UPDATE: Roll Call ran a story
($ub req’d) on June 18 on Democratic infighting over the ACES bill,
noting that one Democrat has been touting a map that sounds a whole lot
like this one:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has been passing out maps
contending that most states would lose out under the cap-and-trade bill
crafted by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and
Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Multiple requests to her office for confirmation of whether it is the same map were ignored, but Roll Call reporter Steven T. Dennis says it is. So it appears Republicans aren’t the only ones circulating Peabody’s talking points.  UPDATE TO THE UPDATE:
Kaptur’s spokesperson, Steve Fought, says this is a “case of mistaken
maps.” The representative has been handing out two different maps
dealing with jurisdictional boundaries of power-marketing authorities,
but not this map, Fought says.

UPDATE 2: Closer inspection of the PowerPoint
document indicates that Boyce created it originally on September 29,
1998, and it was updated in July 2004 for a “2004 Investor &
Analyst Forum.” But it was last edited by an Amelie Hereford on June
17, 2009, and an email address is listed for her at Arch Coal, another
coal industry giant. Hereford is a legislative assistant at Arch Coal,
according to her LinkedIn profile.
Grist called Arch Coal’s corporate offices to confirm, but a
receptionist said she did not recognize the name. We’ve dropped her an
email requesting comment. Stay tuned. UPDATE TO THE UPDATE:
Hereford told Grist she had nothing to do with this map. “Neither Arch
Coal, Inc. nor I was involved in the development of the map,” she wrote
in an email.

UPDATE 3: Tamara Hinton, spokesperson for the
Republicans on the Agriculture Committee, says that the PowerPoint
document they are circulating came from the National Mining
Association. The association is currently touting the document on the front page of its website,
so it’s no big secret who’s distributing these data points. Hinton
doesn’t see a problem with circulating the industry’s data. “If the
coal industry wants to provide information to show how it will impact
people, we’re just letting people know that that information exists,”
said Hinton. “There is no conflict of interest.”

More interesting, however, may be the fine print at the bottom of
the National Mining Association’s version of the PowerPoint document,
which includes an extra page of data.  At the bottom of that page is a
note that says the document does not accurately reflect the Waxman-Markey legislation as it currently stands. The footnote:

These rough calculations DO NOT represent a precise
indicator of the actual allocation of allowances to electricity
distribution companies under sections 782 and 783 of the ACES
legislation (5-29-2009 version). First, power can and does move across
state lines, so the share electricity-related of carbon dioxide
emissions associated with power generation within a state may differ
from the share of carbon dioxide emissions associated with power sales
within that state—it is the latter that is used in the ACES formula as
we understand it, but the former that is calculated here.  Second, the
distribution under ACES is done on a utility-by-utility basis rather
than a state-by-state basis, and there can be significant differences
across utilities within a given state. Third, these calculations are
made based on data for 2006 through 2008 (2008 data is unpublished
preliminary data), while the ACES legislation allows the affected
electricity sellers the option of choosing a different period within a
specified range of dates.  Finally, the calculations do not cover many
of the detailed legislative provisions dealing with allocation.

UPDATE 4: Luke Popovich, vice president of external
communications for the National Mining Association, confirms that the
PowerPoint presentation was put together by his organization. He
explained that the document appears to come from Peabody because NMA
used a template the company created in 2004. But the map and the data
it’s based on were produced entirely by NMA staff, he said.

Peabody Energy and Arch Coal are both members of NMA,
so in a sense they are indirectly involved. “Did Peabody, the big coal
company, have a role in it? Yeah. So did every other coal company that
paid us dues,” said Popovich. “But it’s NMA’s math. What it displays
are NMA’s calculations. Peabody had nothing to do with those.” Popovich
couldn’t explain why Arch Coal’s name would appear in the document’s
history.