Western Energy

The nineteenth-century conquerors of the American West dealt rather cavalierly with the local opposition. The currently contemplated energy conquest of the West is running into something better represented, more vocal, and hence much more formidable.

Continuing a series of reactions which dates back at least to the Four Corners power plant controversy of 1971, protests this past year were repeated and varied. Some were in response to the early 1974 offering of the first six commercial oil-shale leases on federal lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. (Four were actually sold for bonuses aggregating around $450 million.) Others were responses to the escalating pace of coal development in Montana and Wyoming, to plans for strip mining in South Dakota, to proposals for further power development in New Mexico, to the contemplated storage of nuclear wastes in Idaho, Washington, and Nevada. There was indignation that the industrialized areas of the nation should be willing to sacrifice the natural amenities of the Rocky Mountain states to satisfy an insatiable demand for more energy; or that Montana ranches and agriculture should be so sacrificed; or that the Indian tribes should be expected to accept further threats to their cultural integrity, if not, in some instances, to tribal survival. It was argued that such notions as the nuclear stimulation of oil and gas deposits over looked environmental risks which well outweighed the resource benefits to be gained, that the socioeconomic impacts of large-scale construction activities and the inundation of older communities by shifting mine work forces would cause more damage than they could bring in local or regional gain. Moreover, there is hardly water enough in the West to provide for established local needs, let alone meeting the huge new demands which mineral exploitation would bring. Clearly it is for the advantage of the East, not the West, that such development is contemplated. The East must not be permitted thus to "colonize" an unspoiled area.

The intensity and extensiveness of such feelings have grown by now to the point where they seem even to be overriding old liberal-conservative divisions and creating a new conservationist political coalition. An example of the effectiveness of the new regrouping is the Colorado gubernatorial victory of Richard Lamm, whose principal campaign theme was the safeguarding of environmental values.

Yet, amid the polemic and hyperbole, some attempts were being made to introduce analysis and compromise. Among these was the work of the Northern Great Plains Resource Program, which had been established in 1972, on the initiative of Interior Secretary Rogers Moreton, as a joint effort of the federal government, five states, and various, private groups. In September 1974 the committee released a draft report, outlining in considerable detail the dimensions of what was involved in western coal development. It acknowledged serious socioeconomic impacts: construction boom towns, heavy front-end needs for public expenditures, changes in the political power structure, populations and communities stranded after the reserves are depleted, extensive alteration in accustomed life styles, emergence of specialized or one-industry economies, and environmental degradation caused by industrialization and the presence of large numbers of people. As yet, the NGPRP has not proposed ways of reconciling these problems with the need for more energy, but its work continues.

Another attempt was made in Congress, which took all year to hammer out a compromise on the strip-mining bill. As the bill finally emerged from conference on December 5, it had settled the sticking point by providing for compensation of up to $100 per acre in addition to actual damages, to surface owners of coal lands with respect to which the federal government might lease retained subsurface mineral rights. A preponderance of western coal lands is characterized by such split ownership. The bill was finally passed by both houses so late in the session that President Ford was able to pocket veto it, his principal objection being that it would detract from badly needed western coal production. Perversely, because of the strong possibility of passage this year of a similar and possibly stronger control act, with retroactive effect, the veto may well have increased uncertainties enough to decelerate, rather than accelerate, western coal exploitation.

Even if the political and social conflicts can be resolved or contained, it does not necessarily follow that the large-scale development of western energy is assured. Technical and economic questions yet to be sorted out will determine the actual mode of such development and its extent. In the case of conventionally mined and burned western coal, the size of market will depend upon transportation factors and upon the competitive economics of new technology for pre- or postcombustion desulfurization of eastern coal. The various coal gasification and liquefaction projects under consideration must either be able to succeed with old, high-cost German processes or perfect new processes which have not yet undergone pilot-plant experimentation. A full-scale oil shale plant has never been operated in the United States. Large desert solar-power installations are still "paper" designs. Identification of geothermal sites through drilling activities has barely begun.

Regional hearings held by FEA in 1974 in connection with Project Independence brought fresh confirmation of the local opposition and the pragmatic doubts. If these problems eventually resolved, it may well be in the context of the national policy it is hoped will be developed regarding the priorities and locations for alternative energy sources. That the problems are not exclusively western ones is demonstrated by the similar persistent concern in regions over refinery and power plant siting and offshore drilling. Ultimately, it has to be a political decision of national scope as to how hard (in the face of environmental and comparative cost considerations) to push domestic energy production, and who is to have the mines and refineries in their own backyards.