119-SJRES-61 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

What the resolution does. S.J.Res. 61 would disapprove the BLM rule constituted by the Miles City Field Office Record of Decision/Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ROD/RMPA) signed Nov. 20, 2024; GAO concluded that action is a “rule” under the CRA and the GAO opinion was printed in the Congressional Record. Under the CRA, disapproval makes the rule have no force or effect. [1]Congress.gov — S.J.Res.61 — Text (119th Congress)[2]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO Decision B-337163 (Miles City RMPA…[9]Congress.gov — Congressional Record (171:110) — GAO opinion letter printed at S…

What the current RMPA does. The 2024 Miles City RMPA (based on Alternative D) designates coal‑leasing availability across about 11.7 million acres of federal coal estate, allocating 1,745,040 acres as unavailable to reduce GHG emissions and stating BLM will not accept new coal lease applications; existing leases continue. [2]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO Decision B-337163 (Miles City RMPA…

If S.J.Res. 61 passes. BLM has separately noticed a new Miles City RMP amendment/EA scoping that identifies two bookend alternatives: the 2024 zero‑new‑leasing decision (No Action/current decision) and the 2021 approved RMPA that made ~1.214 million acres available (Proposed Action). CRA disapproval would remove the 2024 decision and—subject to legal constraints—reopen the pathway to consider new leasing under prior plan direction. [4]Justia (Fed. Register mirror) — BLM scoping notice to amend Miles City RMP (pre…

Context and timing. The ROD was published Nov. 27, 2024; BLM’s proposal to end future PRB coal leasing was previewed earlier in May 2024, with BLM stating existing Montana production could continue (e.g., Spring Creek to ~2035; Rosebud to ~2060). [3]Federal Register — Federal Register notice of availability — Miles City FO ROD/…[10]Reuters — Proposal to end future PRB coal leasing; decline data[7]Bureau of Land Management — BLM press release — Proposed Miles City RMPA (Alt.…

Economic Effects

Directional impacts are sensitive to coal demand, royalty policy, and legal risk.

• State and federal revenues: Onshore mineral revenues are split 50% to the state and 50% federal (less a small admin offset). A statutory and regulatory change effective July 4, 2025 caps federal coal royalties at not more than 7% through Sept. 30, 2034, lowering per‑ton returns relative to historic 12.5% (surface)/8% (underground) rates. Net: any new leasing yields smaller royalties per ton than before the cap. [6]LII / Cornell Law — 30 U.S.C. § 191 — Disposition of moneys received (50% to st…[5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…
• Production baseline in the planning area: BLM reports two operating mines in the Miles City planning area produced 18.5 million short tons in 2022; existing leases can support production at Spring Creek roughly through 2035 and at Rosebud roughly through 2060. Because the 2024 RMPA already allows existing‑lease mining, near‑term output is not contingent on new leases. [7]Bureau of Land Management — BLM press release — Proposed Miles City RMPA (Alt.…
• Employment: OSMRE places Rosebud Mine employment around 320 workers (Colstrip area). Jobs tied to existing leases persist regardless; new leasing could extend mine life and sustain associated jobs beyond current lease horizons, but realization depends on market demand and permitting outcomes. [11]OSMRE (DOI) — OSMRE notice — Rosebud Mine Draft SEIS (employment ~320)
• Market headwinds: PRB output has trended down from its 2008 peak; EIA-linked reporting shows coal retirements ramping in 2025 (planned ~8 GW), constraining long‑term domestic demand. Any upside from new leases must compete against this structural decline. [10]Reuters — Proposal to end future PRB coal leasing; decline data[8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…
• Leasing pipeline and competitiveness: Disapproval would let BLM accept new applications where prior plans allowed availability (e.g., 2021 RMPA acreage), potentially attracting bids during periods of higher power‑sector coal burn or export demand. Timing remains uncertain given NEPA reviews and litigation exposure. [4]Justia (Fed. Register mirror) — BLM scoping notice to amend Miles City RMP (pre…

Sources: GAO decision; BLM notices/press; U.S. Code/BLM rulemaking; EIA-linked summaries. [2]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO Decision B-337163 (Miles City RMPA…[7]Bureau of Land Management — BLM press release — Proposed Miles City RMPA (Alt.…[6]LII / Cornell Law — 30 U.S.C. § 191 — Disposition of moneys received (50% to st…[5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…[8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…

Social Effects

Uneven across communities; near‑term continuity from existing leases, longer‑term outcomes hinge on new leasing realization.

• Coal communities: Existing operations (e.g., Rosebud, Spring Creek) underpin local wages and tax bases; state and local budgets also receive coal‑related severance/royalty revenues. Disapproval that enables new leases could extend these streams, while the royalty‑rate cap reduces per‑ton fiscal yield versus historic rates. [11]OSMRE (DOI) — OSMRE notice — Rosebud Mine Draft SEIS (employment ~320)[12]DOI — Natural Resources Revenue Data (archived) — Montana Natural Resources Rev…[5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…
• Tribal and neighboring communities: The Rosebud/Colstrip complex lies near the Northern Cheyenne Reservation; OSMRE notes proximity and community engagement in recent NEPA reviews. Expanded or prolonged mining can intensify concerns about air, water, cultural resources, and land disturbance. [11]OSMRE (DOI) — OSMRE notice — Rosebud Mine Draft SEIS (employment ~320)
• Public health evidence base: Peer‑reviewed literature associates coal extraction/combustion with elevated risks from particulate and other pollutant exposures; while most studies focus outside Montana, the pathway of harm (PM2.5, SO2, NOx, metals, ash) is generalizable. Any added mining/combustion facilitated by new leasing would raise exposure potential absent controls. [13]Web search · turn 10 #5
• Workforce transition risk: If new leasing does not materialize due to market headwinds, communities could face planning whiplash—expectations for extended mine life without realized projects—complicating housing, schools, and infrastructure decisions. [8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…

Environmental Effects

Primary signal is directional: more leasing capacity raises the ceiling on future emissions and land disturbance; realized impacts depend on actual leasing and burn.

• GHG trajectory: The 2024 RMPA explicitly sought to reduce GHGs by making 1.745 million acres unavailable and by halting acceptance of new coal‑lease applications; undoing it removes that constraint. [2]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO Decision B-337163 (Miles City RMPA…
• CO2 intensity: EPA/EIA factors indicate subbituminous coal averages ~97 kg CO2 per MMBtu with typical heat content ~17–18 MMBtu/short ton, implying on the order of ~1.6–1.8 metric tons CO2 per short ton burned. More leasing leading to more combustion increases lifecycle CO2 accordingly. [14]LII / Cornell Law — EPA 40 CFR Part 98, Table C‑1 — Default CO2 emission factor…[15]U.S. EIA — EIA CO2 emissions coefficients by fuel (supporting factors & heat co…
• Co‑pollutants and local effects: Coal combustion emits SO2, NOx, and fine particulates linked to cardiopulmonary harms; additional mining and hauling add dust/diesel emissions. These effects are well‑documented in the health literature and would scale with activity. [13]Web search · turn 10 #5
• Land/water disturbance: New pits, overburden, and hydrologic changes expand reclamation liabilities. The planning area’s NEPA record reflects past judicial findings requiring fuller disclosure of downstream combustion and climate/public‑health impacts. [16]Justia (court document) — Western Organization of Resource Councils v. BLM (Aug…

Temporal Analysis

• 0–2 years: Minimal operational change; existing leases continue under either outcome. Fiscal effects mainly reflect the post‑July 2025 royalty cap on any production, not the existence of new leases, because new leases would lag NEPA/permitting. [7]Bureau of Land Management — BLM press release — Proposed Miles City RMPA (Alt.…[5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…
• 3–10 years: If CRA disapproval prompts lease applications and awards under prior plan availability, incremental production could extend mine lives beyond current horizons, sustaining local payrolls and state shares—but subject to coal‑plant retirements and demand volatility. [4]Justia (Fed. Register mirror) — BLM scoping notice to amend Miles City RMP (pre…[8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…
• 10+ years: Long‑term environmental footprint (CO2 and co‑pollutants) depends on whether new federal leases are actually developed amid a secular shift away from coal; risk of stranded leases increases if utility demand erodes faster than expected. [8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…

Unintended Consequences and Risks

• Litigation exposure: Courts twice found NEPA deficiencies in the Miles City/Buffalo plans (2018, 2022). Any move back toward broader leasing will likely draw renewed suits, extending timelines and uncertainty. [16]Justia (court document) — Western Organization of Resource Councils v. BLM (Aug…
• Program interaction: A 2024 Ninth Circuit decision lifted the broader federal coal‑leasing moratorium; CRA disapproval here would align the Miles City office with that posture, potentially accelerating applications if markets allow. [18]Associated Press — Ninth Circuit lifts federal coal‑leasing moratorium (context)
• Revenue assumptions: The temporary royalty cap (≤7%) through FY2034 reduces per‑ton receipts compared with historic rates; forecasts that ignore this could overstate state/federal take. [5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…

Assessment (Analytical Stance)

Not advocacy—an evidence‑based bottom line.

Neutral. Passage would primarily remove a recently imposed planning constraint on new federal coal leasing in eastern Montana while preserving existing operations; fiscal upside from potential new leasing is moderated by the temporary royalty cap and market headwinds, and environmental burdens would likely increase if additional leasing leads to additional combustion. The CRA’s “substantially the same” prohibition adds durable legal risk and reduces future policy flexibility. [5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…[8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…[17]Congressional Research Service / Congress.gov — CRS Report R43992 — The Congres…

Sourcing (Selected)

• Text/status of S.J.Res. 61 (Congress.gov). [1]Congress.gov — S.J.Res.61 — Text (119th Congress)
• GAO decision on CRA applicability; Congressional Record printing. [2]U.S. Government Accountability Office — GAO Decision B-337163 (Miles City RMPA…[9]Congress.gov — Congressional Record (171:110) — GAO opinion letter printed at S…
• BLM Federal Register notice (ROD availability) and BLM press on proposed Miles City amendment (Alt. D; production horizons). [3]Federal Register — Federal Register notice of availability — Miles City FO ROD/…[7]Bureau of Land Management — BLM press release — Proposed Miles City RMPA (Alt.…
• BLM scoping notice (2025) identifying 2024 zero‑leasing vs 2021 availability alternative. [4]Justia (Fed. Register mirror) — BLM scoping notice to amend Miles City RMP (pre…
• Royalty policy and revenue split: FR DFR (≤7% until 9/30/2034); 30 U.S.C. §191 (50% state share). [5]Federal Register (via Regulations.gov) — Direct Final Rule revising coal royalt…[6]LII / Cornell Law — 30 U.S.C. § 191 — Disposition of moneys received (50% to st…
• Demand context: PRB proposal/decline (Reuters) and planned coal retirements (EIA/APPA). [10]Reuters — Proposal to end future PRB coal leasing; decline data[8]American Public Power Association (citing EIA) — Planned U.S. 2025 coal retirem…
• Health/emissions factors: EPA/EIA coefficients; OSMRE local employment reference. [14]LII / Cornell Law — EPA 40 CFR Part 98, Table C‑1 — Default CO2 emission factor…[15]U.S. EIA — EIA CO2 emissions coefficients by fuel (supporting factors & heat co…[11]OSMRE (DOI) — OSMRE notice — Rosebud Mine Draft SEIS (employment ~320)
• NEPA litigation history; broader coal‑leasing moratorium ruling. [16]Justia (court document) — Western Organization of Resource Councils v. BLM (Aug…[18]Associated Press — Ninth Circuit lifts federal coal‑leasing moratorium (context)