Here are additional perspectives shared by these stakeholders:

Question: AEP has begun to survey its coal suppliers about their environmental, safety and health performance. What do you think the outcome of this should be? How should AEP use this information, and what do you see as AEP's role?

Bill Raney: AEP should submit the survey and review the answers. If a supplier doesn't return the survey, then concentrate on those who did return the survey. I encourage caution in the development of the questions to assure they are practical and are fully understood. Prepare the questions as though AEP was, itself, being judged by its suppliers.

Matt Wasson: AEP is in a unique position to facilitate the transition to cleaner energy sources and cleaner ways of mining, processing, transporting, burning and disposing of coal and its waste byproducts. Fostering open dialogue between its stakeholders is a great start, but using AEP's performance surveys to identify strategic opportunities to minimize pollution throughout its supply chain and use its considerable leverage to require real changes in the performance of its suppliers is the next step. The performance surveys should also help AEP demand such changes in a way that ultimately improves, rather than harms, its bottom line. It's equally important that AEP refrain from using its political influence to play an obstructionist role in teining in coal's impacts for the sake of short-term economic gains.

Question: During the stakeholder meeting at AEP, there was some agreement that something would have to be done to minimize the impact on jobs and local economies if certain types of mining are restricted or banned. What are your thoughts on what that might be like?

Raney: All types of mining conducted in West Virginia are provided for and sanctioned by both federal and state law. The right to generally criticize and oppose a person's ability to earn a professional living must be accompanied by an obligation to provide an equal substitute that addressed the needs of family, local economies and professional workers. It is absolutely imperative that such discussions be part of any deliberations regarding the future of any industrial activity.

Wasson: There is the potential for short-term impacts on some communities should the most destructive coal mining and processing practices be restricted, but across the region, restrictions on mountaintop removal mining and disposal of slurry are a small concern compared to the overall decline and increasing costs of coal production in Appalachia. Those trends will continue regardless of how mining is regulated. Moreover, air and water pollution, a low quality of life resulting from blasting and overweight coal trucs, and a dramatically lowered life expectancy resulting from coal mining - and mountaintop removal mining in particular -- are enormous barriers for creating new jobs and stopping the hemorrhage of talented and ambitious young people from the region.

There is no immediate economic solution without a major policy effort, but fortunately, there are many opportunities to bring new economic opportunity to Appalachia. For instance, a recent report from the Appalachian Regional Commission showed that 15,000 new jobs per year could be created over the next five years in energy efficiency in the Appalachian region, although that analysis was predicated on the assumption of a cap-and-trade program

Question: As was stated at the stakeholder meeting, mountaintop mining provides the electric utility industry with low-sulfur coal that helps it meet environmental regulations. As the demand for low-sulfur coal declines, how do you propose that those lost jobs be replaced? How will the industry transition to a lower-carbon economy when greenhouse gas regulations are enacted?

Raney: The definition of mountaintop mining must be very carefully detailed. Modern surface mining is lawful and in accordance with federal and state laws and is generally used for seams that cannot be mined by underground methods. Currently, there is not a reliable, cost-effective alternative to the use of coal to make the amount of electricity it does today, nor does there seem to be one for the foreseeable future. This increases the urgency for everyone to join efforts to make the mining and use of coal better every day so as to avert the importation of coal from countries that do not have the environmental, social and safety standards of West Virginia and America.

Wasson: The counties where mountaintop removal mining occurs are among the poorest in the nation, while nearby counties without coal have fared far better in recent decades. It's not for people outside the region to dictate how coalfield communities should develop their economy, but looking at how nearby counties without coal have improved their situation over time would be a good place to start.

Neither AEP nor environmental groups can replace the economic development and diversification role that government at all levels should play, but a significant portion of Appalachian Voices' and our allis' work is aimed at inspiring a new vision for a sustainable economy in the coalfields through grassroots organizing and development of pilot projects on biomass, wind and micro-hydro resources. To the extent that AEP's regional providers, particularly Appalachian Power, can lower the barriers to connecting such projects to the grid and ensuring their profitability, would greatly increase the likelihood of success.

Question: What concerns you most? Do you have any additional comments?

Raney: The protection of our proud, professional miners who are truly the best practicing environmentalists in the world, who are quietly providing for the security of our nation and their families.

Wasson: Changing the status quo of an extraction-based economy that has been more than 100 years in the making is an enormously difficult task, but the status quo is what I fear most. It's a lot easier to stop things from happening than to make good things happen, particularly in the legislative arena, but local and regional politics for thos advocating change remains a David versus Goliath situation. What is required is a fundamental shift in thinking and economic development priorities, not a piecemeal path to some sort of middle ground forged between special interests and regulators. the more AEP is engaged in facilitating the required changes in mining practices and job development in the coalfields, the greater the likelihood that thos changes will be expedient and successful. Thank you for your sincere commitment in starting down that road.