If regulators, Duke aren't cozy, then who is?
Published October 12, 2015
Editorial by Fayetteville Observer, October 12, 2015.
We'll be surprised if we get any real transparency here, but we've got to ask anyway: Who, exactly, is steering this state's environmental policy, and where is it going?
We ask that in reference to the out-of-court settlement nearly two weeks ago that gave Duke Energy a weak wrist-slapping for groundwater contamination at its 14 coal-fired power plants in North Carolina.
The Department of Environmental Quality had levied a $25 million fine against the nation's largest electric utility earlier this year, directed at the leaking coal-ash impoundments at those sites.
Duke appealed the fine and went to court with DEQ to argue for a lighter punishment.
In an out-of-court deal announced on Sept. 29, Duke agreed to settle the case for $7 million, with no admission of wrongdoing.
There they go again, several of the state's environmental groups responded, the state regulators obeying their corporate sweetheart. "This agreement is part of a concerted effort to block citizens from enforcing water pollution laws to protect our waters," Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Frank Holleman said. "The state is now trying to abandon enforcement of groundwater laws in cases it originally fined in order to block citizens from going to federal court against Duke ..."
Well, yes, it did look like that.
But last week, a News & Observer reporter dug through piles of transcripts from depositions given during Duke's appeal and found statements like this from Thomas Reeder, the state's assistant secretary for the environment: "If it was up to me, it would have been about $50 million," he said. "They've nuked this whole drinking water source for the Wilmington area (around Duke's Sutton plant). Haven't done anything about it. Haven't owned up to it. So in my opinion, the penalty should have been a lot more severe than it was."
Reeder's got a lot of company in that belief.
He also chafed at the impression widely shared in the media that the state regulators are in a "cozy relationship with Duke. I could give a damn less about Duke."
Really? OK, then. So if there's no coziness at the Department of Environmental Quality, where is it? Because an out-of-court settlement of only $500,000 per polluted coal-ash site, and no admission of wrongdoing, is plenty cozy.
We hope Gov. Pat McCrory, who worked nearly 30 years as a Duke executive, will roll up the shades and let the sun shine on the answer to that question.
October 12, 2015 at 9:30 am
Norm Kelly says:
So, let's continue using the Raleigh Noise & Disturber as a source. The N&D has said that the Duke coal ash ponds were known to be leaking for decades. For anyone that might stumble across my post from the left coast, 'decades' means multiple tens of years. How long have Republicans controlled Raleigh? How long have Republicans been in control of regulatory agencies in our state? If the coal ash ponds were known to be leaking for decades, and Republicans have been in charge of Raleigh for less than a single decade, who does that mean was more than just cozy with Duke?
It sure seems that too many media types want to paint Republicans as responsible for this disaster. Who can blame them? Their allies in the Socialist Party of the US, formerly known as the Democratic Party, have done nothing but blame Republicans. So, in order to stay in the good graces of their allies, media types are required to continue to carry water for the dems and at least appear to blame Republicans. The odd part is that in this editorial, the media ally type has quoted a state agency head, who reports to Republican legislators, as wanting to penalize Duke much more severely. This agency head wants to lay the entire blame at the feet of Duke, and penalize them close to the point of bankruptcy.
Which indicates, hints at, the idea that the Republican led agency isn't actually cozy with Duke. This indicates that the blame lies entirely with demon-led agencies & agency heads who ignored, buried, lied about the hazard for decades, and that current agency head(s) want to enforce rules long ignored by the opposition. So, which party is more concerned about the environment, actually concerned about protecting the environment? I don't mean talks a good line, cuz any joe-schmuck can blow holes in good talking points. Lib talking points memos, apparently distributed to their media allies on a regular basis, are easily destroyed with very little effort. The question comes down to whether the demons can be trusted to follow through on their talking points. Did they enforce the existing environmental regulations when they ruled Raleigh? Or did they cozy up to offenders such as Duke, and ignore problems? If they willfully ignored problems, which it appears they did, what was the reasoning? If the N&D can be trusted, which is a HUGE question, has anyone looked into WHY regulators willfully chose to ignore the disaster in the making? What was the payoff for the demons in the legislature as well as the demon-appointed agency heads who KNEW about the problem for decades, yet chose to let it ride? Was there financial benefit to either legislators or agencies, or worse yet agency heads, for ignoring the problem and letting it become a disaster? Should there be an outside investigator to review ALL documentation involving decades worth of reports on political contributions as well as environmental agency reports concerning things like coal ash ponds? Instead of just pointing the finger at Duke, and insisting that Duke must pay a fine that will be more than their annual income, shouldn't state agencies, agency heads, and legislators be investigated and held responsible as well?
Or, since the demons are responsible for what happened, will this be another scandal swept under the rug? Remember, when evidence shows a demon broke the law, excuses are made. When it's a Republican in question, the lib response is that the appearance of impropriety is sufficient to indict, if not in court then at least in the court of public opinion and the media. Did Billary allow the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi? What difference does it make? Did the Congressman from Louisiana with about $100,000 in his freezer accept a bribe or was the money hidden there legitimately? Should Billary be allowed to determine which emails are private and which are open for public record? Should Billary's attorney have been allowed to review emails that could have contained classified information? How about that attorney - did that person have clearance to view potentially classified documents? Or was this another violation of federal law? Are sanctuary cities a violation of federal law and should they be allowed? Since sanctuary cities are lib-controlled, is there a problem with them violating federal law? Should they be punished for law-breaking or are they ignored because they are libs?
