IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v44y2012icp174-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reserve reporting in the United States coal industry

Author

Listed:
  • Grubert, Emily

Abstract

United States energy policymaking can be better supported with accurate and consistent data on coal reserves, both in the public and private sectors. In particular, reserve data for coal and other energy resources should be directly comparable so that decision-makers can easily understand the relationship among available resources. Long-term policy and investment choices regarding energy security, the environment, and resource allocation depend on accurate information, but existing and easily available data on the magnitude of geologically, environmentally, economically, socially, and legally accessible coal reserves are of insufficient quality to guide such decisions. Even still, these data are often presented for use in policy and energy analysis. Currently, coal reserves are overstated relative to competitor energy resource reserves, in part because coal reporting standards have historically been more liberal and vague than standards for resources like natural gas. Overstating the marketable coal resource could lead to inefficient allocation of limited capital investment that can be difficult to reverse. US government bodies like the Energy Information Administration, United States Geological Survey, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Bureau of Land Management can help correct deficiencies by clarifying standards and collecting data that are relevant for decision-makers, such as energy-based reserve information.

Suggested Citation

  • Grubert, Emily, 2012. "Reserve reporting in the United States coal industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 174-184.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:44:y:2012:i:c:p:174-184
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512000614
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Kozhevnikova & Ian Lange, 2009. "Determinants of Contract Duration: Further Evidence from Coal-Fired Power Plants," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(3), pages 217-229, May.
    2. van Rensburg, W. C. J., 1982. "The relationship between resources and reserves : Estimates for US coal," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 53-58, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gingerich, Daniel B. & Zhao, Yifan & Mauter, Meagan S., 2019. "Environmentally significant shifts in trace element emissions from coal plants complying with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1206-1215.
    2. Brown, Alistair, 2016. "The need for improved financial reporting of a developing country energy utility," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1448-1454.
    3. Bebbington, Jan & Schneider, Thomas & Stevenson, Lorna & Fox, Alison, 2020. "Fossil fuel reserves and resources reporting and unburnable carbon: Investigating conflicting accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Grubert, E. & Zacarias, M., 2022. "Paradigm shifts for environmental assessment of decarbonizing energy systems: Emerging dominance of embodied impacts and design-oriented decision support needs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    5. Ritchie, Justin & Dowlatabadi, Hadi, 2017. "Why do climate change scenarios return to coal?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(P1), pages 1276-1291.
    6. Ritchie, Justin & Dowlatabadi, Hadi, 2017. "The 1000 GtC coal question: Are cases of vastly expanded future coal combustion still plausible?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 16-31.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey C. Peters & Thomas W. Hertel, 2017. "Achieving the Clean Power Plan 2030 CO2 Target with the New Normal in Natural Gas Prices," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 5).
    2. Kyle C. Meng, 2016. "Estimating Path Dependence in Energy Transitions," NBER Working Papers 22536, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Ian Lange, 2012. "Hedging in Coal Contracts under the Acid Rain Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 561-570.
    4. Kanishka Kacker, 2016. "Regulation and Contract Design: The Impact of Relationship Specific Investment," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 656-682, December.
    5. Kosnik, Lea-Rachel, 2014. "Determinants of contract completeness: An environmental regulatory application," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 198-208.
    6. Di Maria, Corrado & Lange, Ian & Lazarova, Emiliya, 2018. "A look upstream: Market restructuring, risk, procurement contracts and efficiency," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 35-83.
    7. Di Maria, Corrado & Lange, Ian & van der Werf, Edwin, 2014. "Should we be worried about the green paradox? Announcement effects of the Acid Rain Program," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 143-162.
    8. Corrado Di Maria & Ian A. Lange & Emiliya Lazarova, 2014. "A Look Upstream: Electricity Market Restructuring, Risk, Procurement Contracts and Efficiency," CESifo Working Paper Series 5124, CESifo.
    9. Matthew Doyle & Ian Lange, 2016. "Natural Gas Contract Decisions for Electric Power," Working Papers 2016-05, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business.
    10. Knittel, Christopher R. & Metaxoglou, Konstantinos & Trindade, André, 2019. "Environmental implications of market structure: Shale gas and electricity markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 511-550.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Coal; Reserves; Policy;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:44:y:2012:i:c:p:174-184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.