By Scott Finn Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are battling for votes in several key coal-producing states, such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. But they want to hold onto key environmental votes, too. One big issue is whether to support a moratorium on new construction of coal-fired power plants. It?s led to some interesting double-talk from both. The stakes are big in West Virginia. Just this week, Virginia regulators rejected plans to build a power plant in Mason County, West Virginia. Appalachian Power wants to build the plant using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology. IGCC plants turn coal into a synthetic gas before burning it, which reduces pollution. The Virginia regulators said the cost of the Mason County plant would be too high for Virginia ratepayers ? especially if the plant is forced to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and store them underground. Appalachian Power plans to appeal the Virginia ruling. But the Mason County plant is just one of dozens of proposed coal-fired power plants under attack because of global warming fears. Some activists and politicians are even calling for a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plant construction. West Virginia Public Broadcasting started looking into the issue when someone told us that Hillary Clinton said she wanted a moratorium on all new coal fired power plant construction. It seemed clear-cut at first. ?So yes, I would like to see us hold off on new coal fired plant construction,? Clinton said. It turns out, it wasn?t ? at least not according to Clinton?s campaign. But first, let?s set the scene and explain the big picture. For most of the 1990s, few coal-fired power plants were built. You can blame or credit NIMBY (Not In My BackYard), former President Bill Clinton, etc. Then, President George W. Bush was elected and the so-called ?coal rush? was on, according to Alice McKeown, coal expert from the Sierra Club. You got a huge wave of proposals for new coal fired power plants. And we like to refer to that as the coal rush. So what you?re really seeing is an attempt to get as much power on line in the quickest amount of time possible,? McKeown said. But then, you had Al Gore, ?An Inconvenient Truth?, the whole green movement thing. Now there?s a bill in Congress, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., that would put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. Other states have de-facto moratoriums, at least until carbon sequestration becomes realistic. That?s where Clinton comes in. Sally Mauk, news director of Montana Public Radio, asked her recently about a moratorium. She said clean coal, carbon sequestration, and coal to liquids are still decades away. ?In the meantime, would you support a moratorium on new coal fired power plants?? Mauk asked. Clinton talked about her support for clean coal research and the necessity for energy efficiency. Then, she seems to answer the question about a coal plant moratorium. She says the city of Portland has reduced its carbon emissions below 1990 levels. ?It?s doable. We?re just not doing it. So yes, I would like to see us hold off on new coal power plant construction while we push to do the demonstration projects, push to do the energy efficiency. In some places that?s practical, in other places it isn?t. But the longer we wait, the less likely we are going to be to have the right solutions,? Clinton said. Sounds pretty clear? Elect Hillary Clinton, get a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, right? Not according to her domestic policy director, Catherine Brown. ?I don?t think there?s any ambiguity in her position. It?s a very bold and realistic position, given where we are with the technology right now,? Brown said. Brown hangs onto the last part of Clinton?s statement, that in some places, it?s practical, in other places, it isn?t. ?The ultimate goal is to be able to have that technology operating wherever it is possible, but she recognizes that we are a long way from that, given that we don?t have any commercial coal plants that are capturing and storing their carbon,? Brown said. So where is Barack Obama on a possible moratorium? At first, we thought he was clearly against it. This is what he told the environmental magazine, Grist.com: ?I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development,? Obama said. We tried to get Obama?s campaign on tape. They refused. But they did say that Obama?s proposal to cap and trade greenhouse gases would make it nearly impossible to build traditional coal-fired power plants in the future: ?Obama will use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology,? the Obama campaign e-mail says. Chris Hamilton doesn?t like how this sounds. Hamilton is vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. ?I am very disappointed and surprised at the comments by both presidential candidates. It leaves you somewhat confused over what kind of energy policy they advocate,? Hamilton said. So forget about what Clinton and Obama said. What did they do about this in Congress? They both co-sponsored The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which required the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. That bill also included a way to provide money to coal workers who might lose their jobs because of it. Both Clinton and Obama want to cut our total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Here, even Republican candidate John McCain isn?t much different ? he wants a 65 percent cut by 2050. Environmentalists like McKeown are optimistic. ?There?s still about 90 plant proposals pending, so we?re at a moment where we definitely haven?t won, but we have the public behind us and we?re racking up victories and moving in the right direction,? she said. Environmental groups say they?ve delayed or blocked about 60 plants in the last three years. Still, more than 20 are currently under construction ? the most in more than a decade.

By Scott Finn Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are battling for votes in several key coal-producing states, such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. But they want to hold onto key environmental votes, too. One big issue is whether to support a moratorium on new construction of coal-fired power plants. It?s led to some interesting double-talk from both. The stakes are big in West Virginia. Just this week, Virginia regulators rejected plans to build a power plant in Mason County, West Virginia. Appalachian Power wants to build the plant using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology. IGCC plants turn coal into a synthetic gas before burning it, which reduces pollution. The Virginia regulators said the cost of the Mason County plant would be too high for Virginia ratepayers ? especially if the plant is forced to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and store them underground. Appalachian Power plans to appeal the Virginia ruling. But the Mason County plant is just one of dozens of proposed coal-fired power plants under attack because of global warming fears. Some activists and politicians are even calling for a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plant construction. West Virginia Public Broadcasting started looking into the issue when someone told us that Hillary Clinton said she wanted a moratorium on all new coal fired power plant construction. It seemed clear-cut at first. ?So yes, I would like to see us hold off on new coal fired plant construction,? Clinton said. It turns out, it wasn?t ? at least not according to Clinton?s campaign. But first, let?s set the scene and explain the big picture. For most of the 1990s, few coal-fired power plants were built. You can blame or credit NIMBY (Not In My BackYard), former President Bill Clinton, etc. Then, President George W. Bush was elected and the so-called ?coal rush? was on, according to Alice McKeown, coal expert from the Sierra Club. You got a huge wave of proposals for new coal fired power plants. And we like to refer to that as the coal rush. So what you?re really seeing is an attempt to get as much power on line in the quickest amount of time possible,? McKeown said. But then, you had Al Gore, ?An Inconvenient Truth?, the whole green movement thing. Now there?s a bill in Congress, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., that would put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. Other states have de-facto moratoriums, at least until carbon sequestration becomes realistic. That?s where Clinton comes in. Sally Mauk, news director of Montana Public Radio, asked her recently about a moratorium. She said clean coal, carbon sequestration, and coal to liquids are still decades away. ?In the meantime, would you support a moratorium on new coal fired power plants?? Mauk asked. Clinton talked about her support for clean coal research and the necessity for energy efficiency. Then, she seems to answer the question about a coal plant moratorium. She says the city of Portland has reduced its carbon emissions below 1990 levels. ?It?s doable. We?re just not doing it. So yes, I would like to see us hold off on new coal power plant construction while we push to do the demonstration projects, push to do the energy efficiency. In some places that?s practical, in other places it isn?t. But the longer we wait, the less likely we are going to be to have the right solutions,? Clinton said. Sounds pretty clear? Elect Hillary Clinton, get a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, right? Not according to her domestic policy director, Catherine Brown. ?I don?t think there?s any ambiguity in her position. It?s a very bold and realistic position, given where we are with the technology right now,? Brown said. Brown hangs onto the last part of Clinton?s statement, that in some places, it?s practical, in other places, it isn?t. ?The ultimate goal is to be able to have that technology operating wherever it is possible, but she recognizes that we are a long way from that, given that we don?t have any commercial coal plants that are capturing and storing their carbon,? Brown said. So where is Barack Obama on a possible moratorium? At first, we thought he was clearly against it. This is what he told the environmental magazine, Grist.com: ?I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development,? Obama said. We tried to get Obama?s campaign on tape. They refused. But they did say that Obama?s proposal to cap and trade greenhouse gases would make it nearly impossible to build traditional coal-fired power plants in the future: ?Obama will use whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology,? the Obama campaign e-mail says. Chris Hamilton doesn?t like how this sounds. Hamilton is vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. ?I am very disappointed and surprised at the comments by both presidential candidates. It leaves you somewhat confused over what kind of energy policy they advocate,? Hamilton said. So forget about what Clinton and Obama said. What did they do about this in Congress? They both co-sponsored The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which required the U.S. to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. That bill also included a way to provide money to coal workers who might lose their jobs because of it. Both Clinton and Obama want to cut our total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Here, even Republican candidate John McCain isn?t much different ? he wants a 65 percent cut by 2050. Environmentalists like McKeown are optimistic. ?There?s still about 90 plant proposals pending, so we?re at a moment where we definitely haven?t won, but we have the public behind us and we?re racking up victories and moving in the right direction,? she said. Environmental groups say they?ve delayed or blocked about 60 plants in the last three years. Still, more than 20 are currently under construction ? the most in more than a decade.