Both the state House and Senate have introduced companion bills called the Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act (HB 340, SB 341).

This legislation would prohibit utility companies in NC from purchasing
coal that is extracted through “mountaintop removal.”  According
to the bill, “mountaintop removal coal mining” is “any method of
surface coal mining that removes a mountaintop or ridgeline, whether or
not the mined area will be returned to its approximate original
contour…”

The problems:

1) NC legislature: The new West Virginia legislature?

North Carolina doesn’t have this type of coal mining–the bill is being pushed out of concern over alleged environmental problems in West Virginia.

2) Cost of electricity will significantly increase.

About sixty percent of our electricity in NC comes from coal-fired
power plants.  Half of the coal we use in the state comes from
this “mountaintop” coal (generally referred to as surface-mined
coal).  Other coal we receive is through underground mining, which
is more expensive even without this self-imposed prohibition. 

We would be helping to drive up the costs of this more expensive coal
because we’d have no choice but to buy it.  The utility companies
have a bidding process to supply the coal plants, and the number of
bidders would be cut in half (or close to it)–i.e. less competition
means higher prices.

As quoted in this article,
Progress Energy explains the impact, “Progress spokesman Scott Sutton
warns it [the ban] could cause a ‘dramatic’ increase [in
prices].”  There really is no way for Progress or others to have
specifics yet on the extra costs, but as Mr. Sutton states:

An isolated ban on an entire fuel source would put Progress Energy
and our customers at a very distinct competitive disadvantage compared
to other utilities in other states at a time when consumer costs are
already rising.

3) Unconstitutional: Dormant Commerce Clause

I question whether the legislation is even constitutional. 
Under the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to
regulate interstate commerce (this power under Article I, Section 8 of
the Constitution is called the Commerce Clause).

By implication, this has meant that states generally can’t regulate
interstate commerce (this “negative” aspect of the Commerce Clause is
referred to as the Dormant Commerce Clause).

This is a very complicated issue, but the general rule is:

“In general, if a state statute discriminates against commerce on its
face, purpose or effect, it is subjected to strict scrutiny and is
found unconstitutional unless the state can justify it as serving a
compelling state purpose in the least restrictive way.”

It appears to me that because NC has no surface mining at all, and the
law blocks surface-mined/”mountaintop” coal that only can come from
outside the state, the law, at least in effect, discriminates against
interstate commerce.  If NC had mountaintop coal like other states
so that intrastate and interstate commerce were being treated equally,
with just an incidental effect on interstate commerce, then courts
would use a less demanding test (not strict scrutiny) to determine
whether the law was constitutional. (See Pike)

In either event though, there must be a local interest–the only
apparent interest that is local in nature with this bill is the local
“peace of mind” of some politicians.  There is no alleged harm to
NC at all.  It is difficult as it is to meet a strict scrutiny
test when a law has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce, but
when the interest not only isn’t compelling, but may not even exist, it
is doubtful it would be constitutional.  Even under the lower
standards, this local “interest” would likely fail.

Commerce clause jurisprudence is very complicated, so there could be
wrinkles that may change my perspective on this, but certainly these
legal questions need to be resolved before this bill goes anywhere.