America’s Power ACCCE 2

DESMOG 2 25

America’s Power – Formerly American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)

Background

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is a 501(c)(6) corporation chartered in Washington, DC, and formed by “More than 40 leading U.S. companies from the electricity generation, transportation, coal production, energy technology, and equipment manufacturing industries,” according to an April 2008 press release. The group now goes by the name America’s Power.¹ ^2

“ACCCE believes that the use of coal, America’s most abundant energy resource, is essential to providing affordable, reliable electricity for millions of American consumers and a growing domestic economy. ACCCE also supports enhanced public and private sector efforts to develop and deploy new, advanced clean coal technologies that protect and improve the environment,” the press release read.³

ACCCE was formed through the joining of the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) with Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC).⁴ ACCCE took shape in April 2008, at the same time the US Senate was considering new climate legislation. It followed a late-2007 campaign by its predecessor, ABEC, that had introduced an iconic image—an orange power cord plugging into a lump of coal. ACCCE‘s revised strategy claimed to support limits on CO2 as long as legislation encouraged a “robust utilization of coal.”⁵

ACCCE‘s membership has included Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, Inc., Murray Energy Corporation, Southern Company, Western Fuels Association, Union Pacific Railroad, Peabody Energy, CSX, Duke Energy, Detroit Edison, and many other coal and mining companies. On its current website, AmericasPower.org, ACCCE describes itself as “the only national trade organization whose sole mission is to advocate at the federal and state levels on behalf of coal-fueled electricity and the coal fleet.” Southern Company and American Electric Power both left ACCCE in 2019.⁶ ^7

In 2009, ACCCE was listed asnumber three on the *Mother Jones*“Dirty Dozen,” a list of groups described as the “loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.”⁸

*The Nation* described ACCCE as “The driving force behind coal’s rebranding effort,” consisting of a “a $40 million campaign funded by all the major components of the modern coal industry–mining companies, power plants, railroads, rural electric co-ops.”⁹

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC)/ America’s Power Army

One year after ACCCE was formed, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) sent out a mailer that reported it had changed its name again to “America’s Power Army.” The new name was taken “to be consistent with our advertising campaign, ‘America’s Power’ and the corresponding website, Americaspower.org.” [

“Together with our parent organization ACCCE (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) we work at the federal, regional, state and local levels on a range of energy policy issues, including climate change, mercury, ozone, and regional haze, as well as the siting of new, high tech clean coal-fueled power plants,” the mailer read.¹⁰

*DeSmog* reportedthat the mailer also laid out plans to target key Democratic senators to ensure that energy and climate legislation would benefit the clean coal lobby.¹¹

Before joining with the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) to create ACCCE, ABEC had sponsored a range of clean coal ads, including three TV ads that ran in Washington, DC. One reportestimated that ABEC spent $8.32 million on TV ads between 2001 and 2002.¹²

Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED)

TheCenter for Energy and Economic Development began in 1992 as a partnership between U.S. coal companies and the rail industry. Stephen L. Miller served as president of CEED, and John Snow of CSX Corporation was the founding chairman of the board. Snow explained that CEED was formed because, “our nation’s most abundant energy resource was under attack, placing our energy security in jeopardy”. “Something more had to be done,” he added. CEED, one of the two groups joined to create ACCCE, formerly offered the following description on its website:¹³

“The Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) began in 1992 as a partnership between the U.S. coal and rail industries. CEED‘s membership has grown dramatically. Utilities, equipment manufacturers, labor unions, and others have also joined in the effort.”¹⁴

CEED produced two “educational” videos on climate change. The first was called “America Speaks Out” which promised to “tell the personal stories of real-life Americans who will be negatively affected by this flawed treaty that even the world’s scientists can’t agree is necessary.” The CEED website also formerly offered the following statement on climate change:¹⁵

“We’ve all heard of climate changeorglobal warming. Many of us even have our own opinion about whether this is a serious problem or an exaggerated concern.

If predicting theweatherwere easy, we’d never be caught in the rain without an umbrella. Predicting weather conditions a day or two in advance is hard enough […] so just imagine how hard it is to forecast what our climate will be 75 to 100 years in the future.”¹⁶

Stance on Climate Change

2004

A leaked 2004 memo from Steve Miller, CEO of the Center for Energy and Economic Development (the forerunner to ACCCE), to Peabody Energy outlined the group’s strategies on a range of issues:¹⁷

On climate change:

“In the climate change arena, CEED focuses on three areas: opposing government-mandated controls of greenhouse gases (caps”>GHG), opposing ‘regulation by litigation’, and supporting sequestration and technology as the proper vehicles for addressing any reasonable concerns about greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

And:“Our belief is that, on climate change like other issues, you must be for something rather than against everything. The combination of carbon sequestration and technology is what we preach and we are looking for more members in the choir.”

On the McCain-Lieberman Bill:

“The McCain-Lieberman bill would create a national CO2 cap and trade program that would be highly injurious to coal-based electricity.”

“And the plan to fight the bill,

“Last week, we activated the Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) citizen army to call targeted U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against this amendment. Through today, more than 6,000 citizen members have called or e-mailed their senators. Our most recent effort follows on the heels of last fall’s citizen army activation, which generated more than 7,000 calls to target Senators in opposition to McCain-Lieberman. Joe Lucas, our Vice President’s Communications, coordinates this ABEC activity.”

On opposing a regional cap and trade program:

“More than a year ago, New York Governor Pataki proposed an eleven-state regional CO2 cap and trade program. CEED has been engaged in this effort from its beginning. Persuading Pennsylvania and Maryland (as major coal-consuming states) to stay on the sidelines, rather than signing onto this initiative, has been one element of our strategy. The other element is to pose voluntary sequestration and technology as the correct policy, rather than mandatory controls.” (Emphasis added).

On “sowing discord” amongst regions:

“In recent weeks, we have persuaded the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) participants to post the following pieces of CEED research on their web site for consumption by the states:

* A 2003 New Hope study showing reductions in greenhouse gases by the RGGI states would have an infinitesimal affect on global GHG concentrations.

* A 2003 Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA) study revealing negative economic results would flow to northeastern states that constrain CO2 emissions.

* A 2004 Energy Ventures Analysis report analyzing the affect of various cap and trade proposals, along with an output-based standard, on RGGI states as well as Pennsylvania and Maryland. EVA found that the economic consequences vary widely.

We plan to use this research to sow discord among the RGGI states. ” (Emphasis added).

On the EPA decision to regulate greenhouse gas:

“About a dozen states sued the EPA last year alleging that the agency must regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. CEED was the lead organization for outreach to the vast majority of state attorneys general who intervened on the Bush Administration’s side in new litigation designed to force CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act.”

On regional carbon sequestration programs:

“For almost a year, CEED has participated in six regional carbon sequestration partnerships established by the U.S. Department of Energy. We made modest financial contributions to the partnerships so that we can participate in their substantive decisions. Our staff and Ned Leonard (who is a loaned executive from Western Fuels Association) have interacted with and, where appropriate, guided these regional partnerships in terms of public policy and public outreach. Our goal is straightforward: persuade states that voluntary sequestration activities and technology investments are appropriate policies to address climate change concerns, while government mandatory controls are not.” (Emphasis added).

On Mercury:

“Our strategy in dealing with mercury has been two-fold: prevent states from taking precipitous or unwarranted action to regulate mercury and engage in the federal rulemaking to protect the interests of coal-based electricity.”

And,

“In 2003, the Quicksilver Caucus with ECOS [Environmental Council of States] tried to pass a resolution calling for the “virtual elimination” of mercury. CEED worked in a coalition with other organizations and companies to convince many states that the Quicksilver strategy was not the right approach and the ‘virtual elimination’ verbiage failed.”

Funding

ACCCE/America’s Power 990 Forms

...

TABLES PPL

...

Actions

June 3, 2021

America’s Power filed a brief in West Virginia v. EPA, a U.S. Supreme Court case that reduced the EPA’s ability to regulate power plants under the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The brief filed by America’s Power was prepared by a Washington D.C. law firm, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. In June 2022, the court ruled 6-3 against the EPA.¹⁹ ^20 ^21

January 13, 2020

Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Fred Palmer published an article at the coal mining industry publication CoalZoom describing a plan to form a new group called “Saving US Coal.²² The Saving US Coal Campaign is a partnership between CoalZoom and Craig Idso’s Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC/CO2 Science)²³ with donations being funneled through CSCDGC.²⁴

“’Saving US Coal’ has been created to be the vehicle for turning the tide for the full acceptance of coal in the US energy market by undertaking a campaign to repeal CO2 Endangerment at EPA. That requires a compelling EPA filing, of course, one that proves the benign and beneficial nature of more CO2 in the air based on the incredible work that Craig Idso has carried on for his Dad, Sherwood Idso and mentor, Sylvan Wittwer. However, it also requires creation of a coal coalition, like the Climate council quoted above, and the make-up of that coalition can be learned from coal’s past,” Palmer wrote.²⁵

He envisions the group to be a modern equivalent to CEED, the coal industry group that later merged to form ACCCE. As Palmer described it:²⁶

“In 1992, CEED was formed to meet the challenge to coal plants due to coal combustion and its CO2 profile and engage at the state level.”²⁷

… .

“CEED was successful in the 90s and the approach used then can inform for today. Coal’s challenge today at the state level is much more serious than it was in 1992, for the simple reason that the great investor owned utilities in CEED have switched sides and they own the regulated coal plants. But the CEED model never depended on the nature of CEED‘s members, it depended and depends on defending CO2 in defense of Coal. ‘Saving US Coal’ is the only entity that can do this today and its leaders were engaged directly in the 90s with CEED and succeeding years. ‘Saving US Coal’ can perform the same function today as CEED did then in a virtual way.”²⁸

Palmer envisions CO2 proponent Craig Idso taking a key role in the new group by promoting benefits of CO2:²⁹

“Once filed at EPA, ‘Saving US Coal’ will engage virtually at the state level with regulators directly and through NARUC to educate on the benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and the human environment. At the same time Craig will develop additional, original research showing the truth of CO2 which will be distributed as generated to the regulators. By doing so, coal suppliers can then engage directly with the regulators with challenges to the announced closures; rep-opening previous announcements where the plants are still operating is not out of the question.”

He also makes recommendations on coal industry groups that could be encouraged to join the pro-coal coalition:³⁰

“Today, there are groups sitting right in front of us and ready to go in coalition, I believe. These include:

Count on Coal through NMA

Friends of Coal in West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania

RMCMI in Colorado

The American Coal Council

The state coal associations, a very powerful and overlooked resource

Trade press”

Palmer first joined CoalZoom along with Craig Idso, in coordination with Bill Reid, in December 2019 to focus on the initiative with “the ultimate deliverable: repealing the EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding highlighting coal use as the vehicle and Champion that it is and will be.”³¹

December 2, 2019

Two of the nation’s leading coal companies and CO2 emitters announced that they would be withdrawing from ACCCE in 2020. American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co., both of which have closed some of their smaller coal plants while pledging to reduce emissions, were the last two investor-owned utility companies supporting ACCCE.³²

In 2018, Southern Co. paid $50,000 in dues to ACCCE, while AEP paid $10,000. ACCCE’s budget has steadily declined from $45 million in 2009 to less than $6 million in 2017, as investors have pressured utility companies to reduce emissions.³³

Following the announcement, a Southern Co. spokesperson told E&E News:³⁴

“Southern Company recognizes the importance of climate change and is a leader in advancing low- to no-carbon solutions that provide clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy to our customers and communities. Our strategy to achieve these goals includes the continued development and deployment of a diverse portfolio of energy resources to reliably and affordably serve our customers and communities with a focus on reducing CO2 emissions.”³⁵

September 29, 2017

ACCCEapplauded Rick Perry³⁶ for pushing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to speed the approval of a proposal which would reward coal and nuclear power for “resilience” they give to the power grid. ACCCE president Paul Bailey said the move “will finally value the on-site fuel security provided by the coal fleet.”³⁷

Advocates for both natural gas and renewableswere critical of Perry’s proposal:³⁸

“We worry today’s proposal would upend competitive markets that save consumers billions of dollars a year,” said Amy Farrell, a senior vice president for American Wind Energy Association.³⁹

Don Santa of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said the plan would favor “a very limited set of fuels and technologies.”⁴⁰

ACCCE had commissioned a study in August that highlighted the “resiliency” of coal-fired power plants. The study, conducted by PA Consulting Group, concluded that “no single electricity resource has all of the attributes necessary for a reliable and resilient grid.”⁴¹

“This new report shows the coal fleet is essential to help maintain the reliability and resilience of the electricity grid,” said ACCCE CEO Paul Bailey. “For that reason, we are especially supportive of DOE’s recent recommendation that policymakers need to establish criteria to value attributes, such as on-site fuel, that help protect the grid against low probability events that have extreme consequences.”⁴²

July 2017

ACCCE released a document on the “Myths about coal-fired power plants” including the following:⁴³

• “Myth … Coal-fired power plants are dirty
• Myth … Coal-fired power plants do not use clean coal technology.
• Myth … Coal-fired power plants are retiring because of low natural gas prices.
• Myth …The U.S. doesn’t need coal-fired power plants.
• Myth … Pollution from coal-fired power plants causes premature mortality.
• Myth … ‘The Clean Power Plan … takes real action on climate change.’ [EPA Fact Sheet on the Clean Power Plan]”⁴⁴

For the last myth listed, ACCCE cites a 2015 report by the notorious climate change denier Bjorn Lomborgfor support, claiming that “the Clean Power Plan would have a trivial effect on climate change. For example, global average temperature increase — the driver for climate change — would be reduced by an insignificant 0.013 degree (less than 1/80th degree) Celsius by the year 2100. On the other hand, the Clean Power Plan could cost more than $20 billion per year.”⁴⁵

June 30, 2017

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt spoke at an ACCCE board meeting where he discussed his “red team-blue team”⁴⁶ strategy for challenging mainstream climate change science, *The New York Times* reported.⁴⁷

Critics have said that Pruitt’s approach would undermine the role of academic research at the EPA.⁴⁸

I think this is fundamentally a dumb idea,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, told The New York Times in an email. “It’s like a red team-blue team exercise about whether gravity exists.”⁴⁹

March 28, 2017

ACCCE released a statement commending Donald Trump for signing an Executive Order that would overturn the EPA‘s Clean Power Plan:⁵⁰

“ACCCE commends President Trump for withdrawing bad regulations that are hurting our economy. The Clean Power Plan is the poster child for regulations that are unnecessarily expensive and have no meaningful environmental benefit,” said Paul Bailey, President and CEO of ACCCE. “We look forward to working with EPA Administrator Pruitt to develop sensible policies that protect the environment without shutting down more coal-fueled power plants, one of our most resilient and affordable sources of electricity.”⁵¹

November, 2015

*E&E News* reported that ACCCE commissioned a study by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) Economic Consulting that predicted the Obama administration’s plans to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants would cost nearly $300 billion. [54]

NERA also produced the March 2017 report⁵² President Donald Trump used as support for his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.⁵³

August, 2015

ACCCE released a paper titled “Climate Effects of EPA’s Final Clean Power Plan.” The paper concluded that climate effects of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan are “meaningless.”⁵⁴

January, 2014

ACCCE released a study titled “The Social Costs of Carbon? No, the Social Benefits of Carbon!“ The Daily Caller reported that the study claimed “the benefits of carbonized fuel, like coal, to society are 50 to 500 times greater than the costs.”⁵⁵ ^56

The study’s lead author, Roger Bezdek, said:

“Even the most conservative estimates peg the social benefit of carbon-based fuels as 50 times greater than its supposed social cost. And the benefits are actual fact; founded on more than two centuries of empirical data, not theoretical summaries based on questionable assumptions, dubious forecasts, and flawed models.”⁵⁷

Bezdek has been a vocal opponent of greenhouse gas regulations. In 2015, hetestified on behalf of Peabody Energy where he went on record to say “CO2 is not harmful and is actually good for the planet.”⁵⁸ He has also been a speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s International Conference on Climate Change.⁵⁹

November 13, 2013

ACCCE released the following statement on EPA regulations:⁶⁰

“ACCCE has long held that EPA regulations are not an effective way to address concerns about global climate change. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) continue to show that bipartisan leadership on this important issue is possible, even in the face of an Administration recklessly determined to phase out coal.

Senator Manchin’s and Representative Whitfield’s newly proposed legislation is an important step in halting EPA from shutting down our nation’s coal plants and preventing the construction of new ones, which won’t even have any meaningful impact on global climate change. Thankfully, Senator Manchin and Representative Whitfield recognize the serious threat to electric reliability if coal is taken offline, but also the real-life economic and social consequences seemingly neglected from EPA’s own analysis.

This new legislation and tomorrow’s House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing show that both chambers are beginning to recognize the urgency of Congressional action that’s needed to stop EPA’s dangerous rulemaking.”

June, 2011

ACCCE released a report claiming that clean air rules proposed under the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion per year and raise electricity rates on average 11.5 percent in 2016. The report was conducted by National Economic Research Associates Inc. *Bloomberg* described the reportas “part of a campaign to delay compliance deadlines in the pending rules.”⁶¹

March, 2011

ACCCE ran radio ads opposing the Clean Air Act, shortly before Congress would vote on the issue. *The Hill*reported that the ads, which ran during a congressional recess, stated:⁶²

“You wouldn’t use a hammer to fix your computer. You don’t use a folding map if you have a GPS. The point is, we don’t use yesterday’s tools to solve today’s challenges. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency has started regulating greenhouse gas emissions under a 40-year-old law that doesn’t even mention the term ‘greenhouse gases.’ The result could be higher energy prices and lost jobs.”⁶³

They urge listeners to ask their senators to vote for the amendment, which The Hill notes mirrors Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) legislation designed to block the EPA. The ads ran in Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and numerous other states.⁶⁴

2011—

ACCCEhas been a regular sponsor of theAmerican Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meetings since at least 2011. Examples have included:⁶⁵

• “Chairman” level sponsor, 2011 Annual Conference – $50,000
• “Chairman” level sponsor, 2013 Summer Meeting – $50,000
• “Chairman” level sponsor, 2013 Annual Conference – $50,000
• “Director” level sponsor, 2014 Annual Conference – $Unknown

October 29, 2009

ACCCE President and CEO Joe Millertestified before the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee about the forged letters sent by Bonner & Associates. During his testimony, Miller claimed that his organization had never opposed the Waxman-Markey Climate bill. View video below, pulled by Media Matters and reported on by HuffPost:⁶⁶

...

OFF BS 2025

About - America's Power

AMERICA'S POWER

America’s Power is the only national trade organization whose sole mission is to advocate at the federal and state levels on behalf of the U.S. coal fleet and its supply chain. The nation’s fleet of more than 400 coal-fired generating units located across 40 states provides affordable, reliable, dispatchable and energy-secure electricity on a 24/7 basis.

To carry out our mission, we engage constructively with elected and appointed officials, policymakers, and key stakeholders. Our engagement promotes sound public policies that recognize the importance of the coal fleet and its supply chain. We believe a healthy mix of reliable, affordable and energy-secure resources is essential for economic growth and national security. Furthermore, we believe that technology innovation is the best strategy to achieve economically sustainable environmental progress.

OUR TEAM

Michelle Bloodworth

President and CEO

Paul Bailey

Policy

Paul Bailey has been a leader at America’s Power since 2009. Paul now focuses on developing and supporting policies that help preserve the coal fleet.

Earlier in his career, Paul worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; as a Nuclear Licensing Engineer and Federal Affairs Director for Southern Company; Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; Director of Environment, Health, and Safety at the American Petroleum Institute; Vice President of Environmental Affairs at the Edison Electric Institute; and Managing Director of Natsource, LLC.

Paul holds a BS from Birmingham-Southern College and an MS in engineering from Vanderbilt University. Also, he is a graduate of the Stanford University business school’s executive management program.

Jay Balasbas

State Regulatory Affairs, Advisor

MICHAEL SANSONE

Director of Policy Research and Analysis