Still work to do on proposed coal ash bill

Published June 29, 2014

Editorial by Burlington Times-News, June 27, 2014.

As proposed by the state Senate in a unanimous vote, SB 729, otherwise known as the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, is a wordy piece of legislation with more moving parts than the number of senators who actually voted for it. It’s broadly phrased and downright vague in some areas. And it doesn’t go as far as the most vocal critics of Duke Energy and its coal ash ponds would like for it to.

What it does do, however, is put a priority on getting rid of the worst coal ash sites. While it’s got enough loopholes to keep Duke Energy’s legal team busy if it so chooses, the bill does target elimination of an immediate threat to the state’s waterways. That has to be high on the to-do list following the February environmental disaster on the Dan River in Rockingham County.

The revised Senate bill, which now goes to the House for consideration, is also better than the plan proposed by Gov. Pat McCrory, a former employee of Duke Energy, which owns 33 coal-ash ponds in North Carolina. Should the measure pass the House, it would go to McCrory for final approval.

In the House there will most certainly be some discussion about the concerns posed by environmental groups concerning the bill. Among them, the lack of a requirement for complete removal and burial of ash in lined, monitored landfills. Some of the ash could be stored in unlined landfills, or even stored on site.

Another major deficiency is that while Duke Energy would have to pay the cost of cleaning up contamination, including ground or surface water, the bill makes it possible for the utility to raise customers’ rates to pay the cost of excavating, removing and burying the ash elsewhere. The costs will be significant, but it should be borne by Duke Energy and its shareholders. Duke operates these coal ash facilities in North Carolina and no other states because it was allowed to.

The bill does, however, require removal of ash from the worst offenders — Sutton, Riverbend in Gaston County, Asheville and Dan River. The latter is in nearby Eden where the February spill drew the public’s attention to the dangers of coal-ash ponds. Tons of coal ash laced with toxic substances poured into the river and flowed downstream into Virginia.

 For the rest of the sites, a new nine-member commission created by the Senate bill would decide the best method, based on proposals by Duke Energy. These four sites would need to be cleaned up by 2019, including any lingering groundwater contamination.

Deadline for closure of ash storage sites considered the least risky would be 2029.

There is still plenty of room for Duke Energy to wiggle out of the best possible solution to the coal-ash problem, but there is also reason for cautious optimism that the bill will have some teeth. Its sponsors include two of the Senate’s top leaders, whose districts have been affected by significant coal-ash spills. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, and Rules Committee Chairman Tom Apodaca proposed the substitute to a bill that outlined the governor’s plan. Berger lives in Eden. The district represented by Apodaca, R-Transylvania, includes Buncombe County, where a spill at the Asheville plant occurred previously.

The House should listen to environmentalists’ concerns and see to it that any loopholes are closed and that weak parts are made tougher before final approval. Most of all, they should not allow Duke’s ample lobbying team to dissuade them from doing the right thing.

After all, the latter has done so before and will most certainly try again.

http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/our-opinion/still-work-to-do-on-proposed-coal-ash-bill-1.338812?ot=hmg.PrintPageLayout.ot&print=nophoto