Growing concerns are emerging about Duke Energy and other utilities backpedaling on their environmental promises, particularly in North Carolina. The primary focus is on their efforts to weaken EPA regulations on coal ash and natural gas emissions, a move seen as prioritizing corporate interests over environmental and public health.
Environmental advocates in North Carolina are alarmed following the dispatch of a letter by 10 utilities and power companies, including Duke Energy, to newly confirmed EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. The letter, sent on January 15, requests a rollback of stringent environmental regulations regarding coal ash and natural gas established under Zeldin’s predecessor, Michael Regan. These regulations are vital for protecting air and water from toxic chemicals and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change.
The Senate confirmed Lee Zeldin by a 56-42 party-line vote, with three Democrats voting in favor. Known for his advocacy of expanded fossil fuel production, Zeldin’s alignment with industry perspectives raises concerns about potential regulatory leniency.
Utilities’ Push for Regulatory Rollbacks
The Letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin
Canary Media broke the news about the letter’s existence. The utilities, without providing evidence, claim the stricter EPA rules could threaten power grid reliability, national security, economic growth, inflation rates, and the expansion of electric power needed for emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. A Duke Energy spokesman declined to comment, affirming that the letter reflects the utility’s stance. Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, contains hazardous chemicals like arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead, which have historically seeped into groundwater from unlined ash ponds, sometimes contaminating private wells. Current EPA regulations aim to close loopholes that allowed such contamination to persist.
Nick Torrey, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), emphasized the universal reliance on clean water protections and criticized the corporate executives for their detachment from public health priorities. In the previous year, several of these utilities challenged the EPA’s enforcement of these protections but lost in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court upheld that EPA’s coal ash rule prohibits leaving coal ash in water and prevents pollutants from leaking into surrounding waterways.
Legal and Environmental Implications
Regardless of a potential EPA rollback, Duke Energy must follow a consent order to excavate its 31 unlined coal ash ponds in North Carolina, containing approximately 126 million tons of ash. Options for disposal include relocating the ash to lined landfills or processing it for reuse in products like concrete. Duke has already excavated 11 basins, with deadlines for the remaining sites extending from 2028 to 2037.
The letter to Zeldin seeks regulatory relief that could benefit utilities by redefining what qualifies as “beneficial use” of coal ash. Utilities want on-site uses like landfill cover for new basins to be exempt from federal regulations, arguing for consistent exemptions for all beneficial uses. Currently, Duke encapsulates its ash for reuse in concrete but has ceased providing ash for structural fill due to public unpopularity and past incidents of exposure after pavement erosion or sinkholes formed. Mikaela Curry, the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign manager, views this as an attempt by Duke to undermine protections for its self-interest, validating fears within affected communities.
The Debate Over “Beneficial Use” of Coal Ash
Redefining Beneficial Use
Redefining what constitutes the beneficial use of coal ash has sparked significant debate among stakeholders. The current definition allows for encapsulated ash to be reused in concrete but excludes other applications such as structural fill, which has faced public opposition after incidents of exposure and subsequent health risks. Utilities like Duke Energy are lobbying for broader exemptions that would include on-site usage like landfill cover for new basins. They argue these measures should be considered beneficial and thus exempt from stringent federal regulations. This redefinition could provide substantial financial relief to utilities by reducing compliance costs and enabling easier disposal methods.
However, environmental advocates caution against these broadened exemptions, asserting that they could exacerbate contamination issues and put public health at risk. Critics, such as Mikaela Curry from the Sierra Club, emphasize that the push for regulatory relief is an attempt to prioritize corporate convenience over environmental safety. By easing disposal regulations, utilities might be opening the door to practices that could harm communities, especially those already vulnerable to pollution and other industrial impacts.
Community and Environmental Impact
The potential rollback of EPA regulations not only affects coal ash disposal but also targets greenhouse gas (GHG) rules governing new natural gas plants. Duke Energy, for instance, has two projects at Hyco Lake and Marshall Steam Station designed to transition from coal to natural gas. Despite this transition, these plants are projected to emit significant pollutants. Under current GHG rules, such plants must limit their generating capacity to 40% by 2032 unless they can capture 90% of their emissions using carbon capture technology. This technology, however, remains largely uncommercialized, posing a substantial barrier to compliance.
Given the scale of these projects and their projected environmental impact, Duke Energy has sought approvals from the North Carolina Utilities Commission and necessary air permits. The expected completion dates for these plants fall between 2028 and 2029. These timelines align with the proposed delays for compliance with GHG rules, suggesting that utility companies aim to secure operational flexibility amidst evolving regulatory landscapes. The clash between regulatory adherence and technological limitations further complicates the discourse on sustainable energy transitions.
Legal Challenges and Future Implications
Ongoing Legal Battles
The utilities’ effort to delay or alter GHG regulations has inevitably led to legal confrontations. Various energy sectors have taken their grievances against the GHG rule to court, and a ruling from the D.C. Circuit is anticipated soon. Amidst this legal backdrop, the utilities are urging Zeldin to compel the Department of Justice to seek a suspension of the rule while revisions are considered. This asks for regulatory leniency, echoing broader industry demands for a reconsideration of environmental standards deemed economically and operationally burdensome.
The contradiction between utilities’ public declarations of environmental commitment and their aggressive push for regulatory rollbacks has not gone unnoticed by environmental advocates. Ridge Graham, a program manager for Appalachian Voices in North Carolina, highlighted this inconsistency, pointing out the risks and financial implications of neglecting climate considerations. The state’s continuing recovery from $53 billion in damages caused by Hurricane Helene underscores the tangible impacts of climate change and the ensuing economic burdens.
Corporate Accountability and Public Health
Duke Energy and other power companies are not just seeking a delay but a complete repeal of many GHG rule provisions. This action is perceived by critics as a blatant attempt to extend the lifecycle of fossil fuel-based energy production, thus prioritizing profit margins over environmental responsibilities. Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, has condemned this corporate maneuver, calling it reckless and harmful to community welfare and climate stability. Such regulatory reversals could undermine the progress toward cleaner energy and jeopardize public health and ecological well-being.
Mikaela Curry of the Sierra Club argues that the EPA’s primary duty is to safeguard public health, not to cater to corporate interests. She urges Lee Zeldin to maintain stringent environmental protections as part of his legacy. The broader narrative underscores a need for robust regulatory frameworks that balance industrial growth with environmental sustainability, emphasizing the importance of stringent oversight to prevent practices detrimental to health and climate.
