In this list
Coal | Energy Transition

Trump-era coal screens sufficient, BLM argues in environmental lawsuit

Energy | Energy Transition

Platts Custom Analytics

Energy Transition | Carbon | Emissions | Renewables

COP28: The Policies

Oil | Energy Transition | Energy

APPEC 2024

Coal | Thermal Coal

Bitcoin mining profitability plunges as power prices rise on higher demand

Biofuels | Energy

S&P Global Platts Proposes to Revise Chicago Ethanol Price Assessment Methodology

Oil & Gas | Shipping | Coal | Metals | Electric Power | Energy Transition | Refined Products | Bunker Fuel | Fuel Oil | Marine Fuel | Metallurgical Coal | Steel | Ferrous | Nuclear | Renewables | Crude Oil

Commodity Tracker: 5 charts to watch this week

For full access to real-time updates, breaking news, analysis, pricing and data visualization subscribe today.

Subscribe Now

Trump-era coal screens sufficient, BLM argues in environmental lawsuit


Existing resource management plans compliant, BLM says

PRB coal plans fail to account for public health, environmental groups claim

  • Author
  • Morgan Snook
  • Editor
  • Agamoni Ghosh
  • Commodity
  • Coal Energy Transition
  • Tags
  • United States

The Bureau of Land Management recently defended itself against an environmental lawsuit claiming resource management plans for coal tracts failed to account for public health.

Not registered?

Receive daily email alerts, subscriber notes & personalize your experience.

Register Now

Conservation groups including Earthjustice and the Sierra Club sued the BLM in federal court in October, arguing it failed to comply with a 2018 court order to conduct environmental impact studies for its offices in Miles City, Montana, and Buffalo, Wyoming. The tracts are part of the Powder River Basin, the largest coal-producing region in the US. Over 85% of all federal coal production is produced from the PRB, according to BLM statistics.

In a Jan. 7 filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, the BLM asked the courts to dismiss the suit, arguing that it already satisfied the 2018 order by developing approved Resource Management Plan Amendments in 2019.

The BLM refuted environmentalists' claim that the Trump-era BLM amendments failed to consider no-coal leasing and limited coal leasing alternatives. Regarding the failure to consider a no-coal leasing alternative, the BLM said it wasn't required to do so.

"First and foremost, the Court's prior order did not require BLM to consider a no-leasing alternative—it only required BLM to consider an alternative that 'modified or foreclosed the amount of acreage available for coal development' so as to 'decrease the amount of extractable coal available for leasing, which BLM did," the agency said.

The BLM said it had considered alternatives that would decrease production volumes, as per the court's 2018 order.

"The [Buffalo Field Office] eliminated deeper coal seams and poor quality coal from Alternative B, reducing coal availability by about 33%, which in turn reduced potential production emissions and downstream emissions," the BLM said in its brief.

The case is being heard by the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Great Falls Division.