Coal’s Lonely Lobbyists
The growing isolation of the coal mining industry,and lost member companies at the National Mining
Association, American Coalition for Clean CoalElectricity, and World Coal Association
August 2016

Joe Smyth, Climate Investigations Center | joe@climateinvestigations.org
www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

Table of Contents
Executive Summary: As the coal mining industry becomes increasingly isolated, its lobby
groups are spending less and losing major member companies
2
ACCCE’s declining revenue and spending, 2008–2014
3
Coal lobby groups have lost major member companies
3
ACCCE’s bumpy start: fraudulent letters and the loss of major member companies

5

ACCCE’s inconsistencies on carbon capture and sequestration and climate science

8

Recent ACCCE membership losses reflect the structural decline of the coal industry
Seven of the twelve companies that gave ACCCE $1 million or more in 2008 are no longer
listed as members
Six electric cooperatives have been removed from ACCCE’s membership list web page

10
13
14

The National Mining Association opposes climate, clean air, and workplace safety rules 14
The National Mining Association has lost several major member companies
Anglo American
Chevron
Pacificorp
SKF
Volvo
Wells Fargo
Zurich

15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18

Five other major companies have also been removed from NMA’s membership list
KPMG
Wood Mackenzie
Michelin
CSX
Norfolk Southern

18
18
19
19
19
20

Some companies that publicly support climate policies remain National Mining
Association members
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Ernst & Young
Siemens
Schneider Electric
General Electric

20
20
21
21
21
22

Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources left the World Coal Association as they filed forbankruptcy
22
Total S.A. departure from World Coal Association highlights the growing divide between
the coal industry and the oil and gas industry
24
An increasingly fractured corporate climate lobby

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

25

1Executive Summary: As the coal mining industry becomesincreasingly isolated, its lobby groups are spending less andlosing major member companies
As efforts to address climate change gain momentum, there is growing
consensus that transitioning away from coal is one of the most important
steps available for rapid reductions of carbon pollution. Increased publicawareness of coal’s contribution to dangerous levels of air pollution has also
highlighted the broad benefits of a transition away coal. And amidst theseconcerns, low natural gas prices and the rapid growth of renewable energy
have cut into coal’s market share in the United States; in 2015, coalaccounted for about one third of US electricity generation, down from about
half a decade ago. In light of this structural decline of the coal industry, majorbanks have curtailed financing for coal mining companies. Finally, the Obamaadministration, many state and local governments, and some major
companies have pursued a wide variety of measures to address climatechange, reduce air pollution, and promote renewable energy, which haveincreased these trends.

The coal mining
industry is increasingly

All these factors mean that the coal mining industry is increasingly isolated,isolated, and its goal of

and its goal of increasing coal production levels (or at least maintaining

increasing coalcurrent levels) has become further at odds with other business sectors’

production levels has

interests, particularly companies that have committed to reduce their own

become further at odds

carbon footprint, power their operations with 100% renewable energy for
their operations, and/or publicly support national and global policy efforts toaddress climate change.

with other businesssectors’ interests

This growing isolation is reflected in the declining lobbying spending of the US
coal industry’s principal lobby groups, the National Mining Association (NMA) andthe American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). Both lobby groups
have reduced lobbying spending in recent years, with a Bloomberg Government
analysis showing that in 2015, ACCCE “cut its lobbying spending by 51 percent
from 2014, while the National Mining Association cut back 44 percent.” A review
of ACCCE’s Internal Revenue Service filings from 2008 through 2014 shows that
this recent drop continues a longer trend of sharply decreased lobbying
spending: ACCCE’s 2014 lobbying and political spending of $1.8 million was lessthan one-tenth of the $11.9 million it spent at its peak in 2011.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

2

ACCCE’s declining revenue and spending, 2008–2014$60,000,000$50,000,000$40,000,000$30,000,000$20,000,000$10,000,000$02008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Total Revenue

Lobbying & Political SpendingYear
Total Revenue
Lobbying & Political Spending
2008$46,960,008$9,275,916
2009$53,733,277$8,452,051
2010$45,307,620$7,134,981
2011$46,799,601$11,923,457
2012$43,052,275$7,078,150
2013$21,106,956$1,180,444
2014$19,481,812$1,868,135
Source: ACCCE 990 IRS filings, 2008-2014

Coal lobby groups have lost major member companies
Moreover, ACCCE and NMA have both lost major member companies inDuring the Paris

recent years because those companies opposed the coal lobby groups’

climate summit inattacks on policies aimed at addressing climate change. Some of those

December 2015,

departures have gained public attention. During the debate around the 2009

Volvo left NMA,

Waxman-Markey climate bill, Duke Energy left ACCCE and explained at thetime that “we believe ACCCE is constrained by influential member companies
who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010.”
More recently, during the Paris climate summit in December 2015, Volvo left

calling its efforts
against the Clean
Power Plan “crazy.”

NMA, calling its efforts against the Clean Power Plan “crazy.”

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

3However, several other companies that were once listed as members of
ACCCE and NMA have disappeared from each lobby group’s membershiplists, sometimes without public notice or explanation. Climate Investigations
Center surveyed more than twenty companies that have been removed from
NMA and ACCCE’s membership list web pages. We requested confirmationthat the company had ended its membership, as well as the date and reason
for the company’s departure. This report shows the results of that survey,
including responses from each company that confirmed its departure from
ACCCE or NMA. Because some companies did not respond to the survey,
we use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to show the time frame inwhich each company was removed from the NMA or ACCCE membership list
web pages. We also sought explanations from five major companies for theirdepartures from the World Coal Association, a global lobby group for the coalindustry based in London.
Survey responses revealed that over the past two years, ACCCE has lost two
more utility companies that were once major funders of the coal lobby group:
Ameren and DTE Energy. DTE Energy explained that “ACCCE no longeraligns with our business strategy.” Two other major ACCCE funders, Consol
Energy and bankrupt Arch Coal, are also no longer listed on ACCCE’smembership list web page, although they did not confirm whether they
had departed from ACCCE. Along with earlier membership losses, seven

The National Miningof the twelve companies that gave $1 million or more to ACCCE in 2008

Association has lostare now missing from ACCCE’s membership list. In addition, only two of
the seven utility companies that were major ACCCE funders in 2008
remain members today: American Electric Power and Southern
Company.

several major member
companies in recent
years: Anglo American,
Chevron, Pacificorp,

The National Mining Association has also lost several major member
companies in recent years: Anglo American, Chevron, Pacificorp, Wells
Fargo, and Zurich each confirmed their departures from NMA, along with

Wells Fargo, and Zuricheach confirmed their

public departures from Volvo and SKF. Chevron and Anglo American

departures from NMA,

both highlighted their decisions to exit the coal mining industry, whilealong with public

Zurich explained its departure as a cost cutting measure. Five other major

departures from Volvo

companies have also recently been removed from NMA’s membership list

and SKF.

web page: KPMG, Wood Mackenzie, Michelin, CSX, and Norfolk

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

4Southern. Those companies did not confirm whether they had departed fromNMA.
The World Coal Association’s annual reports show that it has also recently
lost major member companies, including companies that did not offer an
explanation for their disappearance from ACCCE or NMA membership lists:
Consol Energy, GE, and bankrupt Arch Coal. Another bankrupt US coalmining company, Alpha Natural Resources, also ended its WCA membership,
and the timing suggests that both companies ended their memberships
because of their bankruptcies. In contrast, bankrupt Peabody Energy remains
listed as a member of all three coal lobby groups. Total S.A., the French oil
and gas supermajor, departed from WCA, stating that “it can be explained by
the fact that we decided last year to exit the coal business.”
Company responses to Climate Investigations Center’s survey, along with areview of public statements, show a variety of stated reasons for company
departures from ACCCE, NMA, and WCA. Some companies disagreed withthe coal lobby groups’ efforts against climate policies. Other companies
dropped their memberships as a part of their regular reviews of their tradegroup memberships, which suggests that the companies no longer consider
the coal lobby groups worth their financial support. Finally, some companies
that left ACCCE, NMA, or WCA pointed to their own shift away from coal.
Companies in a variety of sectors presented this reason, including oil andgas, diversified mining, and utilities, signaling that it isn’t just coal lobbying
efforts that have become increasingly isolated; it is the coal mining industry
itself.

ACCCE’s bumpy start: fraudulent letters and the loss ofmajor member companies
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) was formed in2008 from two predecessor organizations, “Americans for Balanced Energy
Choices” and the “Center for Energy and Economic Development.” Tax filings
obtained by Greenwire show which companies contributed the bulk of
ACCCE’s funding in its first year: Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Consol
Energy each provided $5 million, Foundation Coal Corp. (which was acquiredwww.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

5

by Alpha Natural Resources in 2009) provided $3 million, Southern Company
provided $2.1 million, American Electric Power, Duke Energy, andFirstEnergy each provided $2 million, Joy Global provided $1.985 million, andAmeren, DTE Energy, and Progress Energy each provided $1 million. The
American Association of Railroads also provided $6 million, and its major
members including BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific, arelisted as members of ACCCE.
Soon after its founding, ACCCE was embroiled in controversy after one of its
contractors sent fraudulent letters opposing the Waxman-Markey climate bill.
The letters were mocked up on letterhead that looked to be from veterans,
women’s, and civil rights groups, but were actually written and sent to several
members of Congress by an ACCCE contractor without those groups’
permission or knowledge. Although ACCCE was informed of the fraudulent
letters two days before the vote on the climate bill, members of Congress
were not informed that the letters they received were faked until weeks later.
Even after these efforts to stop the Waxman-Markey climate bill using
fraudulent letters came to light, ACCCE provided misleading information
about its position on the climate bill. An article on September 9, 2009 noted ina clarification: “This story was changed to state that ACCCE opposed
Waxman-Markey. An ACCCE spokeswoman in an interview Wednesday said
that ACCCE was not opposed to Waxman-Markey but later in the day said
that was an error and ACCCE at the time of the vote opposed the bill.” Yet

Duke Energy, one ofmore than a month later, ACCCE’s then-CEO, Stephen Miller, claimed in

ACCCE’s biggest

testimony to a Congressional hearing that ACCCE “never opposed thefunders in 2008, left

Waxman-Markey bill,” raising questions about whether he had lied under

ACCCE in Septemberoath.

2009, pointing to

ACCCE’s inconsistent representation of its position on the climate bill may“influential member

have been connected to the conflicting and sometimes contradictory goals

companies who will notof its member companies and board of directors. Those differences erupted

support passing climate

into public view when Duke Energy, one of ACCCE’s biggest funders inchange legislation in

2008, announced in September 2009 that it had left ACCCE. Duke Energy
pointed to “influential member companies who will not support passing

2009 or 2010.”

climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” without naming specific member
companies. Soon after Duke Energy’s departure, aluminum manufacturer

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

6Alcoa acknowledged that it too had recently left ACCCE, pointing tocompany-wide effort to reduce costs. Then Alstom, the major global rail
company based in France, announced that "We have resigned from
ACCCE because of questions that have been raised about ACCCE's
support for climate legislation."

Alstom, the major
global rail company
based in France,
announced that "We
have resigned fromA review of ACCCE’s membership list web page shows that anothermajor global company, mining company BHP Billiton, also may have left
the lobby group in this period between June 11, 2009 and December 18,

ACCCE because ofquestions that have2009. BHP Billiton did not confirm to Climate Investigation Center if it had

been raised about

left ACCCE, or provide a reason for the possible departure.

ACCCE's support forclimate legislation."

The following year, Progress Energy also confirmed in March 2010 that it
ended its membership in ACCCE, the second company to leave which had
paid $1 million or more to the lobby group in its initial year.
Another major utility company, Germany-based E.ON, was removed from
ACCCE’s membership list web page between August 12, 2011 and October
26, 2011. E.ON confirmed to Climate Investigations Center that it is not
currently a member of ACCCE, and noted that E.ON is spinning off its coaland gas related business into a separate entity.
FirstEnergy, another electric utility and major funder of ACCCE (providing $2
million in 2008), was removed from ACCCE’s membership list web page
between September 28, 2012 and October 5, 2012. FirstEnergy confirmed to
Climate Investigations Center that it has not been a member of ACCCE since2012, explaining its departure as “a business decision.”
GE Mining, a subsidiary of GE, was also removed from ACCCE’smembership list web page in 2012, between April 22, 2012 and April 27,
2012. GE confirmed that it is no longer a member of ACCCE, but did notprovide an explanation for its departure to Climate Investigations Center.
However, as other companies were departing the lobby group in 2009, a GE
spokesperson said that "ACCCE doesn't reflect our view on climate
legislation," and that GE was "looking at our membership in ACCCE on aregular basis. If it's not in the best interest of shareholders for us to be amember, then we won't be a member.”www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

7

ACCCE’s inconsistencies on carbon capture andsequestration and climate science
Despite the departures of several member companies that disagreed with its
position on climate change policy, ACCCE’s membership and positions
continue to demonstrate major inconsistencies and contradictions, including
on some of the most critical questions facing the coal industry: climate
science, and the viability and cost of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
for coal-fired power plants.
In its first year, ACCCE touted carbon capture and sequestration as viable
and affordable. An ACCCE press release in December 2008 touted “a list of
more than 80 carbon capture and storage demonstration and research
projects, predominantly underway in the U.S., proving again that the coalbased electricity sector is moving aggressively towards bringing advanced
clean coal technologies to the marketplace domestically and abroad.” In 2009
ACCCE’s website proclaimed that “The technology isn’t 20 years away —some of it is here today. There have already been technology
demonstrations of greenhouse gas emissions control for existing

In its first year, ACCCE

power plants,” and promised “that coal will remain a low-cost energy option

touted carbon capturein the future even considering the cost of new technologies to capture andand sequestration

store CO2 - a common greenhouse gas.”(CCS) as viable andBut in 2014 as the EPA considered rules to require new coal plants to use

affordable. But as the

CCS, ACCCE argued just the opposite. In comments to the EPA on its New

EPA considered rules

Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New

to require new coal

Fossil Fueled Electric Utility Generating Units, ACCCE said that “CCS is anplants to use CCS,

emerging and unproven technology” and that “CCS is exorbitantly costly.”

ACCCE argued that

These contradictions about the viability of CCS are also apparent within“CCS is an emerging

ACCCE’s member companies. Southern Company, a major funder ofand unproven

ACCCE in its first year and one of the only utilities still listed as an ACCCE

technology” and “CCS

member, has received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies

is exorbitantly costly.”for its Kemper project in Mississippi. In contrast, other ACCCE members
have opposed any measures aimed at reducing carbon pollution, including
CCS – a spokesperson for Murray Energy, another ACCCE member, said
that "The government has already spent substantially on carbon capture andwww.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

8

storage ("CCS") technology, and we have not made progress. The promise of
CCS technology is used by politicians to pretend that they are doing
something for the coal industry, when they are not.”These contradictions are also apparent in the way that ACCCE members
approach broader questions about climate policies and climate science.
Southern Company and other utilities have sought to influence climate andenergy policies toward providing federal subsidies for CCS projects, among
other measures that would support their particular energy mixes andbusiness strategies. Other ACCCE members, such as Peabody Energy andother coal mining companies, have been more focused on opposing any
climate policy efforts, perhaps assuming that any serious effort to reducecarbon pollution would mean sharply lowered demand for coal. Recent

ACCCE itself has also

bankruptcy filings show that each of the three largest US coal producers,

promoted climate denial

Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, have also
funded climate denial organizations.

talking points, including
prominently in a 2014

ACCCE itself has also promoted climate denial talking points, including

report titled “The Social

prominently in a 2014 report titled “The Social Costs of Carbon? No, theCosts of Carbon? No,

Social Benefits of Carbon.” This ACCCE report repeated fringe climate

the Social Benefits ofdenial talking points that “the more CO2 there is in the air, the better
plants grow,” and “Atmospheric CO2 enrichment generally tends to

Carbon.”enhance growth and improve plant functions.” These claims recall old
climate denial efforts by the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s, such as the“Greening Earth Society,” but are rarely seen in 2014.
These climate denial claims are particularly confusing in light of ACCCE’sefforts to push for increased federal subsidies for CCS. Despite ACCCE’scontradictory statements on the viability and costs of CCS, ACCCE supports
increased federal subsidies for CCS, calling for “investments that will bring
the next generation of advanced clean coal technologies to the marketplace
to further reduce emissions – including the capture and safe storage of CO2
emissions.” These comments beg the question: why would ACCCE push for
CCS subsidies if it believes that “CO2 benefits exceed any estimates of CO2
costs,” as the ACCCE report claims?

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

9

ACCCE’s CEO andPresident Mike Duncan
has struggled to explainthese contradictions.
When a reporter asked
Duncan, in light of hiscomments promoting
CCS, if he believed thatburning coal contributes
to climate change,
Duncan first tried to avoid
answering directly, andthen stated: “I’m notanswering your question.”
The reality of climate change science, the impacts of policy measures toreduce carbon pollution, and the viability of carbon capture and sequestrationin those efforts are surely among the most critical questions facing the coalindustry. Yet ACCCE’s approach to these issues reflects the incoherence ofthe broader coal industry’s engagement in the climate policy debate –sometimes extolling the benefits of CCS, while at other times arguing that
CCS is not viable and “exorbitantly expensive” – and at still other times,
denying the reality of climate change or even claiming there are “benefits” ofincreased carbon pollution.

Recent ACCCE membership losses reflect the structural
decline of the coal industry
Over the last eighteen months, another eight members, both companies andelectric cooperatives, have been removed from ACCCE’s membership list
web page, including four of the twelve companies that gave ACCCE $1
million or more in 2008: DTE Energy, Ameren, Arch Coal, and Consol
Energy.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

10Two Michigan-based utilities, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy,
were removed from ACCCE’s membership list web page between
March 15, 2015 and April 16, 2015. DTE Energy responded to Climate
Investigations Center to confirm, stating: “With the transition of DTE's
energy generation resources to a more diversified fuel base, ACCCE no“With the transition of
DTE’s energy generation
resources to a morediversified fuel base,longer aligns with our business strategy and we are no longer affiliated.

ACCCE no longer aligns

ACCCE was notified in January 2015.” DTE Energy paid $1 million towith our business

ACCCE in 2008, according to tax filings obtained by Greenwire, making

strategy and we are no

it one of twelve companies that paid $1 million or more to ACCCE in its

longer affiliated.”first year. Consumers Energy did not confirm whether it had ended its– DTE Energy

membership with ACCCE, or provide an explanation to Climate
Investigations Center
More recently, Ameren, Arch Coal, and Consol Energy were each removed
from ACCCE’s membership list web page between September 24, 2015 andMarch 12, 2016. Ameren, a utility company based in Missouri, responded to
Climate Investigations Center to confirm, stating: "Yes, we ended ourmembership at the end of 2015 as part of our routine assessment of ourmembership associations and related costs." Ameren paid $1 million to
ACCCE in 2008, according to tax filings obtained by Greenwire, making it oneof twelve companies that paid $1 million or more to ACCCE in its first year.
Arch Coal and Consol Energy did not confirm whether they had ended theirmemberships with ACCCE, or provide an explanation to Climate
Investigations Center. Arch and Consol’s departure would represent the lossof two of ACCCE’s three biggest initial supporters – both companies gave $5
million to ACCCE in 2008, a figure matched only by Peabody Energy,
according to tax filings obtained by Greenwire. As discussed below, Arch
Coal’s possible departure from ACCCE may be linked to its bankruptcy. In
contrast, Consol Energy’s possible departure may be linked to the company’s
decision to transition away from coal mining toward natural gas extraction.
While many US coal mining companies have remained entirely focused oncoal extraction, in recent years Consol Energy has sought to largely shift its
operations away from coal, selling some coal mines and spinning off others
into a Master Limited Partnership. Consol Energy’s 2013 Corporate Social
Responsibility Report summarized the reason for this strategy:

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

11Adoption of comprehensive legislation or regulation focusing on“CONSOL Energy’s

greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for the U.S. or other countries

strategy for the future,

where we sell coal may make it more costly and less attractive tooperate fossil fuel fired (especially coal-fired) electric power
generation plants. Depending on the nature of the regulation,
natural gas-fired power generation could become more

one based onincreasing natural gas
production, is further

economically attractive than coal-fired power generation,

strengthened by any

substantially increasing the demand for natural gas. CONSOL

such GHG regulation.”

Energy’s strategy for the future, one based on increasing natural– Consol Energy

gas production, is further strengthened by any such GHG regulation.
Indeed, the shift away from coal that Consol Energy identified as a key risk
for its coal mining operations is the same trend at the core of DTE Energy’s
explanation - “the transition of DTE's energy generation resources to a morediversified fuel base” - for why ACCCE “no longer aligns with our businessstrategy.” Like many US utilities, DTE Energy has moved to shut down
several of its coal-fired power plants.
With these more recent departures, seven of the twelve companies that gave
$1 million or more to ACCCE in its first year are no longer listed as ACCCE
members. Five of those companies have confirmed their departure from
ACCCE, all major utility companies: Duke Energy, FirstEnergy, Ameren, DTE
Energy, and Progress Energy. Two of those companies, Consol Energy andArch Coal, have not confirmed whether they have ended their memberships
in ACCCE. Only two of the seven utility companies that were major ACCCE
funders in 2008 remain members today: American Electric Power andSouthern Company.
Southern Company provided $100,000 to ACCCE in 2015 specifically forlobbying-related activities, while American Electric Power provided $20,000 to
ACCCE in 2015 for lobbying. Neither company responded to Climate
Investigations Center’s questions about their involvement with ACCCE,
including the total amounts of their funding to ACCCE in 2015. American
Electric Power noted in its 2016 report to the Carbon Disclosure Project that
“AEP remains a funding member of ACCCE, but reduced its membershiplevel in 2015.”

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

12Seven of the twelve companies that gave ACCCE $1 million or morein 2008 are no longer listed as members
Five of those companies, all major utility companies, have confirmed their departure

Company

Fundingof ACCCE
In 2008

Current
ACCCE
Member?

Details of ACCCE membership status

Assoc. of American Railroads
Arch Coal
Consol Energy
Peabody Energy
Foundation CoalSouthern Company
American Electric PowerDuke Energy
FirstEnergy
Joy Global
AmerenDTE Energy
Progress Energy$6 million$5 million$5 million$5 million$3 million$2.1 million$2 million$2 million$2 million$1.985 million$1 million$1 million$1 million

-?
?
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No

AAR companies remain listed as ACCCE members
Removed from ACCCE member list in 2015/16
Removed from ACCCE member list in 2015/16
Remains listed as ACCCE member*Acquired by Alpha Natural Resources, which remains
Remains listed as ACCCE member
Remains listed as ACCCE member
Ended ACCCE membership in September 2009
Ended ACCCE membership after 2012
Remains listed as ACCCE member
Ended ACCCE membership at the end of 2015
Ended ACCCE membership in January 2015
Ended ACCCE membership in March 2010

Sources: Greenwire, November 18, 2009, "IRS disclosures show extent of oil and coal groups' outreach"
Climate Investigations Center 2016 survey of companies no longer listed as ACCCE members

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

13Six electric cooperatives have been removed from ACCCE’smembership list web page
Six electric cooperatives have also been removed from ACCCE’smembership list web page, including three within the last year. Climate
Investigations Center’s survey did not request confirmation or explanationfrom these electric cooperatives.
Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas was removed from ACCCE’s membership
list web page between September 24, 2015 and March 12, 2016.
Basin Electric Power Cooperative was removed from ACCCE’s membership
list web page between September 24, 2015 and March 12, 2016.
Sunflower Electric Corporation was removed from ACCCE’s membership list
web page between September 24, 2015 and March 12, 2016.
Associated Electric Cooperative was removed from ACCCE’s membership
list web page between December 18, 2009 and February 13, 2010.
Seminole Electric Cooperative was removed from ACCCE’s membership list
web page between June 11, 2009 and December 18, 2009.
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative was removed from ACCCE’smembership list web page between June 11, 2009 and December 18, 2009.

The National Mining Association opposes climate, clean air,and workplace safety rules
The National Mining Association (NMA) represents coal mining companies,
and seeks to block climate policies, as well as clean air and water rules,
workplace safety rules, and other measures that the lobby group believes
would restrict coal extraction. NMA has sued to block the Clean Power Plan,published a flawed report about its costs and benefits, and urged Congress toblock the Plan. NMA CEO Hal Quinn has also called on governors not tocomply with the Clean Power Plan, and NMA spokesman Luke Popovich saidwww.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

14

that President Obama’s global climate efforts mean that “The president is on
the wrong side of history.”
Like ACCCE, NMA’s efforts against climate policies have sometimes
promoted climate denial talking points. For example, NMA’s official commentson the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding, which
determined that greenhouse gases present a threat to public health andwelfare, include several paragraphs questioning basic climate change
science, such as complaints that the finding “does not address at all
the significant scientific evidence that calls into question whether

The National Mining

observed variations in the Earth’s climate are natural or man-made,”

Association has failed toand: “The problem with the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming]“accept basic climate

theory is that one or more of EPA’s assumptions about its computerscience as the foundation

models may be severely flawed.”
The Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate

for discussion of climatechange policy.”

Policy, a report by the United Nations Global Compact and otherorganizations, considers the NMA a group that has failed to “accept
basic climate science as the foundation for discussion of climatechange policy.” Influence Map, which grades companies’ and trade– Guide for Responsible
Corporate Engagement inassociations’ lobbying on climate policies, gives NMA an “F.”

Climate Policy

Beyond climate policy efforts, NMA also opposes the Interior Department’s
Stream Protection Rule, as well as its efforts to reform the Federal Coal
Program. NMA has also promoted controversial coal export terminals in the
Pacific Northwest. NMA’s efforts extend to workplace safety issues, such as
its lawsuit against Mine Safety and Health Administration rules to protect coalminers from black lung.

The National Mining Association has lost several major
member companies
NMA’s membership includes coal and other mining companies, as well ascompanies that do business with mining companies such as mining
equipment manufacturers and financial and consulting firms. Five major
companies responded to Climate Investigations Center’s survey to confirm

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

15

that they had departed the lobby group in recent years: Anglo American,
Chevron, Pacificorp, Wells Fargo, and Zurich. Volvo and SKF also publicly
confirmed in December 2015 that they left NMA, pointing to disagreementswith the coal lobby group’s efforts against climate policies. Below are details
about each company’s departure from NMA, including the apparent timeframe and any explanation provided in response to Climate Investigations
Center’s survey.

Anglo American
Anglo American Exploration (USA) Inc., a subsidiary of global mining
company Anglo American, was removed from the National Mining
Association’s membership list web page between February 9, 2016 andMarch 24, 2016. Anglo American responded to Climate Investigations
Center to “confirm that Anglo American cancelled its membership with“In February this year we

NMA in February of this year due to a combination of reasons including

announced we will exit thebudget constraints. You may also recall that in February this year wecoal business.”announced we will exit the coal business.” Anglo American also pointed– Anglo American

to its position on climate change.

Chevron“Chevron no longer has

Chevron Mining Inc., a subsidiary of Chevron, was removed from theactive coal or mineral

National Mining Association’s membership list web page between June

mining operations."

25, 2014 and February 15, 2015. Chevron responded to Climate– Chevron

Investigations Center, noting, "Chevron Mining Inc. (CMI) ended its
membership in NMA in 2014, which coincided with the closure of the
Chevron Questa Mine in June of that year. Chevron no longer has
active coal or mineral mining operations."

Pacificorp
Pacificorp, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, was removed fromthe National Mining Association’s membership list web page between
February 9, 2016 and March 24, 2016. Pacificorp confirmed to Climate
Investigations Center that it is not currently a member of the National Miningwww.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

16

Association, but did not provide an explanation for its departure. Pacificorp’s
parent company, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Energy, is among thecompanies that signed the White House American Business Act on Climate
Pledge, pledging to invest billions of dollars in renewable energy and “Retire
more than 75 percent of our coal-fueled generating capacity in Nevada by
2019.” Pacificorp itself has interests in two coal mines in Wyoming andColorado, and in 2015 idled a third coal mine in Utah.

SKF
SKF, a manufacturing company based in Sweden, was removed from the
National Mining Association’s membership list web page between December
5, 2015 and January 22, 2016. SKF said that it would immediately end its
membership in the National Mining Association on December 9, 2015 during
the Paris climate summit, according to Swedish public broadcasting SVT,
after it was made aware of NMA’s lobbying against US climate policies.

Volvo
Volvo Construction Equipment North America Inc., a subsidiary of Volvo
Group based in Sweden, was removed from the National Mining
Association’s membership list web page between December 5, 2015
and January 22, 2016. Volvo said that it would immediately end its“Volvo is leaving NMA. We
do not share the NMA’sview on climate change

membership in the National Mining Association on December 9, 2015

nor their opinion about theduring the Paris climate summit, and called NMA’s anti-climate policy

politics on climate change

lobbying “crazy,” according to Swedish public broadcasting SVT. Volvo

driven by American

confirmed its departure from NMA in an email to Greenpeace on
December 10, stating: “I can confirm that Volvo is leaving NMA. We do

policy.”– Volvo

not share the NMA’s view on climate change nor their opinion about thepolitics on climate change driven by American policy.”

Wells Fargo
Wells Fargo Insurance Services, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo, was removed
from the National Mining Association’s membership list web page between
June 25, 2014 and February 15, 2015. Wells Fargo confirmed to Climate

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

17Investigations Center that it is not currently a member of the National Mining
Association, but did not provide an explanation for its departure.

ZurichZurich, a major global insurance company based in Switzerland, wasremoved from the National Mining Association’s membership list web page
between June 25, 2014 and February 15, 2015. Zurich responded to Climate
Investigations Center to explain that “Zurich ended its membership with the
National Mining Association in 2013. Cancelling the membership was a cost
cutting measure.” Zurich also pointed to its climate change policy.

Five other major companies have also been removed from
NMA’s membership list
In addition to the companies that confirmed their departure from NMA, fiveother major companies have been removed from NMA’s membership list web
page over the last two years: KPMG, Wood Mackenzie, Michelin, CSX, andNorfolk Southern. These companies did not provide a response to Climate
Investigations Center’s survey to confirm whether they had ended theirmembership with the National Mining Association, or provide an explanation.

KPMG
KPMG, a major global professional services company based in the
Netherlands, did not confirm whether it had ended its membership with the
National Mining Association, or provide an explanation to Climate
Investigations Center. Screenshots show that KPMG was removed from
NMA’s membership list web page between
February 9, 2016:www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

and March 24, 2016:18

Wood Mackenzie
Wood Mackenzie, a global energy and mining consultancy based in the

Wood Mackenzie, a major

United Kingdom, did not confirm whether it had ended its membershipconsultant to the coalwith the National Mining Association, or provide an explanation to
Climate Investigations Center. Screenshots show that Wood Mackenzie
was removed from NMA’s membership list web page between
March 24, 2016:

and April 14, 2016:

mining industry, wasremoved from the National
Mining Association
membership list web pagein Spring 2016, but did notconfirm whether it had
ended its membership.

Michelin
Michelin, a global tire manufacturer based in France, did not confirm whether
it had ended its membership with the National Mining Association, or provide
an explanation to Climate Investigations Center. Screenshots show thatMichelin North America, a subsidiary of Michelin, was removed from NMA’s
membership list web page between
April 26, 2015:

and July 17, 2015:

CSX
CSX, a major railroad based in Florida, did not confirm whether it had ended
its membership with the National Mining Association, or provide an
explanation to Climate Investigations Center. Screenshots show that CSX
was removed from NMA’s membership list web page between
June 25, 2014:www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

and February 15, 2015:19

Norfolk Southern
Norfolk Southern, a major railroad based in Virginia, did not confirm whether
it had ended its membership with the National Mining Association, or provide
an explanation to Climate Investigations Center. Screenshots show that
Norfolk Southern was removed from NMA’s membership list web page
betweenJanuary 5, 2016:

and January 22, 2016:

Some companies that publicly support climate policies
remain National Mining Association members
Some companies that publicize their support for climate policies remain
members of the National Mining Association, despite the coal lobby group’s
ongoing efforts against the Clean Power Plan. For example, while KPMG was
removed from NMA’s membership list web page in early 2016, other major
global consulting firms remain listed, including PricewaterhouseCoopers andErnst & Young. PricewaterhouseCoopers is among the companies thatsigned the White House American Business Act on Climate Pledge, and its
chairman signed an open letter to world leaders urging “governments to set
science-based global and national targets for the reduction of GHG
emissions” and committing that the companies will “act as ambassadorsfor climate action.”

While KPMG was
removed from NMA’s
membership list web

PricewaterhouseCoopers

page in early 2016, otherPricewaterhouseCoopers responded to Climate Investigations Center’smajor global consulting

questions about its membership in the NMA:

firms remain listed,

Like many other businesses, our US firm is a member of tradeassociations including the National Mining Association to share
our research and analysis to stimulate discussion and debate, andwww.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

includingPricewaterhouseCoopers
and Ernst & Young.

20

to connect with other companies in specific sectors. We remain strictly
independent, and are not involved in the decisions or representations
this or any other association makes.

Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young did not provide an explanation for its NMA membership.

Siemens
Siemens and Schneider Electric also signed the White House American
Business Act on Climate Pledge, as well as the open letter to world
leaders urging climate action – yet both also remain listed as NMA
members. Siemens responded to Climate Investigations Center’squestions about its membership in the NMA:

“Siemens does notsupport the National
Mining Association’s
opposition to the Clean
Power Plan and we will

Many associations represent a large number of companies fromacross many different sectors. In their work, they take positions
on a highly diverse range of topics. In doing so, deviations ininterests can arise in individual cases as is the case with ourmembership in the National Mining Association. Siemens

continue our support andour pledge made to theWhite House on Climate
Protection.”routinely advocates, among other issues, for policies thatencourage the use of renewables and energy efficiency throughfinancing tools and utilization of performance contracting to
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Siemens has pledged that

– Siemens, which remains
a member of NMA

its own operations will be Carbon Neutral by 2030. Siemens
does not support the National Mining Association’s opposition to the
Clean Power Plan and we will continue our support and our pledge
made to the White House on Climate Protection.

Schneider Electric
Schneider Electric did not provide an explanation for its NMA membership.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Siemens and Schneider Electric
are also members of the World Business Council on Sustainable
Development, which states that companies should “Strive for consistency intheir advocacy” as a condition of membership.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

21

General Electric
General Electric also signed the White House American Business Act

General Electric signed theon Climate Pledge, yet its subsidiary GE Mining remains a member ofWhite House American

the National Mining Association. In contrast, GE confirmed to Climate
Investigations Center that it is no longer a member of ACCCE, as noted
above, and also ended its membership with the World Coal Association

Business Act on Climate
Pledge and has left ACCCE

on October 1, 2014 (more details about World Coal Associationand the WCA, yet its

membership changes in the section below). GE did not provide an

subsidiary remains a

explanation for its departure from ACCCE and the World Coal

member of the National

Association, but did respond to Climate Investigations Center’s

Mining Association.

questions about its NMA membership:
We belong to a broad range of associations and organizations. GE
believes that business has an important role to play in promoting

technology solutions that balance the need to decrease environmental
impact, increase efficiency and spur economic growth around theworld.

Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources left the World Coal
Association as they filed for bankruptcy
The London-based World Coal Association (WCA) is the global lobby groupfor the coal industry, and its membership includes coal mining companies aswell as national coal lobby groups such as the National Mining Association.
WCA publishes changes to its membership in its annual directors reports, so
Climate Investigations Center’s survey requested an explanation for five
major companies that were listed by the World Coal Association as “lapsed
members” in recent years.
The WCA records also include the date of each company’s lapsed
membership, which provide context for some companies that did not confirm
to Climate Investigations Center whether or when they left NMA or ACCCE,
including bankrupt Arch Coal.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

22Arch Coal ended its membership in the World Coal Association on November
9, 2015, according to the World Coal Association’s Directors Report for theyear ended September 30, 2015. Although Arch Coal did not respond to
Climate Investigations Center to explain why it ended its membership with theWorld Coal Association, November 9, 2015 was also the day that Arch Coal
reported in SEC filings that it could soon file for bankruptcy.
Alpha Natural Resources ended its membership in the World Coal
Association on August 3, 2015, according to the World Coal Association’s
Directors Report for the year ended September 30, 2015. Although Alpha
Natural Resources did not respond to Climate Investigations Center toexplain why it ended its membership with the World Coal Association, August
3, 2015 was also the day that Alpha Natural Resources filed for bankruptcy.
The timing of Arch Coal’s and Alpha Natural Resources’ lapsed WCA
memberships suggests that both coal mining companies may have left theWorld Coal Association because of their bankruptcies, as the companies
moved into a period when their spending and other activities would comeunder increased review during the bankruptcy process. Arch Coal’s absence

The timing suggests

from ACCCE’s membership list web page may also be tied to its bankruptcy,

that both Arch Coal’s

since the time frame in which it was removed, between September 24, 2015

and Alpha Natural

and March 12, 2016, overlaps with its bankruptcy warnings and departurefrom the World Coal Association on November 9, 2015.

Resources’
memberships in the

Yet there are notable differences in other bankrupt coal mining companies’

World Coal Association

memberships in coal lobby groups. For example, despite filing for bankruptcy

lapsed because of theiron April 13, 2016, Peabody Energy remains listed as a WCA member, as well
as a member of NMA and ACCCE. Arch Coal remains listed as a member of
the NMA, despite its lapsed WCA membership and removal from ACCCE’s

bankruptcies. Yet
bankrupt Peabodymembership list web page. Alpha Natural Resources also remains listed as

Energy remains listed

an ACCCE and NMA member, and its CEO Kevin Crutchfield was elected

as a member of WCA,

chairman of NMA’s board of directors for 2016.

NMA, and ACCCE.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

23

Total S.A. departure from World Coal Association highlights
the growing divide between the coal industry and the oil andgas industry
Consol Energy and Total S.A., a global oil and gas company based in
France, both ended their memberships in the World Coal Association on
October 1, 2013, according to the World Coal Association’s Directors Reportfor the year ended September 30, 2014. Consol Energy did not respond to
Climate Investigations Center to explain why it ended its membership with theWorld Coal Association, but as noted earlier, Consol has largely shifted awayfrom coal mining toward natural gas extraction, and was also removed from
ACCCE’s membership list web page between September 24, 2015 andMarch 12, 2016.
Total S.A. confirmed to Climate Investigations Center that it departed the“We decided last year toWorld Coal Association and said that it “can be explained by the fact thatexit the coal business.

we decided last year to exit the coal business. We ceased our coalproduction following the sale of our affiliate Total Coal South Africa inAugust 2015 and we will be withdrawing from coal marketing by the endof 2016.” Total also pointed to comments by its CEO Patrick Pouyanné:

We ceased our coalproduction following thesale of our affiliate Total
Coal South Africa in

It was a matter of both consistent strategy and our credibility.

August 2015 and we will

Faced with the issue of climate change, Total is committed to

be withdrawing from coalpromoting the use of natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel,especially compared to coal, which emits twice as muchgreenhouse gas when used to generate power. We cannot claim

marketing by the end of
2016.”– Total S.A.

to be providing solutions to climate change while continuing to
produce or market coal, the fossil fuel that emits more greenhousegas than any other.
Along with Chevron’s departure from the National Mining Association
because it “no longer has active coal or mineral mining operations,” these lost
members highlight one of the most significant examples of the growing
isolation of the coal mining industry: increasing competition with major oilcompanies as they focus on natural gas. That competition for market sharemeans that the oil and gas industry is increasingly at odds with the goals of
the coal mining lobby.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby24

An increasingly fractured corporate climate lobby
Although the coal mining lobby is increasingly isolated from the utility, oil andgas, and other industries, those industry sectors of course remain actively
opposed to a variety of climate policy efforts. But utilities and oil and gas
companies face more direct and immediate challenges of their own, and thatis reflected in their lobbying efforts.
Oil and gas companies face intensifying opposition from communities
impacted by the expansion of fracking, pipelines, LNG exports, refineries, andother industry infrastructure and proposals. In response, oil and gas
companies are fighting against state and local restrictions, along with otherpolicy efforts like requirements to use safer technology at oil
refineries and reduce methane pollution throughout their operations.
Utilities, mining companies, and oil and gas companies also face growing
questions from investors about the viability of their business strategies in a
carbon constrained world. In response, oil and gas companies have sought toposition themselves as part of the solution, helping to transition away fromcoal. For example, Statoil states that “a faster transition from coal to gas isessential in realising fast emission reductions.” ExxonMobil’s response toconcerns about carbon asset risk argues that efforts to reduce greenhouse

The isolation of the coalgas emissions “will also likely result in dramatic global growth in natural gas

mining lobby is part of aconsumption at the expense of other forms of energy, such as coal.”broader fracturing ofcorporate climate

Investors have also specifically challenged companies on their coal use,with the Norwegian Government Pension Fund announcement in June2015 that it would divest from utilities and mining companies that “baselobbying efforts, aslegacy energy sectors

30% or more of their activities on coal, and/or derive 30% of their revenues

face a variety of newfrom coal.”challenges.

Perhaps most importantly, both the utility and oil and gas industries face newcompetitors and challenges to their business models. Utilities face disruption
by increasingly affordable distributed renewable energy. In response, some
utility companies and their principal lobby group, the Edison Electric Institute,are pushing to add new fees and restrictions on rooftop solar power.
Efficiency improvements have helped reduce electricity demand in the US,

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

25and increased adoption of electric vehicles could also challenge future oil
demand. At the same time, utilities are working “to accelerate the widespread
adoption of EVs” in the hopes of a new driver of electricity demand growth,
representing another potential division between industry sectors.
These divisions suggest that the increasing isolation of the coal mining lobby
is part of a broader fracturing of corporate lobbying on climate policies, amajor change from past corporate efforts such as the Global Climate
Coalition, an alliance of oil, coal, utilities, automakers, and other businessinterests that opposed global climate efforts in the 1990s. As the challenges
to legacy energy industries proliferate, we can expect more division anddisagreement between the coal, utility, and oil and gas industries.

www.climateinvestigations.org/coal-lobby

26