The primary constraints and incentives affecting the viability of increased anthracite production for use as a utility boiler fuel are related to: (1) inherent advantages and disadvantages of anthracite versus bituminous coal, (2) geographical considerations, and (3) the existing and future state and federal regulatory framework. Anthracite is inherently low in sulfur content (a nominal 0.7% versus 2.0% for bituminous coal) and thus is capable of providing energy in a more environmentally beneficial manner than alternative coal resources. In addition, anthracite is characterized by a higher energy output (5% higher per pound) than bituminous coal. On the other hand, anthracite is difficult to mine because of its hardness and the geological environment where it occurs, and thus incurs an initial cost disadvantage relative to alternative fuels. Anthracite has a higher ignition and burning temperature than bituminous coal and thus requires more costly boilers. Additionally, anthracite requires more costly particulate-removal systems than does bituminous and is somewhat more costly to tranport by rail. A potential major negative factor is the variability of sulfur content within anthracite deposits. The geographic location of the anthracite region creates a number of economic and environmental advantages that influence the viability of increased anthracite production. Anthracite fields in Pennsylvania are within 150 miles of approximately one eighth of the US population, making anthracite more favorable for mine-month power generation than bituminous coal. The anthracite region is currently economically drpressed and unsuitable for most nonmining uses. Thus, anthracite production carries with it a potential for local beneficial environmental and socioeconomic benefits.