Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

November 8, 2023 R47831

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal
November 8, 2023
Communities
Julie M. Lawhorn
Changes in energy production and markets broadly—and the coal industry in
Analyst in Economic
particular—have impacted the economic well-being of communities and workers. The
Development Policy
effects of these changes have not been evenly distributed across industries, occupations,

and regions, with some communities facing fiscal challenges and job losses. While
Adam G. Levin
observers note that changes in the energy markets have provided certain benefits to
Analyst in Economic
some workers and communities, this report focuses primarily on broader, community-
Development Policy
level economic development challenges.

Lance N. Larson
Certain coal communities have faced place-specific hurdles such as job losses and
Analyst in Environmental
relocations, decreased tax revenues, environmental challenges, and other barriers to
Policy
economic transition and diversification. The term “coal communities” lacks a standard

definition but generally refers to communities with a concentration of coal-related
Benjamin Collins
industries and coal employment, particularly industries that extract coal or communities
Analyst in Labor Policy
that have a coal-fired electric plant. Sometimes the definition includes consideration of

economic dependence on those activities. Beginning in 2014, in response to the
challenges presented by ongoing energy transitions, Congress has supported targeted

policies that provide assistance to coal communities and workers. Congress continues this support through four—
primarily place-based—types of assistance:
• grants for economic diversification for communities;
• tax incentives and business development programs to encourage private sector investment;
• grants for mine land reclamation for environmental and health and human safety activities; and
• human capital and workforce training and education programs for dislocated workers.
Energy and climate policies enacted in the 117th Congress included incentives for new and non-fossil fuel energy
resources and related technologies. Members of Congress may continue to be interested in reviewing existing and
proposed pathways for federal assistance to coal communities and the United States’s overall strategy for assisting
economically distressed coal communities. For instance, Congress may seek to authorize new or expand existing
programs for coal and/or other energy communities; continue targeted, place-based assistance to coal
communities; or monitor the increased levels of funding and actions by recent administrations.
Congress may also be interested in reviewing specific aspects of current federal policies for coal communities and
workers. Congress may wish to consider the overall scale, role, and structure of federal assistance for coal
communities; criteria for broadening or targeting assistance criteria; options for program integration and agency
coordination; and continued efforts to evaluate and monitor existing programs. Congress may be interested in
examining how supportive programs have been implemented and if intended goals have been achieved. To the
extent that another industry (fossil fuel or otherwise) experiences a similar long-term downturn, Congress may
consider aspects of the programs designed for coal communities or other place-based economic and community
development policies (e.g., economic adjustment assistance grants, tax credit policies, environmental remediation
grants).
Congressional Research Service

link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 15 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Introduction
Electricity generation is a major source of demand for coal in the United States. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) has noted that since 1961, “the electric power sector has
accounted for the majority of U.S. coal consumption,” and that “the electric power sector
accounted for about 91.7% of the total U.S. coal consumed in 2022.”1 In addition to electricity
generation, coal is used to a lesser degree for other purposes in the United States (e.g., steel
manufacturing, other industries).2
In recent years, coal’s market share in overall electricity generation has declined, and EIA energy
analysts expect this trend to continue.3 Changes in electricity generation are generally the result
of both market forces and federal, state, and local policies which have influenced the use of
different energy sources. According to some analysts, the net effect for coal has been a general
loss of competitiveness compared to natural gas, wind energy, and solar energy.4
Results of energy sector restructuring have affected certain communities due to declining levels
of coal production, employment, and state and local revenues—particularly since 2011 in areas
with high rates of coal dependence.5 The term “coal communities” lacks a standard definition but
generally refers to communities with a concentration of coal-related industries, particularly
industries that extract coal or communities that have a coal-fired electric plant (see “Identifying
Coal Communities” for definitions). In certain coal communities, the regional economy is not
diversified, job losses are highly concentrated, and impacted workers face barriers to relocation or
new employment.6 Economic and workforce development initiatives in these areas face

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration (hereinafter, EIA), “Coal Explained,” https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/
coal/use-of-coal.php. For a summary of U.S. consumption, production, and net exports between 1950 and 2022, see
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports.php.
2 Different coal-producing regions produce different types of coal. The different types of coal are used for different
purposes. Bituminous coal is one of several types of coal. Thermal and metallurgical are subtypes of bituminous coal.
Thermal coal is generally used for electricity generation in power plants. Metallurgical coal is generally used for steel
production. EIA, “Coal Explained,” https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports.php; and CRS
Report R43263, Petroleum Coke: Industry and Environmental Issues, by Richard K. Lattanzio. For a background
primer on coal, see CRS Report R44922, The U.S. Coal Industry: Historical Trends and Recent Developments, by
Marc Humphries.
3 For an analysis and projection of trends in coal-fired generating capacity, see EIA, “EIA projects coal capacity will
decrease in our Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56460; and “The
largest coal-fired power plant in Pennsylvania will close by July 2023,” June 5, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/today
inenergy/detail.php?id=56700.
4 For additional information, see CRS Report R47521, Electricity: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Ashley J.
Lawson. See also Sanya Carley, Tom P. Evans, and David M. Konisky, “Adaptation, Culture, and the Energy
Transition in American Coal Country,” Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 37 (2018), p. 133, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.erss. 2017. 10. 007, which refers to an energy transition as a “shift from an economic system dependent on one
set of resources and technologies to another.”
5 See report section titled “Trends in U.S. Coal Production and Employment.”
6 See Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, Initial Report
to the President on Empowering Workers Through Revitalizing Energy Communities, April 2021, pp. 6, 8-10,
https://netl.doe.gov/IWGInitialReport; and Appalachian Regional Commission (hereinafter ARC), “Coal Production
and Employment in Appalachia,” Bureau of Business and Economic Research, West Virginia University,
Commissioned by the ARC, Summer 2023, pp. 2-3, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Coal-
Production-and-Employment-in-Appalachia-2023.pdf. For a discussion of the decline in geographic mobility and
related barriers, see “Moving Problems” in Timothy Bartik, “Should Place-Based Jobs Policies Be Used to Help
Distressed Communities?” Upjohn Institute Working Paper, 19-308, (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 2019), https://doi.org/10. 17848/wp19-308; and Ryan Nunn, Jana Parsons, and Jay Shambaugh,
“The Geography of Prosperity,” in Place-Based Policies for Shared Economic Growth, The Brookings Institution,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

1

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

challenges related to environmental, community, and individual health impacts associated with
past and current coal industry activity. To address the localized nature of economic, employment,
and environmental concerns, Congress has approved primarily place-based programs that support
the revitalization of economically distressed coal communities.7
While some note that changes in the energy markets have provided certain benefits to some
workers and communities, this report focuses primarily on broader, community-level economic
development challenges.8 This report provides an overview of trends in the U.S. coal industry and
the factors that have contributed to economic distress in certain coal communities. This report
also summarizes existing federal policies that provide place-based assistance for economic
diversification and development in coal communities. The final part of this report outlines various
policy tools Congress may consider if it seeks to adjust or expand assistance for coal
communities, including options for program integration and areas for additional research and
evaluation. A full cost-benefit analysis of the economic, environmental, and health impacts of
coal activity and related policies is not within the scope of the report.
While this report focuses on economic, community, and workforce development policies,
Congress has notably provided federal financial assistance for certain health care and pension
programs for eligible coal workers.9 Programs that provide assistance directly to individuals are
generally not discussed in this report.
Economic revitalization challenges may be similar across different types of energy communities.
Several programs described in this report, in the context of coal-impacted communities, may
broadly provide assistance to those other types of energy communities. This report does not

September 2018, pp. 17-19, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/PBP_FramingChapter_
compressed_20190425.pdf.
7 A full review of place-based assistance, people-based assistance, and other policy approaches to economic
development is beyond the scope of this report. For additional information on place-based and people-based policies,
see David Neumark and Helen Simpson, “Place-Based Policies,” in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, ed.
Giles Duranton, J. Vernon Henderson, and William Strange (Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2015); and CRS In
Focus IF12409, What Is Place-Based Economic Development?, by Adam G. Levin. For a guide to federal economic
development resources, see CRS Report R46683, Federal Resources for State and Local Economic Development, by
Julie M. Lawhorn.
8 Researchers note that coal production and coal-fired electric plants may impact local, regional, and national
economies through contributions to the “employment base, economic output, labor income, and tax revenue.” For a
summary of direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts related to coal, see Christiadi, Eric Bowen, and John
Deskins, “The Economic Impact of Coal Production and Coal-Fired Power Generation in the United States,” Bureau of
Business & Economic Research, 353 (2022), https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/bureau_be/353. For a summary of
research examining various economic impacts of coal on regional economies, including a discussion of gaps in the
research and a study of boom and bust periods (1990-2010), see Michael R. Betz, et al., “Coal Mining, Economic
Development, and the Natural Resources Curse,” Energy Economics, vol. 50 (2015), pp. 105-108, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eneco. 2015. 04. 005. Among other studies included in the summary by Betz et al. is the perspective on the
economic impact of coal on local labor markets in Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia in the 1970s and
1980s by Dan Black, Terra McKinnish, and Seth Sanders, “The Economic Impact of the Coal Boom and Bust,” The
Economic Journal, vol. 115 (2005), issue 503, pp. 449-476, https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1468-0297. 2005. 00996.x.
9 For example, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) authorizes federal financial assistance to
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) health and pension benefit plans for retired coal miners and family
members who are eligible to be covered under those plans. See CRS Report R46266, The Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund: Reauthorization Issues in the 116th Congress, by Lance N. Larson, and CRS In Focus IF11370,
Health and Pension Benefits for United Mine Workers of America Retirees: Recent Legislation, by John J. Topoleski.
As another example, Congress established the Federal Black Lung Program to provide federal financial assistance to
coal miners affect by coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (commonly referred to as black lung disease). See CRS Report
R45261, The Black Lung Program, the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, and the Excise Tax on Coal, by Scott D.
Szymendera, Molly F. Sherlock, and Anthony A. Cilluffo.
Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

attempt to examine specific policy considerations for oil, natural gas, nuclear, or other types of
energy communities.
Identifying Coal Communities
The term “coal communities” is not uniformly defined in statute and certain federal agencies and
outside groups use the term in various ways. When defining “coal communities” for the purpose
of federal assistance and national analyses, federal agencies and other groups have typically used
a range of criteria associated with the levels and types of coal industry activity. To identify
conditions of regional economic distress associated with coal regions, definitions of “coal
communities” often combine measures of coal industry activity with indicators of socioeconomic
distress.10 The various definitions generally identify communities that have power plants with
coal-fired electric generators or a concentration of coal-related industries, particularly those that
extract coal.11 Researchers often demonstrate a relationship or “dependence” of a region on coal
sector activity through measures of sector employment levels, sector employment as a share of
total employment,12 the current or past level of sector production,13 and/or the presence or number
of coal mines or power plants with coal-fired electric generators that may be active, retired, or

10 Not all coal communities are economically distressed. Certain communities may be economically diversified and/or
benefit from industry activities, but may also be economically vulnerable. Definitions and measures of economic
distress vary and may include certain thresholds related to unemployment, prime age employment, poverty, income,
and other measures or a combination of several measures. For information on the economic distress thresholds
applicable to certain programs administered by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA), see CRS In
Focus IF12074, Areas of Economic Distress for EDA Activities and Programs, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Analysts also note that the “ socioeconomic vulnerability” to coal plant and coal mine closures varies across the United
States. See Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy
Corridors Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol. 151 (2021), p. 2, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol. 2020. 112112.
11 The EIA’s list of “coal producing regions” includes the Appalachian Region, which includes the Northern, Central,
and Southern Appalachian Regions; the Interior Region (with Gulf Coast), which includes the Illinois Basin; and the
Western Region, which includes the Powder River Basin and Uinta Basin. See EIA, “Coal Producing Regions,”
https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index. php?id=Coal-producing%20regions.
For a map of coal producing regions, see EIA, “Coal Production by Region, in Million Short Tons and Regional Share
of Total U.S. Production, 2019,” https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/images/coal_production_map.jpg. For data
and a map of U.S. coal mine locations, see EIA, https://atlas.eia.gov/search? categories=coal. For an interactive map
showing the census tracts (or directly adjoining census tracts) in which a coal mine closed after 1999 or in which a
coal-fired electric generating unit was retired after 2009, see Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coal and Power
Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, “Energy Community Tax Credit Bonus,”
https://energycommunities.gov/energy-community-tax-credit-bonus. See also, CRS Report R44922, The U.S. Coal
Industry: Historical Trends and Recent Developments, by Marc Humphries.
12 Researchers generally note that by examining the coal employment share, they may account for the influence of coal
activity on the labor market. See Michael R. Betz, et al., “Coal Mining, Economic Development, and the Natural
Resources Curse,” Energy Economics, vol. 50 (2015), p. 109, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eneco. 2015. 04. 005.
Researchers measuring a region’s coal dependence or vulnerability note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) Economic Research Service “defines a county as ‘mining dependent’ if 8% or more of its employment is
engaged in the mining industry (USDA 2019).” See Adele Morris, Noah Kaufman, and Siddhi Doshi, “The Risk of
Fiscal Collapse in Coal-Reliant Communities,” The Brookings Institution, July 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/
research/the-risk-of-fiscal-collapse-in-coal-reliant-communities.
13 For the purposes of analyzing coal production and employment, a 2023 ARC-commissioned report defined
Appalachian coal counties as counties within Appalachia that produced at least one thousand short tons of coal in any
year from 2000 through 2022. See ARC, “Coal Production and Employment in Appalachia,” Bureau of Business and
Economic Research, West Virginia University, Commissioned by the ARC, Summer 2023, p. 6, https://www.arc.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Coal-Production-and-Employment-in-Appalachia-2023.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

scheduled for retirement.14 Certain definitions may also include areas with supply chain,
distribution, or transportation connections to coal activity. These definitions may cover
communities that do not have coal supplies or generating facilities, but nonetheless may be
impacted by shifts in the coal industry.15
Congress, federal agencies, and the Biden Administration have used differing methodologies to
define and identify coal communities, which are explored below.
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coal and Power Plant
Communities and Economic Revitalization
In January 2021, the Biden Administration established the Interagency Working Group on Coal
and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization (IWG) to facilitate economic
revitalization in coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities.16 In an April 2021 report, the
IWG identified the 25 “most impacted regions for coal-related declines” (see Figure 1). To define
those regions, the IWG analyzed “workers directly employed in coal mining and power
generation, and also the workers in related jobs in logistics and services ... as well as fenceline
communities and other communities impacted by environmental and health effects of fossil fuel
generation.”17 Seven of the IWG’s 10 most-impacted coal regions were in Appalachia or
Wyoming. Twelve of the 25 regions were in the seven highest coal-producing states.18

14 An electric generator is the equipment that produces electricity. A power plant can have one or more electric
generators using different energy sources. For example, some power plants have a combination of coal-fired and
natural gas-fired electric generators. Some generators at a power plant might continue operating after an individual
electric generator is retired.
15 For example, EDA has defined “coal economy” as a term that reflects the complete supply chain of coal-reliant
industries, including coal mining, coal-fired power plants, and related transportation, logistics, and supply chain
manufacturing. See EDA, “Assistance to Coal Communities (ACC),” https://www.eda.gov/coal. The ARC directs
certain grant resources to “communities and regions that have been affected by job losses in coal mining, coal power
plant operations, and coal-related supply chain industries due to the changing economics of America’s energy
production.” See ARC “Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization Initiative,”
https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities/power/.
16 See E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 Federal Register 7619, February 1, 2021.
The IWG has not been authorized by Congress, though it received $3 million for FY2023 (see Senator Patrick Leahy,
“Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R.
2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,” Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 168, no. 198 (December 20, 2022),
p. S8356, available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf).
The IWG is coordinated primarily by Department of Energy staff. Additional information about the IWG is available in
CRS In Focus IF12238, Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic
Revitalization, by Julie M. Lawhorn, and at https://energycommunities.gov/background.
17 Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, Initial Report to
the President on Empowering Workers Through Revitalizing Energy Communities, April 2021, p. 1,
https://netl.doe.gov/IWGInitialReport.
18 This uses the EIA’s definition of the “Appalachian Region,” which includes Alabama, Eastern Kentucky, Maryland,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. See EIA, Glossary, https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/
?id=coal.
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Figure 1. IWG-Identified 25 Priority Communities for Coal-Related Employees

Source: Map created by CRS using data provided by the IWG and listed in IWG, Initial Report to the President on
Empowering Workers Through Revitalizing Energy Communities, Appendix B (Counties within Priority Communities).
Figure created by Cassandra Higgins, GIS Analyst, and Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist.
Notes: The IWG identified the 25 Priority Communities based on the “number of direct coal-related jobs as a
percentage of the total number of jobs in each area.” According to the IWG, the Western Pennsylvania non-
metropolitan area (*) was added for geographic diversity, and the “shading highlights BLS metro and non-metro
areas that are communities vulnerable to impacts from coal-specific job losses.” There may be minor mapping
discrepancies between the CRS map and the areas shown in Figure 2 of the IWG report. Congressional offices
may contact the author for more information. Figure 2 of the IWG report includes the location of the top 1-25
and 26-70 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas with a high number of coal-related employees. The CRS map
(above) shows the top 1-25 communities identified by the IWG. The IWG report also included a map that
identified the location of the top 75 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas with a high number of fossil energy
activities and jobs; see IWG, Figure 1.
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development
Administration (EDA)
The EDA, a bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), is the only federal agency with
economic development as its sole mission. The agency was established pursuant to the enactment
of the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §3121 et
seq.) to assist state and local stakeholders with developing the conditions and amenities to grow
businesses, create jobs, and expand investment in economically distressed areas.
The Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program (42 U.S.C. §3149) is one of EDA’s core
programs for economically distressed areas. EDA administers the Assistance to Coal
Communities (ACC) grant initiative primarily through the EAA program. EDA does not provide a
list of eligible coal communities; however, agency guidance notes that potential applicants should
use third-party data to document the extent to which contractions in the coal economy have
negatively impacted (or will negatively impact) the community or region.19 EDA has defined
“coal economy” as a term that reflects the complete supply chain of coal-reliant industries,

19 Economic Development Administration (EDA), “FY 2023 Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance
Notice of Funding Opportunity,” p. 16, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity. html? oppId=346815.
Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

including coal mining, coal-fired power plants, and related transportation, logistics, and supply
chain manufacturing.20
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
The ARC is one of eight federal regional commissions and authorities that Congress has
authorized to address instances of major economic distress in certain defined geographic regions
of the country.21 The ARC was established in 1965 to address economic distress in the
Appalachian region,22 which spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia.23
The ARC does not provide a list of eligible coal communities for its main grant program for coal
communities within its jurisdiction. Instead, for its Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce
and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, the ARC’s request for funding proposals
indicates that
Eligible POWER projects must be located within and targeted to communities or regions
that have been recently impacted (or can reasonably demonstrate that they will be impacted
in the near future) by coal-mining or coal-power-plant employment loss, or employment
loss in the supply-chain or logistics industries of either sector.24
The POWER Plus Plan for Coal Communities (the Power Initiative)
In 2015, the Obama Administration launched the multi-agency federal Partnerships for Opportunity and
Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Plus Plan, which addressed the coal sector’s decline through
funding for (1) economic stabilization, (2) social welfare efforts, and (3) environmental efforts.25 While certain
proposed provisions of POWER Plus Plan were never enacted or funded, other elements of the Plan have
continued and are described below. The Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative is the only
program to retain the original branding. For additional information, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative:
Energy Transition as Economic Development.

20 For additional information, see EDA, “Assistance to Coal Communities (ACC),” https://www.eda.gov/coal; and CRS
Insight IN11648, The Economic Development Administration’s Assistance to Coal and Nuclear Closure Communities
Initiatives for Economic Transitions, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
21 For additional information on federal regional commissions and authorities, see CRS Report R45997, Federal
Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function, by Julie M. Lawhorn .
22 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.
23 ARC, “About the Appalachian Region,” https://www.arc.gov/about-the-appalachian-region/.
24 ARC, “POWER Initiative 2023 Request for Proposals,” pp. 5-6, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/
2023-POWER-RFP.pdf.
25 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce
and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative,” press release, March 27,
2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-
workforce-and-economic-revitaliz.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 25 link to page 12 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Community
Economic Development—Focus on Energy Communities
Certain discretionary grant funds provided under the Community Economic Development (CED)
initiative26 are also set aside for “energy communities.”27 The CED is administered by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Community Services. CED grants are made available through a competitive process to qualifying
private, non-profit community development corporations with 501(c)(3) status.28 Under the CED
Initiative, “energy communities” are defined by the agency as “communities that have
experienced employment loss and/or economic dislocation events because of declines in the fossil
fuel industry and/or are disproportionately reliant on fossil fuel energy production or distribution,
including coal, oil, gas, and power plant.”29 The goal of the CED’s Focus on Energy Communities
initiative are to create jobs, spur economic revitalization, remediate environmental degradation,
and support energy workers.30 In fiscal year (FY) 2021, OCS provided bonus points to CED
applications for projects located in and serving coal, oil, and gas, and/or power plant
communities, and indicated that it would provide funding through separate funding opportunities
for projects serving these communities starting in FY2022.31
Coal Communities Impacted by Coal Closures 2000/2010 or Later
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) established the Advanced
Energy Manufacturing and Recycling Grant Program32 (see Table 2), which provides grants for
qualified businesses in coal communities impacted by certain coal closures. In the context of this
program, coal communities include areas located in census tracts containing coal-fired generating
units that have retired since December 21, 2009, coal mines that have closed since December 31,
1999, or adjacent census tracts. Figure 2 shows an example from the DOE mapping tool that may
be used to help identify these census tracts.

26 42 U.S.C. §9921(a)(2).
27 Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of
Community Services (OCS), “Community Economic Development Grants Supporting Energy Communities,”
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/ced-program-in-energy-communities-2021.pdf.
28 DHHS, “CED Program Supporting Energy Communities,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/ced-program-supporting-
energy-communities; and DHHS, “Community Economic Development Focus on Energy Communities—FY2024
Notice of Funding Opportunity,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/CED-HHS-2022-ACF-
OCS-EE-0081-FY2023.pdf. For information about the CED program, see CRS Report RL32872, Community Services
Block Grants (CSBG): Background and Funding, by Conor F. Boyle.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 DHHS, ACF, OCS, “Community Economic Development Grants Supporting Energy Communities,”
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/ced-program-in-energy-communities-2021.pdf.
32 P.L. 117-58, Division D, Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 40209.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 27

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Figure 2. Coal Communities Directly Impacted by Coal Closures 2000/2010 or Later
According to DOE’s IIJA Mapping Tool for the Advanced Energy
Manufacturing and Recycling Grant Program, as of July 2023

Source: Figure created by CRS based on U.S. DOE, “BIL [Bipartisan Infrastructure Law] Section 40209: Coal
Communities Directly Impacted by Coal Closures 2000/2010 or Later,” accessed July 25, 2023,
https://arcgis.netl.doe.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=09457c326145417595287951ed376a29.
(DOE and other entities use the term “BIL” to refer to P.L. 117-58. P.L. 117-58 is commonly referred to as the
BIL and/or the IIJA.) Figure created by Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist.
Notes: PR is Puerto Rico, and USVI refers to the U.S. Virgin Islands. Figure does not display other U.S.
Territories. The online version of the map is interactive and includes additional data visualization options. DOE
further notes that—as in statute, proposed projects under the program funding announcement for the Advanced
Energy Manufacturing and Recycling Grant Program must be located in (a) a census tract in which a coal mine
closed after December 31, 1999, (b) a census tract in which a coal-fired electricity generating power plant unit
closed after December 31, 2009, or (c) a census tract immediately adjacent to (a) or (b).
Coal Communities as a Subset of “Energy Communities”
Depending on the type of coal industry activity and other factors present, coal communities may
be considered a type of “energy community.” The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, P.L. 117-169)
provided enhanced tax credits for certain energy projects, facilities, and technologies, if the
investments are located in “energy communities.” (See Table 3 for additional examples from the
IRA.) In the context of the IRA’s climate and energy incentives, energy communities are defined
as:
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 27 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 12 link to page 14 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

• A brownfield site as defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D)(ii)(III) of
section 101(39) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980;
• A metropolitan statistical area or non-metropolitan statistical area with an
above-average unemployment rate and either greater than 0.17% direct
employment or greater than 25% local tax revenues related to the extraction,
processing, transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas (as determined by
the Secretary);
• A census tract (or directly adjoining tract)
• In which a mine closed after December 31, 1999, or
• In which a coal-fired generating unit was retired after December 31,
2009.33
See Table 3 for additional information about selected energy community tax credit policies.34
Figure 3 shows an example from the DOE’s mapping tool for energy community tax credit
policies that provides up to 10% (for production tax credits) or 10 percentage points (for
investment tax credits) to taxpayers and applicable entities35 for certain investments in energy
communities. The increased rates or amounts pertain to certain energy community requirements
under Section 45, 48, 45Y, or 48E of the Internal Revenue Code. Figure 3 does not include
brownfields locations. The energy community bonus tax credits are for areas associated with
fossil fuels, including coal as well as oil and natural gas. This contrasts with Figure 2, which
shows areas associated with coal activity.36

33 Internal Revenue Code §45(b)(11)(B). For a list of census tracts related to the IRA’s definition of “energy
communities,” see Appendix 3 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-47-appendix-3.pdf) and Appendix C
(https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-29-appendix-c.pdf) accompanying the U.S. Treasury Notice 2023-29. For a
summary of tax provisions in the IRA, see CRS Report R47202, Tax Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
(H.R. 5376), coordinated by Molly F. Sherlock.
34 For a summary of other tax provisions in the IRA (P.L. 117-169), see CRS Report R47202, Tax Provisions in the
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (H.R. 5376), coordinated by Molly F. Sherlock. For a directory of other tax credit
policies and other assistance programs for energy communities, see “Clearinghouse” at https://energycommunities.gov.
35 Certain entities without tax liabilities may be able to transfer tax credits to entities with tax liabilities. For an
overview of elective pay, which allows certain tax-exempt and governmental entities that would otherwise be unable to
claim certain credits because they do not owe federal income tax, to benefit from some clean energy tax credits, see
IRS, “Elective Pay,” https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5817.pdf. For IRS guidance on applicable entities for elective
pay, see IRS, “Elective Pay and Transferability Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/
elective-pay-and-transferability-frequently-asked-questions-elective-pay#eligibility.
36 DOE also provides an interactive 48C Designated Energy Communities Mapping Tool that “displays census tracts
that are considered energy communities for the purposes of the 48C tax credit.” This tax credit is commonly referred to
as the Advanced Energy Project Credit—see IRS, “Advanced Energy Project Credit,” https://www.irs.gov/credits-
deductions/businesses/advanced-energy-project-credit. To access the 48C mapping tool, see https://arcgis.netl.doe.gov/
portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=a44704679a4f44a5aac122324eb00914&page=home. The IRA Energy
Community Tax Credit Bonus Mapping Tool, shown in Figure 3, is separate from the 48C Designated Energy
Communities Mapping Tool. For information on the 48C tax credit, see https://energycommunities.gov.
Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Figure 3. Areas Meeting Fossil Fuel-Related Criteria for the IRA’s
Energy Community Tax Credit Bonus for 2023
Brownfields not shown

Source: Figure created by CRS based on U.S. DOE, “IRA Energy Community Tax Credit Bonus Mapping Tool,”
accessed July 24, 2023, https://arcgis.netl.doe.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=a2ce47d4721
a477a8701bd0e08495e1d. Figure created by Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist.
Notes: MSAs are metropolitan statistical areas. PR is Puerto Rico and USVI refers to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Figure does not display other U.S. Territories. The online version of the map is interactive and includes
additional data visualization options. The IWG provides a link (https://energycommunities.gov/energy-
community-tax-credit-bonus) to the U.S. DOE’s mapping tool with the fol owing description of the mapping tool:
The mapping tool [above] reflects currently available data on two types of energy communities. First, the
map shows energy communities that are census tracts and that have had coal mine closures after December
31, 1999 or coal-fired electric generating unit retirements after December 31, 2009, and tracts that are
directly adjoining. Second, the map shows the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and non-metropolitan
statistical areas (non-MSAs) that are energy communities for 2023. These MSAs and non-MSAs have had for
at least one year since 2009, 0.17% or greater direct employment related to extraction, processing,
transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas (the fossil fuel employment (FFE) threshold) and have an
unemployment rate for 2022 that is equal to or greater than the national average unemployment rate for
2022. These MSAs and non-MSAs that meet the 2022 unemployment rate requirement are energy
communities as of January 1, 2023 and wil maintain that status until the unemployment rates for 2023
become available and a new list of energy communities is provided. The guidance that determines the MSAs
and non-MSAs that are energy communities based on 2023 unemployment rates wil likely be released in
May 2024.
Note that brownfields are not shown on this map.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 16 link to page 43 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

The IWG also provides the fol owing disclaimer associated with the mapping tool:
The mapping tool may not be relied upon by taxpayers to substantiate a tax return position or for
determining whether certain penalties apply and wil not be used by the IRS for examination purposes. The
mapping tool does not reflect the application of the law to a specific taxpayer’s situation, and the applicable
Internal Revenue Code provisions ultimately control.
Trends in U.S. Coal Production and Employment37
Since the 1920s, coal communities have generally experienced long-term declines in employment
which may be exacerbated by more recent declines in coal production. Experts expect these
declines to continue with current technologic, economic, and policy trends. Key changes
include:38
• The mix of U.S. energy production has shifted among fuels and technologies
(Figure 4). For electricity generation, market shares have generally shifted from
coal to natural gas and, more recently, to wind and solar energy. Since the mid-
2000s, coal production has declined by almost one-half.
• Fossil fuel production, especially coal production, has shifted from the eastern to
the western United States. The largest reduction has occurred in the central
Appalachian basin (Figure A-1). On average, western mines require fewer
miners to produce a ton of coal than eastern mines.39
• Employment in coal production has experienced a century-long decline (Figure
6). This has occurred heterogeneously across U.S. regions (Figure 6).40 A 2022
report by researchers at West Virginia University noted that
37.3 thousand workers were employed in the coal mining industry in 2021. This
reflects a significant decline of around 37.8 thousand jobs, or more than 50 percent,
from 2001. Notice that jobs in the coal industry continued to decline in 2021, even as
the U.S. economy was recovering from the COVID pandemic. Jobs in the other
industries in the U.S., on the other hand, increased by more than 12 percent during the
same period. Overall, this reflects a gradual shift in the national economy away from
coal over time.41

37 For information on coal mining, production, and employment before 2017, see CRS Report R44922, The U.S. Coal
Industry: Historical Trends and Recent Developments, by Marc Humphries. For a summary of recent trends and issues,
see the Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, Initial Report
to the President on Empowering Workers Through Revitalizing Energy Communities, April 2021, https://netl.doe.gov/
IWGInitialReport.
38 For a more complete discussion, see among others, Charles D. Kolstad, “What Is Killing the US Coal Industry?”
Policy Brief, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, March 2017.
39 EIA, “Table 24. Coal Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Union Status, 2021,” Annual Coal Report,
October 18, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table24.pdf.
40 Among other resources, see Denny Ellerman, Thomas Stoker, and Ernst R. Berndt, “Sources of Productivity Growth
in the American Coal Industry 1972-95,” in New Developments in Productivity Analysis, University of Chicago Press,
2001; Joel Darmstadter, “Innovation and Productivity in U.S. Coal Mining,” In Productivity in Natural Resource
Industries, Routledge, 1999; G.S. Maddala, “Productivity and Technological Change in the Bituminous Coal Industry,
1919-54,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 73, no. 4, August 1965; and Kolstad, op. cit.
41 Christiadi, Eric Bowen, and John Deskins, “The Economic Impact of Coal Production and Coal-Fired Power
Generation in the United States,” Bureau of Business & Economic Research, 353 (2022),
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/bureau_be/353.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 17

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

The Appalachian region,42 in particular, experienced concentrated job losses between
2005 and 2015.43
• The long-term decline in coal employment has been attributed primarily to
technological changes (e.g., substitution of capital for labor inputs) and economic
changes (e.g., the shifting competitiveness of production across types and
locations of mines) that reduced, in most decades, the average labor necessary to
produce a ton of coal.44 Throughout the century, these shifts led to declining
employment even in places where coal production increased (Figure 6). The
decrease in coal production since 2008 has further reduced coal-related
employment.
Figure 4. U.S. Energy Production by Source, 1949-2021
In quadrillion British thermal units

Source: CRS, using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Monthly Energy Review,” December
2022, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly. Figure created by Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information
Specialist.

42 The Appalachian region is composed of the counties in the region covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC) in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. See 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.
43 Eric Bowen, Christiadi, John Deskins, et al., An Overview of the Coal Economy in Appalachia, West Virginia
University, commissioned by ARC, January 2018, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CIE1-Overviewof
CoalEconomyinAppalachia-2.pdf.
44 Among other resources, see Denny Ellerman, Thomas Stoker, and Ernst R. Berndt, “Sources of Productivity Growth
in the American Coal Industry 1972-95,” in New Developments in Productivity Analysis, University of Chicago Press,
2001; Joel Darmstadter, “Innovation and Productivity in U.S. Coal Mining,” in Productivity in Natural Resource
Industries, Routledge, 1999; G.S. Maddala, “Productivity and Technological Change in the Bituminous Coal Industry,
1919-54,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 73, no. 4, August 1965; and Kolstad, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Figure 5. Annual Average Coal Mine Employees in Selected Regions

Source: CRS, using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Coal Data Browser,”
https://www.eia.gov/coal/data/browser/#/topic/36? agg=. Figure created by Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information
Specialist.
Figure 6. U.S. Coal Production and Employment 1900-2021

Source: CRS, using the fol owing data: Coal Production: National Mining Association, “Growth of the
Bituminous Coal Mining Industry in the United States, 1900-1971,” accessed January 24, 2023, https://nma.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Historic-Bituminous-Coal-Production.pdf; and Energy Information Administration,
Coal Data Browser, “Aggregate Coal Mine Production, Total Annual,” accessed January 24, 2023; Coal
Employment: Mine Safety and Health Administration, “Coal Fatalities for 1900 through 2022,” U.S. Department
of Labor, accessed June 29, 2023, https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp. Figure created by
Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist.
Notes: BOM is the U.S. Bureau of Mines; EIA is the U.S. Energy Information Administration; DOL is the U.S.
Department of Labor. Employment data include office workers beginning in 1973.
Analysts have identified a number of factors that have influenced the growth and decline in coal
production in the United States. Since 2008, demand for coal for electricity has fallen with the
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 43 link to page 18 link to page 18 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

decreasing cost-competitiveness of coal as a fuel for electricity generation.45 Factors affecting the
loss of cost-competitiveness include:
• changing federal policy incentives;46
• technological advances that reduced the cost of natural gas production;47
• increasing costs of environmental regulation;48 and
• increasing costs of production in Appalachia.49
Figure A-1 illustrates the differences in coal production across regions and individual states from
2001 to 2021. Nearly all states have witnessed declines in coal production from their recent
peaks, though some much more than others. See “Economic Diversification and Employment in
Coal Communities” for a discussion of community impacts associated with changes in coal
production.
EIA projections indicate that U.S. coal production is likely to continue to decrease under current
policies and anticipated technological advances, as well as a wide range of alternative economic
assumptions. The EIA’s outlook for coal production to 2050 includes a reference case as well as a
range of “side cases” that reflect alternative economic and technological assumptions. In all of
EIA’s side cases, coal production continues its long-term decline, even in cases with more
favorable assumptions, such as high economic growth combined with high zero-carbon
technology costs, and omission of the IRA (P.L. 117-169) and its incentives for renewable energy
development.50 Despite these changes, coal is generally expected to continue as a component of
the U.S. energy supply.51
Economic Diversification and Employment in Coal
Communities
In recent years, coal communities across the United States have faced a combination of inter-
related economic diversification and employment challenges, including:52

45 The EIA states that “Coal-fired plants have not been competitive economically with relatively lower-cost natural gas
and renewables.” EIA, “Coal Was the Largest Source Of Electricity Generation For 15 States in 2021,” December 7,
2022, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail. php?id=54919.
46 For example, see Figure 1 in CRS Report R44852, The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy
Resources, by Molly F. Sherlock.
47 Brett Watson, Ian Lange, and Joshua Linn, “Coal Demand, Market Forces, and U.S. Coal Mine Closures,” Economic
Inquiry, vol. 61, no. 1, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin. 13108. See also John Coglianese, Todd D. Gerarden, and
James H. Stock, “The Effects of Fuel Prices, Environmental Regulations, and Other Factors on U.S. Coal Production,
2008-2016,” The Energy Journal, vol. 41, no. 1 (January 1, 2020), https://doi.org/10. 5547/01956574. 41.1. jcog; and
Joshua Linn and Kristen McCormack, “The Roles of Energy Markets and Environmental Regulation in Reducing Coal-
Fired Plant Profits and Electricity Sector Emissions,” The RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 50, no. 4, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12294.
48 Coglianese et al., op. cit. This research indicates that environmental regulations contributed 6% to the decrease of
coal production during the period studied, in contrast with the decline of natural gas prices’ contribution of 92%.
49 Watson et al., op. cit.
50 EIA, “EIA Projects Coal Capacity Will Decrease in Our Annual Energy Outlook 2023,” May 11, 2023,
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail. php? id=56460.
51 See CRS Report R44922, The U.S. Coal Industry: Historical Trends and Recent Developments, by Marc Humphries.
52 Impacts associated with recent shifts in coal industry activity vary by region and time period. Researchers observe
production, labor, and other differences between the coal producing regions of Appalachia and those in the western
U.S. states.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 15 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

• declining coal-related tax revenues for state and local governments;53
• sustained, long-term job losses—both direct and indirect—in coal and coal-
related industries;54
• local workforces skilled in coal-related jobs, but less prepared for positions in
other industries, and barriers to labor mobility for new employment seekers;55
• health, education, and other concerns that accompany the concentrated job
losses;56 and
• environmental impacts tied to coal mining and production.57
Regional economies that are less diversified—including certain coal communities—are more
vulnerable to multiple challenges following the decline of major industries and other economic
shocks or events. For instance, decreased tax revenues from lower coal production levels may
lead to fewer resources for public services. Although state and local tax structures and rates
vary,58 a 2020 analysis of three of the nation’s most coal mining-dependent counties found that
“coal-related revenue may fund a third or more of their budgets.”59 The decline in tax revenues
and public services in coal communities may compound economic and workforce development
challenges,60 since limited resources for the planning and implementation of diversification
strategies may impede efforts to attract new investment, industries, and jobs.61

53 See Adele Morris, Noah Kaufman, and Siddhi Doshi, “The Risk of Fiscal Collapse in Coal-Reliant Communities,”
The Brookings Institution, July 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-risk-of-fiscal-collapse-in-coal-reliant-
communities; Julia H. Haggerty et al., “Planning For the Local Impacts of Coal Facility Closure: Emerging Strategies
in the U.S. West,” Resources Policy, vol. 57 (2018), pp. 69-80; and Calvin Kent, “The Cruel Coal Facts: The Impact on
West Virginia Counties from the Collapse of the Coal Economy,” (Huntington, WV: National Association of Counties,
2016), https://www.marshall.edu/cber/files/2021/04/2016-09-Cruel_Coal.pdf.
54 See report section titled “Trends in U.S. Coal Production and Employment.” Indirect employment includes jobs in
supply chain, manufacturing, transportation, and other sectors. For a summary of direct, indirect, and induced economic
impacts related to coal, see Christiadi, Eric Bowen, and John Deskins, “The Economic Impact of Coal Production and
Coal-Fired Power Generation in the United States,” Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 353 (2022), p. 7,
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/bureau_be/353.
55 For a discussion of the decline in geographic mobility and related barriers, see “Moving Problems” in Timothy
Bartik, “Should Place-Based Jobs Policies Be Used to Help Distressed Communities?” Upjohn Institute Working
Paper, 19-308, (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2019), https://doi.org/10. 17848/wp
19-308; and Ryan Nunn, Jana Parsons, and Jay Shambaugh, “The Geography of Prosperity,” in Place-Based Policies
for Shared Economic Growth, The Brookings Institution, September 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2018/09/PBP_FramingChapter_compressed_20190425.pdf. See also the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors,
Economic Report of the President, Ch. 7 Accelerating and Smoothing the Clean Energy Transition, April 14, 2022, p.
243, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ERP-2022.pdf.
56 For a summary of findings linking unemployment, economic distress, and individual and community health, see
Timothy J. Bartik, “Using Place-Based Jobs Policies to Help Distressed Communities,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 99-100, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles? id=10. 1257/jep. 34.3. 99.
57 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Coal Explained, Coal and the Environment,” https://www.eia.gov/
energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php.
58 Adele Morris, Noah Kaufman, and Siddhi Doshi, “Revenue at Risk in Coal-Reliant Counties,” National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER) Working Papers 27307, 2020, pp. 92-93, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27307.
59 Ibid.
60 See Adele Morris, Noah Kaufman, and Siddhi Doshi, “Revenue at Risk in Coal-Reliant Counties,” National Bureau
of Economic Research (NBER) Working Papers 27307, 2020, https://www.nber.org/papers/w27307.
61 See, for example, Enrico Botta, “A Review of ‘Transition Management’ Strategies: Lessons for Advancing the Green
Low-Carbon Transition,” 2019, OECD Green Growth Papers, No. 2019/04, OECD Publishing, Paris, p. 14,
https://doi.org/10. 1787/4617a02b-en; Julia H. Haggerty et al., “Planning for the Local Impacts of Coal Facility
Closure: Emerging Strategies in the U.S. West,” Resources Policy, vol. 57 (2018), pp. 69-80; and Amy Liu et al.,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 17 link to page 17 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Declining state and local revenues may pose a particular challenge for rural areas. Researchers
observe that geographically isolated, rural areas may be more vulnerable to declining production
and employment changes at coal mining facilities because these areas generally have fewer
industries, longer commuting distances for dislocated workers, and a greater reliance on taxes for
public services and infrastructure.62
Less diversified regional economies may have fewer employment opportunities, and this
challenge may be exacerbated in certain areas by concentrated, ongoing job losses associated with
shifts in the coal industry.63 As noted above, the number of coal mining jobs has declined since a
peak in the 1920s, and the rate of decline has intensified in the most recent decades (see Figure
6). Following employment shifts, a spatial mismatch may occur when available jobs are not
located near dislocated coal workers and alternative employment is not available to absorb
dislocated workers within the affected region. Dislocated workers in economically distressed
areas may also face barriers to moving to other areas to pursue employment, training, or other
economic opportunities.64 Furthermore, a mismatch of skills may occur when private sector (non-
coal firms) workforce demands do not align with workers’ skills. Non-coal jobs may require
different training, certification, or skillsets than those of coal workers.65 The spatial mismatch and
workforce gaps may further intensify economic development and training challenges for coal-
impacted communities.
Additional issues may complicate efforts to redevelop coal communities.66 For example, some
have identified particular challenges related to land ownership and use as impediments to
development in some locations: inaccurate land ownership records; land ownership by “absentee”

“Making Local Economies Prosperous and Resilient: The Case for a Modern Economic Development Administration,”
The Brookings Institution, June 27, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/making-local-economies-prosperous-
and-resilient-the-case-for-a-modern-economic-development-administration.
62 Julia H. Haggerty et al., “Planning for the Local Impacts of Coal Facility Closure: Emerging Strategies in the U.S.
West,” Resources Policy, vol. 57, 2018, pp. 69-80; Kellie F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “The Energy Transition As
Fiscal Rupture: Public Services and Resilience Pathways in a Coal Company Town,” Energy Research and Social
Science, vol. 91 (2022), https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.erss. 2022. 102752; and Michael R. Betz et al., “Coal Mining,
Economic Development, and the Natural Resources Curse,” Energy Economics, vol. 50 (2015), pp. 105-116,
https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. eneco. 2015. 04. 005.
63 Researchers further note that, “Joblessness reduces earnings not only in the present but also in the future, because
reduced work experience erodes skills.” See “Job Creation Policies Can Raise Local Employment Rates, Especially for
Distressed Communities,” Upjohn Institute (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, January
2021), https://doi.org/10. 17848/pb2021-29. See also Michael R. Betz et al., “Coal Mining, Economic Development,
and the Natural Resources Curse,” Energy Economics, vol. 50 (2015), pp. 105-116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.
2015.04.005; Julia H. Haggerty et al., “Planning for the Local Impacts of Coal Facility Closure: Emerging Strategies in
the U.S. West,” Resources Policy, vol. 57 (2018), pp. 69-80; and Adele Morris, Noah Kaufman, and Siddhi Doshi,
“Revenue at Risk in Coal-Reliant Counties,” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Papers 27307,
2020.
64 Drew Haerer and Lincoln Pratson, “Employment Trends in the U.S. Electricity Sector, 2008–2012,” Energy Policy,
vol. 82 (2015), pp. 85-98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.03.006; Enrico Botta, “A Review of ‘Transition
Management’ Strategies: Lessons for Advancing the Green Low-Carbon Transition,” 2019, OECD Green Growth
Papers, No. 2019/04, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4617a02b-en; and U.S. Council of Economic
Advisors, Economic Report of the President, Ch. 7 Accelerating and Smoothing the Clean Energy Transition, April 14,
2022, pp. 241-243, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ERP-2022.pdf.
65 See, for example, analysis of workers and communities impacted by four coal-fired electric plant closures in Indiana,
in Tom Guevara et al., “Economic, Fiscal, and Social Impacts of the Transition of Electricity Generation Resources in
Indiana,” Indiana University Public Policy Institute, August 2020, p. 23, https://ppidb.iu.edu/Uploads/PublicationFiles/
IURC-Report_Aug.4.2020.final.pdf.
66 See also “Factors Related to Prosperity and Poverty Across Communities: a Synthesis of Related Research” in Linda
Lobao et al., “Socioeconomic Transition in the Appalachia Coal Region: Some Factors of Success,” October 25, 2021,
Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Congressional Research Service

16

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

landholding corporations; separation of surface and mineral rights; and legacy environmental
degradation, among others.67 Others note that certain communities may have economic systemic
and capacity challenges related to broadband, infrastructure, and health care.68 Researchers have
observed low levels of entrepreneurship in certain coal communities.69 Some researchers have
noted that certain coal communities have declining population levels due to outmigration, but
note that outmigration may involve a range of complex push and pull factors, particularly for
rural areas, and trends vary by region and time period.70
Selected Federal Assistance Policies
The rationale for providing federal assistance to coal communities generally reflects one or more
policy objectives tied to economic development, economic growth, national economic interests,
environmental remediation, or equity. Other policy objectives may include improved fiscal health
of local governments, higher per capita earnings, increased educational attainment levels,
improved health measures, or other outcomes.
Recent executive branch initiatives and congressional actions indicate continued interest in
providing assistance to coal communities to meet a range of policy objectives. In recent years, in
response to the challenges noted above, core objectives of these policies have focused on the
overall diversification of regional economies and expansion of employment opportunities. Since
FY2014, executive actions or legislative actions authorized by Congress that have provided
assistance to coal communities include:
• targeted, place-based economic adjustment assistance71 grant funding for
economic diversification activities in coal communities (e.g., the EDA’s
Assistance to Coal Communities (ACC) Initiative, the ARC’s POWER
Initiative);

67 Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force, “Land Ownership Patterns and Their Impacts on Appalachian
Communities Final Report and an Addendum,” February 1981; Gaventa, John. “The Political Economy of Land
Tenure: Appalachia and the Southeast,” June 1995; Eban Goodstein, “Landownership, Development, and Poverty in
Southern Appalachia.” The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 23, no. 4, 1989; Partnership for Responsible Growth, and
National Wildlife Federation, “Coal Community Sourcebook: Local Experts, Issues and Ideas from Local Voices,”
October 1, 2020; Beth Spence et al., “Who Owns West Virginia?” West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy and the
American Friends Service Committee; YES! Magazine, “Citizens Begin Reclaiming Coal Country After Decades of
Corporate Land Grabs,” July 20, 2017.
68 U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, Ch. 7 Accelerating and Smoothing the Clean
Energy Transition, April 14, 2022, p. 241; and Linda Lobao et al., “Socioeconomic Transition in the Appalachia Coal
Region: Some Factors of Success,” October 25, 2021, Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
69 Michael R. Betz et al., “Coal Mining, Economic Development, and the Natural Resources Curse,” Energy
Economics, vol. 50 (2015), p. 115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.005.
70 Michael R. Betz et al., “Coal Mining, Economic Development, and the Natural Resources Curse,” Energy
Economics, vol. 50 (2015), pp. 105-116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.005; and Dan Black, Terra
McKinnish, and Seth Sanders, “The Economic Impact of the Coal Boom and Bust,” The Economic Journal, vol. 115,
iss. 503 (2005), pp. 449-476, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.00996.x.
71 GAO developed the following definition of economic adjustment: “Economic adjustment assistance programs and
tax expenditures are those whose primary purpose includes helping or preparing workers, businesses/firms, or
communities to adjust to economic disruption, where disruption is defined as significant changes in the economy that
reduce the demand for certain workers. Examples of these changes include, but are not limited to, U.S. or international
policy decisions related to trade, defense, or energy, and other economic forces that drive changes in immigration,
globalization, automation, or cause a prolonged cyclical downturn.” See GAO, Economic Adjustment Assistance,
GAO-19-85R, March 5, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697222.pdf. For a discussion of economic shocks,
conditions of ongoing economic distress, and economic resilience faced by urban regions, see Harold Wolman, Howard
Wial, Travis St. Clair, and Edward Hill, Coping with Adversity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017).
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 23 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

• tax credits to incentivize business investments in certain energy communities,
including coal communities (e.g., provisions in the IRA);72
• grants for mine land reclamation (e.g., the Department of the Interior’s
Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) program);
• assistance for dislocated workers, workforce training, education (e.g., aspects of
ARC’s POWER Initiative); and
• other initiatives and economic adjustment assistance, including interagency
working groups and legislation authorizing programs that are broadly available
for economic and business development purposes.
The following sections summarize the federal policies designed to assist coal communities with
revitalization, regional economic diversification, mine lands, and dislocated workers, as well as
other federal activities.73
Programs for Economic Diversification, Community Revitalization,
and Jobs
For almost a century, Congress has authorized place-based economic development programs,
many of which have been designed to assist economically distressed or socially disadvantaged
areas. Place-based policies provide assistance to designated geographic areas rather than focusing
assistance on individuals regardless of location.74
While many regions may experience economic difficulties, coal communities’ unique set of issues
may suggest they could benefit from place-based policies tailored to their needs. Since FY2014,
in response to the decline in coal sector activity, Congress has enacted place-based programs to
address the localized nature of economic and employment concerns in coal communities.75 Table

72 For additional information, see CRS Report R47202, Tax Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (H.R.
5376), coordinated by Molly F. Sherlock.
73 Francesca Diluiso et al., “Coal Transitions—Part 1: A Systematic Map and Review of Case Study Learnings from
Regional, National, and Local Coal Phase-Out Experiences,” 2021 Environmental Research Letters, October 21, 2021,
16, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1b58.
74 For additional information on place-based policies, see David Neumark and Helen Simpson, “Place-Based Policies,”
in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, eds. Giles Duranton, J. Vernon Henderson, and William Strange
(Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2015), pp. 1197-1287; and CRS In Focus IF12409, What Is Place-Based Economic
Development?, by Adam G. Levin.
Studies analyzing the effects of place-based policies have been mixed. See, for example, Adam Scavette, “How the
CHIPS and Science Act Will Target Economic Development in Distressed Labor Markets,” Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond, October 13, 2022, https://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_economy/regional_matters/2022/rm_
10_13_2022_chips_science_act, among others. To note, some researchers recommend targeted place-based strategies
for distressed communities. See Timothy J. Bartik, “Should Place-Based Jobs Policies Be Used to Help Distressed
Communities?” Upjohn Institute Working Paper, 19-308, (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2019), https://doi.org/10.17848/wp19-308.
75 As noted previously, in 2015, the Obama Administration launched the multi-agency federal Partnerships for
Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Plus Plan. In FY2014, Congress directed the EDA
to allocate funding to provide assistance for coal mining communities. The explanatory statement accompanying the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) noted,
The agreement includes House report language regarding efforts to assist communities impacted by
economic dislocation in the coal and timber industries. In addition, the agreement includes no less
than $3,000,000 to enhance regional business development in areas negatively impacted by the
downturn in the coal industry. Priority shall be given to those distressed counties whose coal
mining job losses since July 1, 2011, as determined by data compiled by the Department of Labor,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 23 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

1 summarizes selected economic development grant programs that have criteria specifically for
coal-impacted communities.76 The programs for community-level support generally include
grants and loans for planning, technical assistance, infrastructure, business development and
entrepreneurship, workforce development and re-employment opportunities, capacity building,
and other activities.77
Table 1. Selected Place-Based Economic Development Grant Programs with
Criteria for Coal Communities
FY2023
Funding
Agency, Program
Establishing Statute
Amount
Program Purpose
Appalachian Regional
Congress directs ARC (40 U.S.C.
$65 mil ion
Grants for community-
Commission (ARC),
§§14101-14704) to allocate a certain
level economic
Partnerships for
amount of funding to the POWER
development and
Opportunity and
Initiative in explanatory statements
economic
Workforce and
accompanying annual appropriations.
diversification in the
Economic Revitalization
In report language, funding to be set
ARC region.
(POWER) Initiative
aside is generally described as activities
“in support of the POWER+ Plan” or
“in support of the POWER Initiative.”
Economic Development
EDA administers ACC funding
$48 mil ion
Grants for community-
Administration (EDA),
primarily through its Economic
level economic
Assistance to Coal
Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program
development and
Communities
(42 U.S.C. §3149). Congress directs
economic
EDA to allocate a certain amount of
diversification.
funding to the ACC initiative in
explanatory statements accompanying
annual appropriations.

In FY2021, EDA allocated 10% ($300

mil ion) of the amount of supplemental
appropriations provided by American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA, P.L.
117-2) through the EAA for projects
that served coal communities (i.e., the
Coal Communities Commitment).
Department of the
Congress has provided funding for the
$135 mil ion
Reclaim abandoned
Interior, Office of
AML pilot program through annual
coal mining sites with
Surface Mining
appropriations from the General Fund
the intent to increase
Reclamation and
of the U.S. Treasury since FY2016.
economic and

Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Data Retrieval System, exceed the average for job
losses in the entire economy. Funds may be used for small business technical assistance, training
development programs, export assistance, and other related programs.
The report also directed the ARC allocate funding to “a program of high-speed broadband deployment in distressed
counties within the Central Appalachian region that have been most negatively impacted by the downturn in the coal
industry.” See Representative Hal Rogers, “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers, Chairman of the House
Committee on Appropriations Regarding the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 3547, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014,” Congressional Record, vol. 160, No. 9, (January 15, 2014), pp. H507 and H894,
https://www.congress.gov/113/crec/2014/01/15/160/9/CREC-2014-01-15-pt2-PgH475-2.pdf.
76 Select programs are noted in Table 1. For a directory of other funding opportunities, events, and resources for energy
communities, including coal communities, see energycommunities.gov.
77 Timothy Bartik, “Should Place-Based Jobs Policies Be Used to Help Distressed Communities?” Upjohn Institute
Working Paper, 19-308, (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2019), pp. 21-
25, https://doi.org/10.17848/wp19-308.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

FY2023
Funding
Agency, Program
Establishing Statute
Amount
Program Purpose
Enforcement (OSMRE),
community
Abandoned Mine Land
development to certain
Economic Revitalization
coal communities.
(AMLER) Program
Sources: Compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and with information from Appalachian Regional
Commission, https://www.arc.gov/; Economic Development Administration, https://www.eda.gov/ and
https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/american-rescue-plan/coal-communities-commitment; OSMRE, “AMLER,”
https://www.osmre.gov/programs/reclaiming-abandoned-mine-lands/amler; and IWG, “Revitalizing Energy
Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-
energy-communities-two-year-report.
Notes: For additional programs available to energy communities, see “Clearinghouse” at
https://energycommunities.gov. The programs listed in this table were selected for having specific criteria that
prioritize coal-impacted communities for economic development assistance grant funding. Other programs may
have eligibility criteria related to coal-impacted communities and focus on different policy objectives, such as
technology or research and development. For additional information, see CRS Report R46991, Economic
Development Administration: An Overview of Programs and Appropriations (FY2011-FY2023), by Julie M. Lawhorn, and
CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Other federal grant programs are broadly available to coal communities for economic
diversification and business development efforts, but may not prioritize or include specific
criteria for coal communities. For example, programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Rural Development support economic development projects in rural communities,
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers programs that
support community development initiatives in both rural and urban areas.78 Other programs may
be available to broader “energy communities,” such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services’ Community Economic Development Focus on Energy Communities initiative and the
Capacity Building for Repurposing Energy Assets initiative, which is administered by the DOE
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.79
Selected Business Development, Research and Development, and
Energy Infrastructure Programs
Policymakers occasionally authorize or amend programs designed to provide financial assistance
(e.g., grants, loan guarantees) for business development activities. These programs may support
specific activities such as research and development (R&D), the development of regional
entrepreneurial ecosystems, or the commercialization of new technology and innovative
processes or products. Some such programs encourage or require federal assistance to be directed
to specific geographic areas that may include energy communities.
Several bills enacted during the 117th Congress included provisions for grant and loan guarantee
programs that encouraged participation by coal communities or directed agencies to prioritize
activities or projects located in energy communities, including coal communities. Table 2
highlights selected programs authorized by P.L. 117-58 (the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA)), P.L. 117-167 (commonly known as the CHIPS and Science Act), and P.L. 117-169

78 For a guide to federal economic development resources, see CRS Report R46683, Federal Resources for State and
Local Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn. For a guide to resources for rural businesses, see CRS Report
R47438, Federal Credit Assistance and Grant Programs for Rural Businesses: In Brief, coordinated by Lisa S. Benson.
79 DOE, “Funding Notice: Capacity Building for Repurposing Energy Assets,” https://www.energy.gov/fecm/funding-
notice-capacity-building-repurposing-energy-assets.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

(the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022) that provide grants and loan guarantees for business
development and/or R&D activities in energy communities, including coal communities.
Table 2. Selected Business Development and R&D Programs for Energy
Communities, Including Coal Communities
Programs established or amended by P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-167, and P.L. 117-169
Establishing
Program Purpose and Connection to Energy or
Agency, Program
Statute
Coal Communities
Department of Energy
P.L. 117-58,
The grant program is designed to contribute to the
(DOE), Regional Direct Air (Infrastructure
development of a network of DAC projects, potential
Capture (DAC) Hubs
Investment and Jobs
carbon dioxide utilization off-takers, connective
Act (IIJA)), Division D, carbon dioxide transport infrastructure, subsurface
Title III, Subtitle A,
resources, and sequestration infrastructure located
Sec. 40308
within a region. The IIJA directed the Secretary of
Energy to locate two of the Regional DAC Hubs in
“economically distressed communities” with “high
levels of coal, oil, or natural gas resources.”a
DOE, Advanced Energy
P.L. 117-58, Division
The grant program is to provide grants for businesses
Manufacturing and
D, Title III, Subtitle A,
in census tracts in which a coal-fired electric
Recycling Grant Program
Sec. 40209
generating unit had been retired after December 31,
2009, a coal mine had been closed after December 31,
1999, or is immediately adjacent to such census
tracts.b
DOE, Clean Energy on
P.L. 117-58, Division
The grant program is designed for mine lands and
Mine Lands
D, Title III, Subtitle A,
energy communities to address climate impacts from
Sec. 40342
legacy energy infrastructure. The provision for Clean
Energy on Mine Lands provided $500 mil ion to a total
of five clean energy deployment projects on mine land
sites “with a reasonable expectation of commercial
viability.”c
DOE, Advanced Nuclear
P.L. 117-167
The program is designed to support R&D and
Technologies Federal
(commonly known as
demonstration of advanced nuclear reactors with
Research, Development,
the CHIPS and
priority criteria provided for projects involving former
and Demonstration
Science Act), Title VI,
fossil fuel generating sites or communities.d
Program
Subtitle P, Sec. 10781
DOE, Carbon Materials
P.L. 117-167, Division
The program is designed to support research on
Research Initiative
B, Title I, Sec.
utilizing coal and coal waste for the production of
10102(e)
material products. P.L. 117-167 also directs the
Director of the Office of Science to establish one
research center in each of the two major coal-
producing regions.
Economic Development
P.L. 117-167, Division
The grant program is a place-based, technology-
Administration (EDA),
B, Title VI, Subtitle
focused initiative, designed to facilitate economic
Regional Innovation and
C, Sec. 10621
growth, create jobs, and contribute to national
Technology Hubs (Tech
competitiveness and innovation capacity. The law
Hubs)
requires the designation of at least 20 geographically
distributed tech hubs in areas that are currently not
leading technology centers. The law also directed the
Secretary of Commerce to encourage “proposals
from eligible consortia that would significantly benefit
an area or region whose economy significantly relies
on or has recently relied on coal, oil, or natural gas
production or development.”
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 26 link to page 27 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Establishing
Program Purpose and Connection to Energy or
Agency, Program
Statute
Coal Communities
DOE, Energy
P.L. 117-169 (Inflation
DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) administers the
Infrastructure
Reduction Act, (IRA),
Title XVII Clean Energy Financing Program under the
Reinvestment (EIR) Loan
Title V, Section
authority created in Title XVII of P.L. 109-58, the
Guarantee
50144) amended P.L.
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under Title XVII authority,
109-58 (the Energy
the LPO administers several loan guarantees that
Policy Act of 2005) to
support clean energy deployment and energy
establish the new
infrastructure reinvestment projects.
Energy Infrastructure
According to DOE guidance, the new EIR authority
Reinvestment (EIR,
expands LPO’s mission under Title XVII to repurpose
Section 1706) loan
or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased
guarantee under Title
operations or those “that continue to operate but
XVII
could benefit from [greenhouse gas] GHG or
pol ution-reducing improvements.”e
Certain power plants (which could include either
operating or retired coal power plants), fossil fuel
extraction sites, transmission systems, fossil fuel
pipelines, refineries, or other energy facilities that
meet program requirements may be eligible for the
EIR loan guarantee. Congress authorized a $250
bil ion lending limit for the EIR loan guarantee
program, and appropriated $5 bil ion to pay for the
costs of these guarantees. This program is time
limited; authorities and appropriations are available
through the end of FY2026.g
Source: Compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and with information from IWG, “Revitalizing Energy
Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-
energy-communities-two-year-report.
Notes: For additional programs available to energy communities, see “Clearinghouse” at
https://energycommunities.gov. For additional programs that may be “well suited” to energy communities, see
IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report. The programs listed in this
table were selected for having specific criteria that prioritizes energy communities broadly, which may include
coal communities. Tax credit policies are not included.
a. For more information, see CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), which notes that “Division J, Title III, appropriates a total of $3.5 bil ion for the
period of FY2022-FY2026” for Regional DAC Hubs.
b. For more information and to view an interactive map that identifies eligibility for the program, see DOE,
“Advanced Energy Manufacturing and Recycling Grant Program,” https://www.energy.gov/mesc/advanced-
energy-manufacturing-and-recycling-grants. DOE provides a mapping tool showing “Energy Communities
Directly Impacted by Coal Closures 2000 / 2010 or Later” at https://arcgis.netl.doe.gov/portal/apps/
experiencebuilder/experience/?id=09457c326145417595287951ed376a29.
c. The program wil be administered by DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. For more information,
see CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-
58), coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci.
d. See also CRS Report R45706, Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview and Current Issues, by Mark
Holt, Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview and Current Issues.
e. DOE, “Program Guidance for Title 17 Clean Energy Financing Program,” May 19, 2023, pp. 6, 25,
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/program-guidance-title-17-clean-energy-program.
f.
The DOE’s program guidance further notes that the EIR loan guarantee authority may involve projects that
“support reinvestment in communities throughout the United States where existing Energy Infrastructure
has been challenged by market forces, resource depletion, age, technology advancements, or the broader
energy transition. This infrastructure might include power plants, fossil fuel extraction sites, transmission
systems, fossil fuel pipelines, refineries, or other energy facilities that have ceased to operate or that
continue to operate but could benefit from GHG or pol ution reducing improvements. These energy assets
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 7 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 28 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

have often served as economic backbones for local communities for decades and can continue to do so,
with targeted investment and economic development support. Redeveloping energy infrastructure typically
comes with valuable benefits to new industry, including reuse of existing infrastructure assets, ready access
to roads, rails and other means of transportation, existing grid connections, and water access, as wel as
additional use permits. In addition, these areas are often home to a workforce that is well suited to building
and operating complex energy infrastructure.” DOE, “Program Guidance for Title 17 Clean Energy
Financing Program,” May 19, 2023, p. 25, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/program-guidance-title-17-
clean-energy-program.
g. For a summary of other Title XVII loan guarantee programs, see CRS Insight IN11984, Inflation Reduction Act
of 2022 (IRA): Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Programs, by Phil ip Brown; and CRS Insight IN11432,
Department of Energy Loan Programs: Title XVII Innovative Technology Loan Guarantees, by Phil ip Brown et al.
Tax Credit Policies for Businesses in Coal Communities
For decades, Congress has authorized tax credit policies to encourage private business investment
in targeted business activities (e.g., R&D), geographic areas (e.g., Opportunity Zones), or to meet
specific policy objectives (e.g., trade). Federal tax credit policies may also be designed to
incentivize economic development objectives (e.g., policies to encourage investment in distressed
regions or to increase firm-level and entrepreneurial activity around the country).
Congress has also authorized tax credit policies to incentivize investment in defined energy
communities, some of which may identify as coal communities. P.L. 117-169, the Inflation
Reduction Act, for example, provided bonus tax credits for certain projects located in “energy
communities” (see “Identifying Coal Communities” for the definition of energy communities in
the IRA).80 As noted, the IRA also authorized the Advanced Energy Project Credit, which
provides a competitively awarded tax credit that includes a set-aside for “projects in areas that
have seen the closure of a coal mine or retirement of a coal-fired electric generating unit.”81 Table
3 summarizes selected community tax credit policies established, modified, or amended by the
IRA. Table 3 also highlights tax credit policies that include criteria for energy communities,
which includes many coal communities.
Table 3. Selected Community Tax Credit Policies in P.L. 117-169
Policies established, modified, or amended by P.L. 117-169 with criteria for energy communities
Program
Establishing Statute
Tax Credit Structure
Advanced Energy Project Credit 26 U.S.C. §48Ca
Provides $10 bil ion in allocations of a tax
(program extension)
(As amended by P.L. 117-169, credit for qualifying investments in advanced
Sec. 13501)
energy projects, with at least $4 bil ion for
energy communities.
Investment Tax Credit for
26 U.S.C. §48
The policy provides an ITC for qualifying
Energy Property (ITC) (special
(Program modified and
facilities that generate clean electricity that
rule for qualified facilities
extended by P.L. 117-169,
begin construction prior to January 1, 2025.
located in energy communities)
Sec. 13102)
The credit is increased by 2 percentage
points if the project is in an energy
community or 10 percentage points for

80 P.L. 117-169, Secs. 13101 and 13702, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf#page=
170; and Internal Revenue Code §45(b)(11)(B).
81 P.L. 117-169, Sec. 13501, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf#page=152; and
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Fact-Sheet-IRA-Equitable-Clean-Energy-Economy.pdf. See also IRS,
“Advanced Energy Project Credit,” https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/businesses/advanced-energy-project-credit.
To access the DOE’s 48C mapping tool, see https://arcgis.netl.doe.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=
a44704679a4f44a5aac122324eb00914&page=home.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 14 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Program
Establishing Statute
Tax Credit Structure
facilities that pay prevailing wages and meet
registered apprenticeship requirements.
Production Tax Credit (PTC)
26 U.S.C. §45
The policy provides a PTC to produce clean
for Electricity from Renewables
(Program modified and
electricity for facilities that begin construction
(special rule for projects located extended by P.L. 117-169,
before January 1, 2025. The credit is
in energy communities)
Sec. 13101)
increased by up to 10% if the project is in an
energy community.
Clean Electricity ITC (special
26 U.S.C. §48E
The policy provides an ITC for qualifying
rule for qualified facilities
(Established by P.L. 117-169,
facilities that generate clean electricity that
located in energy communities)
Sec. 13702)
are placed in service after December 31,
2024. The credit is increased by up to 2
percentage points if the project is in an
energy community or 10 percentage points
for facilities that pay prevailing wages and
meet registered apprenticeship requirements.
Clean Electricity Production Tax 26 U.S.C. §45Y
The policy provides a PTC to produce clean
Credit (PTC) (special rule for
(Established by P.L. 117-169,
electricity at facilities placed in service after
projects located in energy
Sec. 13701)
December 31, 2024. The credit is increased
communities)
by 10% if the project is in an energy
community.
Source: IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report; “Energy Community Tax Credit
Bonus,” https://energycommunities.gov/energy-community-tax-credit-bonus; and “Energy Community Tax Credit
Bonus FAQs,” https://energycommunities.gov/energy-community-tax-credit-bonus-faqs.
Notes: The tax credit policies in this table feature criteria for projects located in energy communities, which
generally include many coal communities. P.L. 117-169 provides the statutory definition of “energy communities”
(https://www.congress.gov/117/bil s/hr5376/BILLS-117hr5376enr.pdf#page=95). For a summary of other tax
provisions in the IRA (P.L. 117-169), see CRS Report R47202, Tax Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
(H.R. 5376), coordinated by Mol y F. Sherlock. For a directory of other tax credit policies and other assistance
programs for energy communities, see “Clearinghouse” at https://energycommunities.gov.
a. The DOE provides a 48C Designated Energy Communities Mapping Tool that “displays census tracts that
are considered energy communities for the purposes of the 48C tax credit.” See https://arcgis.netl.doe.gov/
portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=a44704679a4f44a5aac122324eb00914&page=home. The 48C
Designated Energy Communities Mapping Tool is separate from the IRA Energy Community Tax Credit
Bonus Mapping Tool (see Figure 3).
Federal Assistance for Mine Land Reclamation for Economic and
Community Development
Congress has considered whether the reclamation of abandoned coal mining sites could spur
economic and community development for communities affected by the decline of coal
production and associated tax revenues.
Enacted in 1977, Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA; P.L. 95-
87) established the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program to address public health, safety, and
environmental hazards at these legacy abandoned coal mining sites.82 The Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund (AMRF), established under Title IV of SMCRA, provides funding to eligible
states and tribes for the reclamation of surface mining impacts associated with historical mining

82 30 U.S.C. §§1231-1244.
Congressional Research Service

24

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

of coal.83 The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), within the
Department of the Interior, administers grants from the AMRF to eligible states and tribes to
reclaim affected lands and waters resulting from coal mining sites abandoned or otherwise left
unreclaimed prior to SMCRA’s enactment. Fees collected on coal mining operators in coal-
producing states, deposited into the AMRF are the source for grants to eligible states for the
reclamation of AML sites.84 Under Title IV of SMCRA, the objective of reclamation is to restore
lands or waters adversely affected by past coal mining to a condition that would mitigate potential
hazards to public health, safety, and the environment.
In more recent years, Congress has established other programs in addition to the AML program
under Title IV of SMCRA that are intended to reclaim abandoned coal mining sites to increase
economic and community development in certain coal communities or former coal industry
workers. Those programs, discussed below, include the Abandoned Mine Land Economic
Revitalization (AMLER) program and funding provided under Section 40701 of the IIJA.85
Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program
Congress provides funding for the AMLER program for the reclamation of abandoned coal
mining sites to facilitate economic and community development. Beginning in the 114th Congress
and continuing through the 117th Congress, versions of the Revitalizing the Economy of Coal
Communities by Leveraging Local Activities and Investing More (RECLAIM) Act were
introduced in both the House and the Senate but not enacted. These bills would have authorized
$1 billion over five years from the existing unappropriated balance of the AMRF to facilitate
economic and community development in states and tribes with eligible reclamation programs
under Title IV of SMCRA.86
In the FY2016 President’s budget request, the Obama Administration included a similar
legislative proposal to provide $1 billion, in equal amounts over a five-year period, of the
unappropriated balance of the AMRF to “use for the reclamation of abandoned coal mine land
sites and associated polluted waters in a manner that promotes sustainable redevelopment in
economically distressed coal country communities.”87
Beginning in FY2016, Congress took a more limited approach to provide funding for a pilot
project similar in scope and purpose to versions of the RECLAIM Act and the administration’s
proposal that could inform future policy decisions regarding authorizing additional funds towards
these purposes. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, authorized the AML Pilot Program to
provide grants to eligible states and tribes and provided $90 million in annual appropriations from
the General Fund for FY2016 for this program.88
Congress has directed that funding for the AML pilot program be distributed to the six
Appalachian states with the largest unfunded reclamation needs and three eligible tribes under

83 See CRS Report R46266, The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund: Reauthorization Issues in the 116th Congress, by
Lance N. Larson.
84 30 U.S.C. §1232.
85 30 U.S.C. §1231a.
86 In the 114th Congress: H.R. 4456 and S. 3532. In the 115th Congress: H.R. 1731 and S. 728. In the 116th Congress:
H.R. 2156 and S. 1232. In the 117th Congress: H.R. 1733 and S. 1455.
87 The President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 2016, Investing in Coal Communities, Workers, and Technology: The Power+
Plan, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/fact_sheets/investing-in-coal-
communities-workers-and-technology-the-power-plan.pdf.
88 P.L. 114-133, Division G, Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016.
Congressional Research Service

25

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

SMCRA.89 Congress limited eligibility for these funds to AML projects located in ARC counties,
where the project would have the potential to facilitate economic or community development.
Congress used the existing framework of Title IV of SMCRA as the requirements for AML sites
to be reclaimed under the AML pilot program.
Since FY2016, Congress has continued to provide funding for the AML pilot program, which is
now referred to as the AMLER program.90 According to OSMRE’s FY2024 budget justification,
Congress has provided annual appropriations for this program totaling $750 million between
FY2016 and FY2022.91 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, provided $135 million for
the AMLER Program,92 and the President’s FY2024 budget requested $135 million.93
Whether these funds have achieved the intended purpose of reclaiming abandoned coal sites to
facilitate economic and community development presents an oversight consideration for
Congress. OSMRE guidance requires AMLER states and tribes to demonstrate the AML project’s
economic and community development nexus “in different ways depending on whether the
proposed project is intended to: (1) incorporate economic and community development related
activities as part of the project itself (Category A projects), or (2) primarily involve reclamation
activities that create the conditions for future economic and community development that occurs
post-reclamation (Category B projects).”94 OSMRE guidance urges AMLER-eligible states and
tribes to track and report as many economic and environmental performance measures as
practical, including examples of:95
• Jobs created (beyond those jobs necessary to conduct reclamation);
• Businesses created or served;
• Infrastructure created (impact could be measured by the linear feet, acreage,
square feet, or other unit of measure for the expected amount of water, sewer,
utility, or other form of infrastructure installed, constructed, or repaired);
• Revenues increased (export or domestic sales);
• Patients served;
• Participants served;
• Organizations served;
• Increased, enhanced, or restored infrastructure system capacity (includes energy
capacity, broadband accessibility);
• Communities served;
• Households served;

89 OSMRE provides information about eligible states that have received funding by fiscal year; see OSMRE,
Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program, https://www.osmre.gov/programs/reclaiming-
abandoned-mine-lands/amler. The three tribes are the Crow Tribe, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation.
90 See OSMRE, Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program, https://www.osmre.gov/programs/
reclaiming-abandoned-mine-lands/amler.
91 U.S. Department of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2024, p. 33,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-osmre-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf.
92 P.L. 117-328.
93 OSMRE, Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2024, p. 22.
94 OSMRE, Guidance for Project Eligibility Under the Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program for
Fiscal Year 2023, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/AMLER-Project-Eligiblity-Guidance-2023.pdf.
95 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

26

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

• Reclamation achieved (e.g., acres reclaimed, waters improved, improved
revegetation, methane reduced, etc.);
• Housing units constructed or rehabilitated;
• New or existing workers or students served;
• Number of visitors (overnight and daytime); and
• Quantifiable recreational opportunities created.
OSMRE’s most recent program implementation and status report for FY2016-FY2019 stated that,
as of November 30, 2019, “121 of the 134 reviewed projects are currently active and are moving
forward in their use of AML Pilot funds.”96 Additionally, that report stated “the 13 remaining
projects have been tabled by the state or project applicant for various reasons (e.g., to secure
additional funds, pending negotiations with partners, or withdrawn application).” To date,
OSMRE has not issued similar reports for projects funded in recent years. Those more recent
projects may be ongoing and at various stages of the reclamation process.
AML Funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
With the enactment of the IIJA, Congress reauthorized the coal reclamation fee under Section 402
of SMCRA through FY2034 and decreased fee rates from prior law by 20% for underground and
surface mining and for lignite coal.97 SMCRA authorizes OSMRE to collect these coal fees from
coal mining operators, based on coal production, and credit the fees to the AMRF. SMCRA
directs these coal fees to be distributed annually as grants to eligible states to support the
reclamation of abandoned coal mining sites within their respective jurisdictions.98
Additionally, the IIJA provided $11.293 billion in emergency appropriations to the AMRF.99
Congress authorized the use of the $11.293 billion to provide grants to eligible states and tribes,
in equivalent amounts over a 15-year period, based on relative percent of coal production prior to
1977.100 Provisions in the IIJA limit the use of grants from the $11.293 billion to eligible states
and tribes for the reclamation of abandoned coal mining sites under Section 403(a), Section
403(b), and emergency projects under Section 410 of SMCRA.
In addition to the priorities in Section 403 of SMCRA, the IIJA authorizes states and tribes to
consider AML projects that may provide employment to former workers of the coal industry.101
This provision is unique to AML projects authorized by the IIJA, as Congress had directed
prioritization of AML projects authorized under SMCRA by public health and safety and natural
resources.102 According to OSMRE’s guidance for implementing the AML provisions in the IIJA,
measures to implement these priorities include: (1) requiring contractors to affirm they will
give preference to miners in any hiring for BIL-funded AML projects; (2) requiring
contractors to report on the extent to which miners have been employed in any AML work

96 See OSMRE, Report on Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Economic Development Pilot Program (AML Pilot
Program) for FY 2016 – FY 2019), December 18, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_2019_
Annual_Report_AML_Economic_Development_Pilot_Program.pdf.
97 For more information on AML provisions in the IIJA, see CRS In Focus IF11352, The Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund: Issues and Legislation in the 117th Congress, by Lance N. Larson.
98 See CRS Report R46266, The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund: Reauthorization Issues in the 116th Congress, by
Lance N. Larson.
99 P.L. 117-58, Division J.
100 30 U.S.C. §1231a.
101 30 U.S.C. §1231a(f).
102 30 U.S.C. §1233.
Congressional Research Service

27

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

the contractors perform; (3) requiring contractors to retain data that can substantiate the
reported information; and (4) providing to OSMRE the information reported by the
contractors as part of the State or Tribe’s regular AML reporting processes.103
Additionally, OSMRE guidance encourages states and tribes to engage with labor or workforce
development organizations that represent current or former coal industry employees to identify
potential candidates.
Workforce Development Programs (Job Training and Education)
Congress has authorized a range of programs to support labor-market relevant human capital
development. In some cases, programs support individuals in developing the skills with the
express purpose of obtaining employment.104 In other cases, federal support of higher education
may not be primarily considered a direct workforce investment, though the relationship between
higher education and positive labor market outcomes is well-documented.105
Compared to the federal policies noted previously for targeted community assistance—and with
few exceptions—most federal workforce development programs are authorized to meet a range of
human capital concerns and are not specific to coal communities or coal workers. The primary
federal support for skill development is accessed through permanent federal systems with a
nationwide footprint. For example:
• The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) supports state systems
and funding streams that state and local workforce development boards can use
for career services and training that align with local labor market needs. While
these programs are not typically targeted to communities with specific
characteristics (e.g., coal communities), some of the characteristics of these
communities (e.g., high unemployment) may make some resources more
accessible. For example, formula funds under the WIOA Dislocated Worker
program are partially allocated to states with higher unemployment or larger
shares of long-term unemployed.106
• The WIOA also authorizes National Dislocated Worker Grants, which is
competitive funding to support workers in states and local areas experiencing
disasters, emergencies, or “major economic dislocations.”107 In some cases,
appropriations language or DOL under its administrative authority has targeted
this funding with a broader statutory authorization to specific areas or areas
experiencing specific hardships. For example, a portion of FY2016 funding for

103 OSMRE, Guidance on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Abandoned Mine Land Grant Implementation,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/bil-aml-guidance.pdf.
104 A 2019 analysis from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 44 federal “employment and
training” programs that “help job seekers enhance their job skills, identify job opportunities, and obtain employment.”
See GAO-19-200, Employment and Training Programs: Department of Labor Should Assess Efforts to Coordinate
Services Across Programs, March 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-200.
105 See, for example, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Education Pays, 2021,” https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/
2022/data-on-display/education-pays.htm. For a more nuanced discussion of the relationship between educational
attainment and employers’ education requirements, see CRS Report R47059, Skills Gaps: A Review of Underlying
Concepts and Evidence, by Sarah A. Donovan et al..
106 For more information on WIOA, associated systems, and how funds are allotted, see CRS Report R44252, The
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the One-Stop Delivery System, by Benjamin Collins and David H.
Bradley.
107 See WIOA Section 170 for statutory authorization. For more details on eligibility and the application process, see
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/dislocated-workers/grants.
Congressional Research Service

28

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

National Dislocated Worker Grants was targeted to communities adversely
affected by coal economy contractions as a component of the multi-agency
POWER initiative (see the text box, above, on “POWER Initiative for Coal
Communities”).108
• The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes a system of federal student aid that
makes portable aid available to individual students that can be used at eligible
institutions for eligible degree and certificate programs. While most student aid
programs are not targeted on the basis of community characteristics, students
with fewer financial resources may qualify for larger amounts of need-based aid
(e.g., Pell Grants). Eligibility for need-based aid is determined by information
provided on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and program-
specific details.109
• A number of programs target employment-related assistance to individuals on the
basis of individual characteristics. For example, various programs can support
employment-related services for individuals with disabilities and veterans.110
In some cases, workforce development is an allowable use of federal resources with broader
objectives, often relating to industrial policy or economic development.111 Cataloging training
efforts associated with these funds can be challenging due to their integration with other
activities.112
Other Federal Activities
In addition to the financial assistance programs noted above, federal involvement in the economic
diversification of coal communities may include the coordination of existing resources and
partners. In January 2021, the Biden Administration established the Interagency Working Group
on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization to facilitate economic
revitalization in coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities and to support workers. The IWG
leads workshops, stakeholder engagement, and capacity-building activities to support state and
local transition efforts, and carries out resource identification, analysis, and interagency

108 For more information on National Dislocated Worker Grant funding associated with POWER, see DOL Training
and Employment Guidance Letter 09-16, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2016/TEGL_9-
16_Acc.pdf. For information on specific grantees, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dcmwc/powergrants.
109 For more information on the HEA and associated programs, see CRS Report R43351, The Higher Education Act
(HEA): A Primer, by Joselynn H. Fountain. For information on forthcoming changes to the FAFSA and the Pell Grant
program, see CRS Report R46909, The FAFSA Simplification Act, by Benjamin Collins and Cassandria Dortch.
110 For example, the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program provides employment-related services to workers
with disabilities, and the G.I. Bill can support higher education for former members of the Armed Forces. See CRS
Report R43855, Rehabilitation Act: Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, by Benjamin Collins; and CRS Report
R42785, Veterans’ Educational Assistance Programs and Benefits: A Primer, by Cassandria Dortch.
111 For example, among laws enacted in the 117th Congress, there were potential workforce development components in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58), the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167), and the
Inflation Reduction Act (P.L. 117-169). The National Governors Association cataloged elements of these laws that
could potentially support workforce activities at https://www.nga.org/publications/workforce-development-in-the-iija-
chips-and-ira/.
112 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) occasionally conducts reviews that define and identify employment
and training programs across the federal government. The most recent was published in 2019; see GAO, Employment
and Training Programs: Department of Labor Should Assess Efforts to Coordinate Services Across Programs, GAO-
19-200, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-200.
Congressional Research Service

29

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

coordination activities.113 For example, in order to provide direct technical assistance on federal
grants, the IWG created Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) in coal and fossil energy communities
that connect local stakeholders with federal resources and agency representatives.114
Federal agencies and federal regional commissions also directly provide or facilitate technical
assistance to stakeholders in coal communities. Technical assistance may include agency efforts
to connect stakeholders from different coal-impacted areas with communities experiencing
similar issues. For example:
• EDA funding supports non-governmental partners that provide targeted technical
assistance to coal-impacted communities through the Building Resilient
Economies in Coal Communities (BRECC) Initiative. BRECC activities include
a peer network, education, outreach, and other efforts designed to assist coal
communities with economic diversification and revitalization strategies.115
• ARC convenes POWER grantees and other partners for peer learning and
provides other technical assistance to coal communities in the Appalachian
region.116
Policy Considerations
Since FY2014, Congress has supported policies designed to address economic diversification,
environmental challenges, and workforce and business development in coal communities. Should
Congress continue to support programs to assist coal communities, policymakers may seek to
review the roles of federal, state, and private assistance as well as the type and scale of assistance
provided. Congress may also be interested in reviewing if—or how—federal assistance programs
align with policy objectives as well as how they are structured, accessed, overseen, evaluated, and
financed.
Role of Federal Assistance
Federal assistance for economically distressed coal communities generally reflects policy
objectives related to reducing regional economic disparities, expanding tax bases, increasing
individual or community wealth, and improving job opportunities and quality of life measures.
Federal assistance for coal communities also reflects the belief by some that support for these
areas provides a means of shoring up the national economy.117 Some analysts also view economic

113 The IWG’s website features a clearinghouse of over 160 federal funding opportunities and is searchable by agency,
funding type (e.g., grants, incentives, loans), applicant type, and activity. For funding opportunities, events, and
resources, see https://energycommunities.gov. For additional information on the IWG, see CRS In Focus IF12238,
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, by Julie M.
Lawhorn.
114 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report.
115 EDA, “Building Resilient Economies in Coal Communities,” https://www.eda.gov/strategic-initiatives/
communities-of-practice/building-resilient-economies-in-coal-communities-initiative.
116 ARC, “POWER Initiative Evaluation: The POWER of Change,” Chamberlin Dunn, LLC, commissioned by ARC,
September 16, 2021, p. 43, https://www.arc.gov/report/power-initiative-evaluation-the-power-of-change.
117 Testimony by Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, Hearing on “Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request for
the Department of Commerce,” April 18, 2023; and Testimony of Timothy J. Bartik, U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth, Hearing on “Bringing Prosperity to Left-Behind
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 15 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

transitions, and energy transitions in particular, as processes to be managed proactively and with
federal support, so as to minimize social division, economic disruption, and overall community
resistance to structural and policy changes.118 They note that the geographic concentration of the
coal industry, the lack of diversified regional economies, and barriers to worker mobility warrant
federal and state policy intervention—in addition to support from the private sector.119 Others
view federal assistance as a responsibility—of government and other stakeholders—to address
the past contributions of communities and workers towards the growth of the country through
energy-related activities. Some of these sentiments reflect an interest in providing support to
regions and stakeholders based on their prior contributions to the nation’s economic growth.120
Analysts observe that Congress has previously provided targeted economic assistance for
communities and workers impacted by changes associated with federal policies, such as trade
(i.e., trade adjustment assistance programs for workers, firms, and communities121) and military
base closures and realignments122 (i.e., place-based, economic adjustment assistance programs
administered by the Department of Defense Office of Local Defense Community
Cooperation123).124
Conversely, for others, federal assistance for local economic development in coal communities—
could be limited, in favor of private sector and/or state and local support, or for direct assistance
to individuals regardless of where they live. As Congress continues to debate matters related to
federal spending, policymakers may opt to limit support for various programs, including
economic development assistance overall and economic development assistance to distressed
areas and coal communities. In response to proposals that would limit or reduce federal
involvement, some researchers note that many coal communities are in persistently economically

Communities: Using Targeted Place-Based Development to Expand Economic Opportunity,” May 11, 2022, p. 10,
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114724/witnesses/HHRG-117-EF00-Wstate-BartikT-20220511.pdf.
118 Michaël Aklin and Johannes Urpelainen, “Enable a Just Transition for American Fossil Fuel Workers Through
Federal Action,” The Brookings Institution, August 2, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/enable-a-just-
transition-for-american-fossil-fuel-workers-through-federal-action.
119 Ibid.
120 In January 2021, the Biden Administration—a year before the enactment of new climate and energy policies—
linked the role of mining and power plant workers in contributing to national economic growth, and called for
expanded federal coordination to foster “economic revitalization of and investment in these communities, ensure the
creation of good jobs that provide a choice to join a union, and secure the benefits that have been earned by workers.”
See E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 Federal Register 7619, February 1, 2021. For a
review of the Biden Administration’s approach to federal assistance to fossil fuel communities, see U.S. Council of
Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, Ch. 7 Accelerating and Smoothing the Clean Energy
Transition, April 14, 2022, pp. 240-249, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ERP-2022.pdf.
121 While the majority of policies discussed in this report are place-based, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers
is considered a people-based policy. For additional information on trade adjustment assistance programs, see CRS In
Focus IF12430, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, by Kyla H. Kitamura; CRS Report R47200, Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Workers: Background and Current Status, by Benjamin Collins; and CRS Report R40863, Trade
Adjustment Assistance for Communities: The Law and Its Implementation, by Eugene Boyd and Cassandria Dortch.
122 Congress has approved five rounds of military base realignments and closures under the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process: in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. For information on BRAC, see CRS Report R45705,
Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC): Background and Issues for Congress, by Christopher T. Mann.
123 See Department of Defense Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation, “Program Overview,”
https://oldcc.gov/program-overview.
124 U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President, Ch. 7 Accelerating and Smoothing the
Clean Energy Transition, April 14, 2022, p. 242, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ERP-
2022.pdf.
As noted in “Trends in U.S. Coal Production and Employment,” the impact of changes in coal production on
communities and workers is generally attributed to a combination of various factors including federal policy, as well as
technology, automation, industry trends (e.g., natural gas competition), and other factors.
Congressional Research Service

31

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

distressed places that do not have the fiscal resources to implement expanded economic and
workforce development programs. They contend that the federal government possesses the
capacity to coordinate and deploy redevelopment resources at a scale that is larger than that of
states or other authorities.125
Structure, Coordination, and Integration Considerations
Congress may consider options to structure federal programs as community-led (i.e., bottom-up),
nationally-coordinated, or through a combination of these approaches to deploy assistance. With a
bottom-up approach, federal programs generally assist with locally developed projects to advance
industries or strategies based on a region’s particular assets and challenges; the federal agencies’
role in planning and implementing state and local projects is limited. The existing federal grant
programs for coal communities generally use a community-led approach (e.g., EDA’s ACC
initiative, ARC’s POWER Initiative).126
Some observers and agencies note that existing programs are decentralized, and coal communities
apply separately to multiple agencies for assistance.127 Some outside groups have called for a
more centralized approach through a federal office for transition assistance that could oversee a
holistic, long-term strategy and serve in a coordination role among agencies and different levels
of government.128 Some also view a more nationally-coordinated approach as a way to provide
assistance designed to transition communities towards the development of a specific industry,
policy goal, or economic restructuring scenario (e.g., innovation, technology, healthcare, clean
energy industries, decarbonized economies).
A combination of these approaches may involve some degree of federal coordination and/or
expanded interagency collaboration. A combination approach may also involve assistance that is
provided for specific industries, strategies, or policy goals, but continues to be deployed using
community-led processes, engagement, and representation from coal community stakeholders.
Congress may consider options to provide assistance through one or more different types of
policy vehicles, including tax credits, place-based grant and loan programs, or a combination of
these or others. Each type of assistance involves budgetary considerations and limitations.129 Each

125 For an example of this perspective, see Michaël Aklin and Johannes Urpelainen, “Enable a Just Transition for
American Fossil Fuel Workers Through Federal Action,” The Brookings Institution, August 2, 2022,
https://www.brookings.edu/research/enable-a-just-transition-for-american-fossil-fuel-workers-through-federal-action;
and Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors
Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol. 151 (2021), p. 8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112112.
126 ARC and EDA describe their assistance programs as supporting “bottom-up strategies.” See, for example, ARC,
“Area Development Program,” https://www.arc.gov/area-development-program/; and EDA, “FY2024 Congressional
Budget Justification,” pp. 35, 56, https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/EDA-FY2024-Congressional-
Budget-Submission.pdf.
127 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, pp. 6-7,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report.
128 For examples of these perspectives and a review of regional economic transition studies, see Michaël Aklin and
Johannes Urpelainen, “Enable a Just Transition for American Fossil Fuel Workers Through Federal Action,” The
Brookings Institution, August 2, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/enable-a-just-transition-for-american-
fossil-fuel-workers-through-federal-action; Daniel Raimi et al., “Policy Options to Enable an Equitable Energy
Transition,” Resources for the Future, Report 21-09, pp. 47-48, https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF_Report_21-09_
Policy_Options_to_Enable_an_Equitable_Energy_Transition.pdf; and Sandeep Pai, Kathryn Harrison, and Hisham
Zerriffi, “A Systematic Review of the Key Elements of a Just Transition For Fossil Fuel Workers,” Clean Economy
Working Paper Series, Issue 4, April 2020, pp. 19-20.
129 For analysis of tax expenditures and spending programs, including discretionary grant programs, see CRS Report
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

32

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

policy tool is also designed to affect different stakeholders and aspects of regional economies. For
instance, tax credits may be designed to broadly incentivize certain private sector activities in
coal communities. Tax credit policies may be further refined to target even more specific
geographic areas, and/or they may include criteria to incentivize capital, labor, trade, R&D, or
other activities or outcomes.
Federal place-based grant and loan assistance programs, on the other hand, are based on the
premise that public support for strengthening a region’s existing assets may create conditions for
broad economic development (e.g., support for stable fiscal income, community amenities,
research institutions, broadband, workforce, education, and infrastructure).130 A potential benefit
to providing broad, place-based assistance is that such programs may be designed for multiple
stakeholders or a range of beneficiaries, rather than a targeted set of businesses or industries.131
The deployment of multiple policy instruments simultaneously may offer an approach to
assistance that may address the many different phases of economic transition and various types of
stakeholders and industry conditions.
Role of NonFederal Assistance: State and Private Support132
Outside groups have identified state government and private sector entities as sources of
additional assistance for economic diversification and worker training activities in coal
communities. Selected states, private utilities, and philanthropic organizations, for example,
provide grant funds to pay for economic development activities as well as grant writing
assistance, technical and feasibility studies, pre-development assistance, and other ways of
expanding the capacity of local and regional stakeholders.133 Universities and other institutions of
higher education also provide technical assistance, engagement, and planning services to coal
communities.134

R44530, Spending and Tax Expenditures: Distinctions and Major Programs, by Grant A. Driessen. For analysis of
federal grants, see CRS Report R40638, Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Historical Perspective on
Contemporary Issues, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
130 Timothy Bartik, “Bringing Jobs to People: Improving Local Economic Development Policies,” Upjohn Institute
Working Paper No. 2020-023 (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research), 2020; and Ben
Cahill and Sandeep Pai, “Working Toward a Just Transition for Coal Communities,” Center for Strategic and
International Studies, September 27, 2021, https://www.csis.org/analysis/working-toward-just-transition-coal-
communities.
131 An example of this type of assistance is the EDA’s ACC initiative, which provides flexible funding for a variety of
projects that may support economic diversification, job creation, capital investment, workforce development, and re-
employment opportunities for coal-impacted communities. Other EDA programs (e.g., Economic Adjustment
Assistance, Build Back Better Regional Challenge, Recompete Pilot) and programs administered by federal regional
commissions and authorities (e.g., Appalachian Regional Commission) also provide flexible forms of federal grant
assistance for community-led economic development projects in economically distressed areas.
132 The examples provided in this section are illustrative and do not represent a comprehensive review of nonfederal
policy options. For a perspective on expanded state policy options for distressed areas, see Timothy J. Bartik, “How
State Governments Can Help Distressed Places,” Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, August 4, 2022,
https://research.upjohn.org/empl_research/vol29/iss3/1/; among others.
133 State policies focusing on economic transitions in selected western states are summarized by Kelli F. Roemer and
Julia H. Haggerty in “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors Assessment,” Energy
Policy, vol. 151 (2021), pp. 6-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112112. See also, for examples of programs
administered by philanthropic organizations, the Coal Communities Get Ready! Challenge, funded by the Just
Transition Fund (https://justtransitionfund.org/get-ready-challenge) and the Utilities Grant Program, funded by three
Arizona utility companies (se https://tucson.com/business/tucson-electric-aps-srp-offer-1m-in-grants-to-coal-
communities/article_0b7aa202-e097-11ed-a049-eb9f8958311e.html).
134 See, for example, the Just Energy Transition Center at Arizona State University, https://globalfutures.asu.edu/
justenergy.
Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 18 link to page 18 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Researchers that track state economic transition policies in selected western states have observed
that state policy objectives and approaches vary. They note that some states have enacted policies
to support planning and diversification activities, while others have enacted policies for continued
coal operations.135 Additionally, as noted above, certain federal abandoned mine land reclamation
programs are funded by coal excise taxes on private sector firms to support remediation activities.
In recent years, legislation at the state and federal levels have proposed taxes on private
companies to fund remediation activities and to fund economic development initiatives in
anticipation of future energy market fluctuations and potential impacts on local and regional
economies.136 In light of emerging state energy transition policies, Congress may wish to review
how certain states have proposed or implemented strategies to fund economic diversification
activities or support continued industry activity.
Whether and How to Target Assistance for Coal Communities
Congress may be interested in reviewing whether to continue providing targeted assistance for
coal communities that is separate from—or in addition to—assistance designed for other
communities or types of economic shocks. Some researchers and policymakers point to location-
specific conditions that may warrant additional assistance for coal communities (see “Economic
Diversification and Employment in Coal Communities” for examples of such conditions).
Conversely, Congress may provide assistance for coal communities through programs that assist
communities impacted by any type of shock or event—regardless of sector or location. For
example, the Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (Recompete Pilot Program) was recently
authorized to provide long-term comprehensive economic development grants to areas with
persistent gaps in prime age employment. Certain coal communities may be eligible for the
Recompete Pilot Program, but the program is not designed to serve only coal communities.137
Congress could also consider how coal communities may qualify for support through more
general programs that target individuals and areas on the basis of more general economic
disadvantage. If coal communities have larger shares of low-income individuals or higher
unemployment, they may receive higher levels of support from programs that target those more
general criteria.138 One advantage of supporting coal communities through these broader
mechanisms is they are based on established systems and eligibility requirements.
If Congress continues to provide targeted assistance to coal communities, it may consider options
to direct resources and activities through statutory program definitions of coal communities or
through other requirements. In defining coal communities, Congress may expand or narrow the
definitions of eligible communities or provide agencies with discretion to develop definitions or

135 Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors
Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol. 151 (2021), pp. 6-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112112.
136 For examples of state policies for severance taxes and trust funds (in the context of oil and gas communities), see
Devashree Saha and Mark Muro, “Permanent Trust Funds: Funding Economic Change with Fracking Revenues,”
Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution, April 2016, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2016/07/Permanent-Trust-Funds-Saha-Muro-418-1.pdf.
For an example of federal legislation, see H.R. 4799 (117th Congress). H.R. 4799 proposed to use a portion of royalties
on coal leases to fund economic revitalization and workforce development grants.
137 15 U.S.C. 3722b. For more information, see EDA, “Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (Recompete Pilot
Program),” https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/recompete-pilot-program.
138 For example, federal student aid, which supports individuals in pursuit of higher education, is largely awarded on
the basis of need. Funding for workforce development programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
is award via a formula that considers unemployment-related factors.
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 24 link to page 24 Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

designations.139 For other approaches to targeted assistance, Congress could consider establishing
statutory requirements that a certain number of projects or amounts of funding are provided to
coal (or other) communities (see examples in “Selected Business Development, Research and
Development, and Energy Infrastructure Programs”).
Small, Rural, or Underserved Communities and Capacity
Considerations
Across various forms of assistance, experts note that small, rural, or underserved communities
may face barriers to planning for economic diversification, supplying required matching funds,
and accessing and applying for federal programs.140 Researchers note that certain communities
are challenged by limited local capacity for public engagement and economic development
planning following the closure of coal fired generation plants.141 Some note that rural and
underserved areas—in facing declining tax revenues—also lack alternative funding streams to
“directly address the fiscal challenges facing impacted communities,”142 and that this challenge is
exacerbated in geographically remote, isolated areas.143 Others suggest that, in light of these
challenges, Congress may seek to consider policies that support local capacity. Some advocate for
policies that provide flexibility to applicants in terms of the level of nonfederal matching fund
requirements or policies that provide resources to support applicants’ readiness to apply for
funding. Another approach to addressing capacity limitations may be to provide additional
support for technical assistance for coal communities and helping underserved communities learn
from other regions.144 The IWG refers to this as “structural support” and noted that Congress has
previously chartered and funded a nonpartisan nonprofit organization (i.e., Neighborworks145) to
support communities with similar revitalization endeavors.146

139 For a directory of programs that use criteria to prioritize coal-impacted communities for economic development
assistance and for economic development programs that may be broadly available for other communities, see
“Clearinghouse” at https://energycommunities.gov.
140 In 2022, the IWG issued a Request for Information. One of the top three challenges facing energy communities was
the “difficulty with the process of applying for state or federal assistance.” See IWG, “Revitalizing Energy
Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, p. 6, https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-
communities-two-year-report.
141 Julia H. Haggerty et al., “Planning for the Local Impacts of Coal Facility Closure: Emerging Strategies in the U.S.
West,” Resources Policy, vol. 57 (2018), p. 10.
142 Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors
Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol. 151 (2021), p. 8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112112.
143 Ibid.
144 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, pp. 13, 25,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report; and Michaël Aklin and Johannes
Urpelainen, “Enable a Just Transition for American Fossil Fuel Workers Through Federal Action,” The Brookings
Institution, August 2, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/enable-a-just-transition-for-american-fossil-fuel-
workers-through-federal-action.
145 NeighborWorks America is a federally chartered nonprofit organization that typically receives congressionally
appropriated funding as a related agency in the annual Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies appropriations acts. For more information, see CRS Report R47045, Section 4 Capacity Building for
Community Development and Affordable Housing Program, by Joseph V. Jaroscak.
146 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, p. 28,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report.
Congressional Research Service

35

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Mine Land Reclamation Considerations
Congress could consider oversight options to assess whether funds going towards the AMLER
program have achieved the intended purpose of reclaiming abandoned coal sites to facilitate
economic and community development. As discussed previously, OSMRE has established
numerous metrics for evaluating whether federal funding for AML reclamation has facilitated
economic and community development. Congress may pursue oversight options to examine the
extent to which funding for these reclamation programs provided intended benefits to economic
and community development. Additionally, Congress may choose to provide direction for
performance metrics, reporting requirements, and program success.
Congress may also consider the adequacy of past funding levels and future funding necessary to
achieve program objectives. Congress has provided a total of $885 million from FY2016 through
FY2023 for the AMLER program. Funding for the AMLER program has been provided through
annual appropriations since FY2016. As discussed earlier, OSMRE requested $135 million for the
AMLER program for FY2024. Congress may consider funding levels, conditions, and criteria for
existing federal mine reclamation programs in future appropriations bills or accompanying
explanatory statement.
Scale, Timing, and Program Evaluation Considerations
As Congress continues to review economic assistance for coal communities, policymakers may
consider aspects of existing policies for future evaluation and oversight. However, attributing
outcomes to prior policy interventions may be challenging because economic development
investments may take many years or decades to plan and implement and may involve significant
private sector investment. There are limitations to the potential impact of federal assistance in
light of global markets, unexpected events, state policies, and other factors. Additionally, some
view the challenges facing economically distressed coal communities as wide-ranging, complex,
and inter-related,147 and have examined whether there is sufficient funding at scale to support
comprehensive transition and diversification.148 Economic development experts note that
following the decline of historically dominant industries, the process of regional economic
diversification may involve long-term assistance and multiple rounds of investment from public
and private stakeholders.149 Experts further note that in terms of economic diversification
strategies in coal communities, there is limited analysis on the outcomes and processes.
Additional study may provide insight on which approaches worked well.150

147 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, p. 7,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report.
148 Sanya Carley and David M. Konisky, “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition,” Nature
Energy, vol. 5, August 2020.
149 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, p. 7,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report; and Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H.
Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol.
151 (2021), p. 8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112112.
150 Sanya Carley and David M. Konisky, “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition,” Nature
Energy, vol. 5, August 2020, p. 575; and Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S.
Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol. 151 (2021), p. 8, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2020.112112.
A 2021 study included a summary of variables associated with successful economic transition and examples of
“Successful Post-transition Counties” in the ARC region. See Linda Lobao et al., “Socioeconomic Transition in the
Appalachia Coal Region: Some Factors of Success,” October 25, 2021, Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Congressional Research Service

36

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Congress may also consider reviewing to what extent the existing programs address current and
anticipated community, environmental, and worker needs, including how programs fit with
different time periods of the transition process as well as the challenges faced by different types
of occupations (e.g., mining, power plants, supply chain, manufacturing, transportation). Some
analysts argue that some programs may only be available following a plant or mine closure,
which may hinder advance planning and diversification efforts.151 They suggest that existing
assistance programs could be more flexible to include providing advance planning assistance
before an anticipated sector decline or economic distress occurs.152
Researchers and outside groups have further identified barriers to data, human capital, and
funding as factors that may limit coal communities’ capacity to carry out near-term transition
planning as well as holistic, longer-term scenario planning. They also note that federal policies
could be expanded to include support for additional asset mapping, feasibility studies, and other
place-sensitive, data-informed studies to help communities identify multiple, suitable sectors and
opportunities.153
Additionally, while many agree that policies should support communities and workers, the
indicators of success lack common definitions and measurements. Researchers note that little is
known about the strategies that have worked well in coal communities, and in restructuring
economies, overall. Researchers note that more cross-disciplinary research is needed on economic
diversification and related activities.154 Considering these limitations, Congress may still seek to
gain additional insight on factors and conditions contributing to the success of state, local, and
federal strategies, and the role of private sector assistance. Additional research and feedback from
domestic and international stakeholders may inform priorities and policy decisions on how other
regions and countries have implemented economic transition strategies over longer time
periods.155

151 Francesca Diluiso et al., “Coal Transitions—Part 1: A Systematic Map and Review of Case Study Learnings from
Regional, National, and Local Coal Phase-Out Experiences,” 2021 Environmental Research Letters, October 21, 2021,
16, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1b58.
152 Kelli F. Roemer and Julia H. Haggerty, “Coal Communities and the U.S. Energy Transition: A Policy Corridors
Assessment,” Energy Policy, vol. 151 (2021), pp. 4, 8-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112112; IWG,
“Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, p. 26,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report; and Francesca Diluiso et al., “Coal
Transitions—Part 1: A Systematic Map and Review of Case Study Learnings From Regional, National, and Local Coal
Phase-Out Experiences,” 2021 Environmental Research Letters, October 21, 2021, vol. 16, https://iopscience.iop.org/
article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1b58.
153 Julia H. Haggerty et al., “Planning for the Local Impacts of Coal Facility Closure: Emerging Strategies in the U.S.
West,” Resources Policy, vol. 57 (2018), pp. 40-41; and Ben Cahill and Sandeep Pai, “Working Toward a Just
Transition for Coal Communities,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 27, 2021,
https://www.csis.org/analysis/working-toward-just-transition-coal-communities. For an example of a regional
diversification plan, see Go Virginia Region 1, “Growth and Diversification Plan,” August 2019,
https://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/Docx/gova/region-one/region-1-growth-diversification-plan-2019.pdf.
154 Harold Wolman, Howard Wial, Travis St. Clair, and Edward Hill, Coping with Adversity (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 2017), p. 55; Michaël Aklin and Johannes Urpelainen, “Enable a Just Transition for American Fossil Fuel
Workers Through Federal Action,” The Brookings Institution, August 2, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/
enable-a-just-transition-for-american-fossil-fuel-workers-through-federal-action; and Sanya Carley and David M.
Konisky, “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition,” Nature Energy, vol. 5, August 2020, p.
575.
155 Sanya Carley, Tom P. Evans, and David M. Konisky, “Adaptation, Culture, and the Energy Transition in American
Coal Country,” Energy Research and Social Science, vol. 37 (2018), pp. 133-139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017
.10.007; Pao-Yu Oei, Hanna Brauers and Philipp Herpich, “Lessons from Germany’s Hard Coal Mining Phase-Out:
Policies and Transition from 1950 to 2018,” Climate Policy, vol. 20, issue 8, (2020), pp. 963-979,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

37

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Congress may consider expanding policies and associated definitions to include areas with other
concentrated industries or fossil resources, such as oil and gas. Regional economies associated
with oil production assets have grown in recent years, including businesses directly and indirectly
involved in oil extraction (e.g., manufacturing). However, the cyclical nature of the oil and gas
industry means that oil and gas communities may experience boom and bust periods as well.156
The IWG and others note, however, that oil and gas communities face challenges that are similar
but distinct from those of coal communities.157
Conclusion
The geographic concentration of the coal industry, the lack of diversified regional economies, and
barriers to worker mobility represent some of the inter-related challenges faced by coal
communities in recent years. In response to these and other concerns, Congress has provided
support for programs to address economic diversification, business development, workforce
development, and environmental challenges. Since 2014, Congress has directed a number of
federal agencies to provide flexible, place-based economic adjustment assistance and mine land
remediation grants for coal communities. Federal assistance has since expanded to include
additional agencies and grant programs, as well as additional types of assistance (e.g., tax
credits). Additionally, recent Biden Administration efforts have focused on providing federal
technical assistance, convening stakeholders, and coordinating aspects of federal, state, and
regional strategies through the IWG. The IWG continues to incorporate activities with and for
coal communities within a broader set of “energy community” stakeholders.
Energy transitions have occurred for centuries.158 The challenges discussed in this report suggest
that the regional economic development aspect of energy transitions may be a continuing issue
for Congress. In reviewing economic development policy options, Congress may wish to examine
the current program roles and authorities. Many of the available programs are place-based and
flexible, while others specifically target coal communities (or broader energy communities)
through tax credits or appropriations that set aside funding for coal-impacted communities in
economic development or other program accounts. Congress may also wish to consider
continuing to provide assistance through multiple channels and for different phases of the
transition, including grant programs, tax credits, and interagency coordinating activities. Should
other industries face similar long-term downturns, Congress may consider providing federal
assistance to additional types of impacted communities.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2019.1688636; and “Lessons from Other Contexts” in Adele
Morris, Noah Kaufman, and Siddhi Doshi, “The Risk of Fiscal Collapse in Coal-Reliant Communities,” The Brookings
Institution, July 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-risk-of-fiscal-collapse-in-coal-reliant-communities.
156 Sanya Carley and David M. Konisky, “The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition,” Nature
Energy, vol. 5, August 2020, p. 575; and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “All Employees, Oil and Gas Extraction
[CES1021100001],” retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES10
21100001, June 15, 2023.
157 IWG, “Revitalizing Energy Communities: Two-Year Report to the President,” April 2023, p. 5,
https://energycommunities.gov/revitalizing-energy-communities-two-year-report.
158 See, for example, Christopher Jones, Routes of Power: Energy and Modern America, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

38

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Appendix. Changes in Coal Production by State
The following figure illustrates state-by-state changes in coal production from 2001 to 2021.
While the magnitudes and patterns of production reductions vary, the overall trend in the period
has been consistent in almost all states.
Figure A-1. Changes in Coal Mine Production by Region, 2001-2021

Source: CRS figure using data from EIA, “Aggregate Coal Mine Production: All Coal: Total,” data accessed
January 26, 2023. Figure created by Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist.

Congressional Research Service

39

Federal Economic Assistance for Coal Communities

Author Information

Julie M. Lawhorn
Lance N. Larson
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Adam G. Levin
Benjamin Collins
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Analyst in Labor Policy

Acknowledgments
Retired CRS Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, Jane A. Leggett, was the original author of
several sections of this report. Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist, created the graphics in this
report. Ashley Lawson, Donald Marples, Lida Weinstock, and Joseph Jaroscak provided substantive edits
and assistance in shaping the report’s development.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47831 · VERSION 1 · NEW
40

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Nov. 8, 2023

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Economic Policy

Energy Policy

Environmental Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON