Coal ash reversal
Published June 28, 2014
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, June 28, 2014.
The state Senate’s coal ash bill creates a new regulatory authority that will supervise a massive waste-disposal effort for at least the next 15 years.
That’s astounding for a body that has boasted of its deregulatory successes. But when its anti-regulatory philosophy ran into the reality of a massive coal ash spill — in the very town where the Senate leader lives — a different approach was taken.
The bill not only creates a new Coal Ash Management Commission, it spells out 49 pages’ worth of schedules and procedures for “electric public utilities” — Duke Energy — to follow as it implements safer storage of coal ash.
The truth is, rules like these should have been put in place many years ago. It’s not the fault of the current governor or legislative leaders that they weren’t. Past administrations and legislatures ignored warnings from professional regulators and environmentalists who said coal ash ponds were accidents waiting to happen. And they were right.
The accident happened at Duke’s Dan River site near Eden, where Senate leader Phil Berger lives. He called for action and led the crafting of the Senate bill given final approval this week.
It’s tough and thorough, even if it’s not everything environmentalists demanded or steps into regulatory territory where the governor’s administration ordinarily would rule. Rather than let the Department of Environment and Natural Resources supervise administration of coal ash pond cleanup, the Senate gives heavy responsibility to a commission that is supposed to act independently. Although its members will be appointed by the governor and legislature, they will have professional expertise in relevant disciplines. They’ll be authorized to hire their own staff and to make decisions with major environmental and financial implications.
The bill mandates what Duke already has volunteered: It won’t pass Dan River cleanup costs to its customers. Beyond that, however, the Utilities Commission will look at Duke’s costs and decide how they should be covered. It’s inevitable that ratepayers will carry some of the burden. That won’t be popular, but for years ratepayers benefited because Duke took shortcuts that enabled it to keep rates low.
A big question about costs is whether Duke will be able to enclose some existing ponds rather than move coal ash to safer, lined containment sites. The difference would run into the millions of dollars in each case. The new commission will be charged with looking at the facts and making its best recommendation. It should tilt in favor of environmental protection.
It’s all supposed to be done by 2029. Duke doesn’t like the strict timetable. Maybe it’s not practical. Maybe it will slide later, as the political passion of this issue cools over the years.
Today, the politicians know the public demands a strong regulatory approach to coal ash storage. They are about to deliver. But this is just the beginning. They will be judged on what actually gets done.
