FARMINGTON, N.M. – The amount of royalties coal companies pay for mining on public lands amounts to taxpayers in New Mexico and across the country getting ripped off, according to a Sierra Club official.

Robert Tohe, the Sierra Club’s organizing representative for its Dirty Fuels campaign, plans to testify today at a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hearing in Farmington that seeks public comment on reforming the government's coal leasing system.

Tohe is a member of the Navajo Nation, where coal mining is a big part of the local economy.

"These royalty rates are so low and haven't changed in the past, and so now is the opportunity to revise this so that taxpayers get their fair share of these profits," he states.

Tohe points to a report from Headwaters Economics that shows that between 2008 and 2012, coal companies mined $913 million worth of coal on public lands in New Mexico and paid $46 million in royalties.

That amounts to a 5 percent royalty rate, which Tohe and others say is outdated and should be at least three times higher.

Tohe maintains the additional revenue could pay for roads, schools, and also to help cover environmental costs linked to abandoned mines.

He says the abandoned Gold King Mine spill in Colorado earlier this month, which dumped millions of gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River, is an example of the threat posed by abandoned mines.

"In cleaning up the spill is the need for infrastructure like treatment facilities – treatment plants for water," he stresses.

Tohe says collecting reasonable royalties from coal mining companies would help defray the costs taxpayers are burdened with for environmental disasters such as the Gold King Mine spill.

The BLM reports that it currently manages more than 300 active coal leases covering about 475,000 acres in 10 states – and that about 40 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. comes from federal coal resources.






get more stories like this via email

Southwestern Pennsylvania is a major U.S. hotspot for gas extraction through fracking, but new polling reveals overwhelming public support for tighter industry oversight.

More than four in ten Pennsylvanians told pollsters they'd support an outright ban on fracking.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the poll was conducted to assess voters' attitudes toward the fracking industry.

Multiple questions were asked about what could be done to minimize or reduce some of the impacts of fracking.

"And what we found was that, across the board, across a variety of different measures," said O'Leary, "more than 90% of all Pennsylvanians supported increased efforts in those regards."

O'Leary points to a recent University of Pittsburgh study that found significant health risks associated with living near fracking sites.

The poll shows 86% of Pennsylvanians are broadly concerned about water, and 82% about air pollution.

Nearly eight in ten say they worry about the effects of pollution on their family's and community's health. And more than four in ten believe fracking has negative effects on air and water quality.

O'Leary said voters in Pennsylvania are still generally supportive of the natural gas industry.

But he said he believes that's the result of what he called "a widespread misunderstanding" that fracking is vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

He contended fracking has led to a net loss of jobs and population in some counties, causing significant economic loss to these regions.

"The other thing that I think a lot of people are not aware of is that in Pennsylvania, in just the last four years, the fracking industry has laid off 40% of its workforce," said O'Leary. "Four out of every 10 workers in fracking have lost their jobs."

He said early industry-funded studies predicted fracking would create around 250,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.

But recent data show it's been fewer than 20,000, or less than one-percent of the state's total workforce.

A recent study from the Sierra Club found people in Brookfield, Connecticut, could face severe effects from a proposed compressor station expansion.

The pipeline's owners conducted their own health study but the Sierra Club said it was flawed and did not account for several factors. The new study showed people nearby will face higher fine particulate matter emissions and many other noxious gases, like carbon monoxide.

Kerry Swift, a longtime Brookfield resident, said it began with one compressor station back in 2006.

"The next year they put in for two and now they want four," Swift explained. "There's these three huge interstate pipelines that are aging and they're putting more and more compressor stations on them; putting more and more gas through them, which they weren't built for."

A major issue Swift and other residents have with the expansion is the emissions will vent 1,900 feet from Whisconier Middle School. The town's elected officials and residents want the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to deny the project's air permits. Along with Brookfield, the village of Athens, New York recently passed a resolution urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to similarly deny air permits for the expansion.

Another concern about the expansion is Connecticut is supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030.

Nick Katkevich, campaign organizing strategist for the Sierra Club, noted an electric compressor station could be better for the environment but said blowdowns would still be a problem.

"Basically what's happening is the company needs to release pressure on the pipeline so they'll do it at the compressor facility and basically just shooting huge amounts of fracked gas into the air," Katkevich explained.

The companies have said it would be too expensive to convert the compressor station to electricity. Katkevich added along with committing to air monitoring in Brookfield, the state's energy department should meet with people in town before approving expansion permits. However, the department has declined the invitation for two years.

New York State authorized utilities to develop thermal energy network pilot programs to further its decarbonization goals. Thermal energy networks use non-emitting energy sources like geothermal boreholes or waste-heat, to heat and cool buildings. Eleven pilot projects stem from commitments made in the 2022 Utility Thermal Energy Network and Jobs Act.

Allison Considine, senior campaigns and communications manager for New York, Building Decarbonization Coalition, said college campuses with these systems are seeing a striking number of benefits.

"Using a thermal energy network, especially with geothermal is about six times more efficient than using a traditional gas furnace or oil furnace," she explained.

She added that buildings must go electric if New York will reach its decarbonization goals. Though the state's Building Code Council included the All-Electric Buildings Act in its 2025 draft code update, neighborhoods still face challenges in implementing thermal energy networks. Considine said barriers in state law prevent utilities from connecting multiple independently owned buildings to a thermal energy network.

The pilot programs could reach active construction by 2026 or 2027. They'll be online for five years so the respective utility agencies can gather data about their efficacy. But, to ensure the transition to cleaner fuels, Considine said certain laws have to be changed to move New York away from fossil fuel energy systems.

"And there's a provision on the books, we kind of call it New York's pro-gas mandate, which requires utilities to continue delivering gas service if a customer demands it, even if there is a less polluting, more affordable alternative for that customer," she added.

The New York HEAT Act would end this rule and allow the state to move toward a more energy-efficient future. The bill gives the state's Public Service Commission authority to align utility companies with the state's climate laws. It also phases out gas line extension allowances, which reduced the use of gas in the state.