No abstract

This paper explores how policy structure, institutions, and political climate impact the ability of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) to ensure the reclamation of surface coal mines. We conduct a policy review that traces the impacts of the three parts of SMCRA; Reclamation Standards, Reclamation Bonding Requirements, and the Abandoned Mine Land fund. We examine the implications the act and its approach have for the mining industry and their ability to reclaim mining areas. We find that each of the three parts of SMCRA’s approach face substantial problems in their implementation. Though largely a positive force for internalizing the environmental costs of surface mining, those issues commonly elucidated in the public choice literature reduce the efficacy of the policy approach and call into question the act’s ability to ensure reclamation occurs. Both in the structure of the bonding requirements and in the regulatory structure created by the act, misaligned incentives sometimes hamper effective reclamation. Further, the funds created under SMCRA to reclaim and restore mined lands have often been directed towards projects that are politically expedient for politicians instead of those that would best serve the fund’s original reclamation purpose. After revealing these problems and putting them in the context of the public choice literature, we suggest updates to the current policy that would align reclamation incentives and better ensure that the reclamation of surface mines occurs. We emphasize the cooperative elements of SMCRA and suggest how other countries, especially those without major existing frameworks for handling reclamation, can emulate the successes of SMCRA while avoiding its implementations snags.

No abstract

Recent growth in the renewable energy industry has increased government support for alternative energy. In the United States, hydropower is the largest source of renewable energy and also one of the most efficient. Currently, there are 30,000 megawatts of potential energy capacity through small-and micro-hydro projects throughout the United States. Increased development of micro-hydro could double America's hydropower energy generation, but micro-hydro is not being developed at the same rate as other renewable sources. Micro-hydro is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and subject to the same regulation as large hydroelectric projects despite its minimal environmental impact. We studied two cases of micro-hydro projects in Logan, Utah, and Afton, Wyoming, which are both small rural communities. Both cases showed that the web of federal regulation is likely discouraging the development of micro-hydro in the United States by increasing the costs in time and funds for developers. Federal environmental regulation like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and others are likely discouraging the development of clean renewable energy through micro-hydro technology.

No abstract