
examined, especially in the areas
of conservation and control devices?
Issues Pervading the
Workshop Discussions
There were issues that appeared to
dominate the workshop. Some, such as
making regulations more effective and
efficient, were explicitly stated. Others
were implicit in the discussions as
indicated from a number of more
narrow issues that were raised. The
question of how the burdens and
benefits of energy development should
be distributed was such an implied
issue.
Four major issues appeared to dom-
inate much of the two days of dis-
cussions:
1. What'are the most important
factors to consider when formu-
lating future policies on Appala-
chian energy development?
2. How should the burdens and
benefits of energy development in
Appalachia be distributed?
3. How can the effectiveness of
environmental regulations which
govern energy development be
improved, while restraining the
cost of their implementation?
4. What should be the principal
objectives of an Appalachian
energy technology assessment?
In the final section of the Project
Report these issues are presented using
a common format. First, the issue
statement is made. Then an attempt is
made to clarify the issue by discussing
why different interest groups feel it has
arisen, why it is important to them, and
what they think ought to be done about
the issue. In the case of the first three
issues, discussions are aJso presented
of how participants felt future research
might contribute to a better under-
standing of (1) the factors underlying
each issue and (2) the alternatives for
resolving each issue.
The first three issues reflect the
desire of many participants to see
improved communication, more realistic
regulations, and improved economic
conditions within the Region. Thefourth
issue defines what the workshop
participants felt researchers should try
to accomplish in an Appalachian energy
assessment and how such a study
should be carried out. The main con-
clusions reached on this fourth issue
may be summarized as follows:
1. Study Purpose - The study should
provide the region's decision
makers with better understanding
of current energy activities in
Appalachia and of the possibilities
for future change and growth.
There was disagreement, however,
on what aspects of energy devel-
opment should be emphasized.
For some, the study should lead to
expanded coal development and
use. For others, it should focus on
minimizing the" environmental
impacts of any type of development.
Still others wanted the study to
investigate all the alternative
sources of energy (e.g., coal, solar,
nuclear) that could be developed in
Appalachia by 2000.
2. Study Objectives - Three were
emphasize.d: (1) define current
energy activities and the likelihood
of future change and growth
alternatives, (2) investigate the
credibility of past studies, and (3)
include Appalachian interest
groups in the study process.
3. Study Audience - While not given
a clear-cut definition in the work-
shop, it appeared to the authors of
the final report that a two-tiered
system might be appropriate. The
study would address its findings to
Federal, state and local govern-
ment agency needs (Tier One), but
include business and public
interest groups (Tier Two) in the
study so that they could also learn
from the process and influence the
direction of the study.
4. Study Geographic Scope - The
study should not be confined by
the boundaries of the Appalachia
Region, but should be scoped by
the problem of the region which is .
being investigated. For example, m
-------
strong demand for exporting energy
will require investigation of future
market structures outside the
Region.
Study Timeframe - The period
from 1985 to 2010 should be the
study timeframe. This would allow
researchers to consider how near-
term decisions will affect future
energy activities without looking
so far to the future that the
uncertainties of the findings would
be of little immediate practical
value.
The EPA authors Benjamin L. Blaney (also the EPA Project Officer, see below)
and Victor F. Jelen are with the Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, OH 45268; Michael Waldman, James Evans, and Robert
Bovee are with Enviro Control, Inc., Rockville, MD 20852.
The complete report, entitled "Final Report on the Workshop on Energy Develop-
ment Issues Affecting Appalachia," (Order No. PB 81 -234 387; Cost: $9.50,
subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1981 — 757-012/7359
-------
United States Center for Environmental Research Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Information Pnuimnmont
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268 Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED Third-Class
Bulk Rate
IERL0167053
US EPA REGION V
LIBRARY
230 S DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO IL
------- |