New coal ash bill faces criticism
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- Environmental groups criticized a new coal ash bill approved by North Carolina lawmakers.
Some people think the coal ash bill protects the company, not the public, and allows Duke to raise utility rates for what the company thinks could be a $10 billion clean up.
In the face of overwhelming public polling showing North Carolinians want Duke Energy to pick up the entire cost of its coal ash cleanup, the bill state lawmakers approved Wednesday barely addresses the cost issue, and allows the energy giant to apply to raise rates for that purpose as early as January.
That has drawn howls from critics, environmentalists, and fiscal watchdogs.
"There were so many chances to get this right," said Greenpeace's Caroline Hansley. "There was so much time invested in this. And it's a huge failure."
The bill does block Duke Energy from applying for a rate hike, but just for five months. So, in January the company could ask the Utilities Commission if it could raise rates and factor in the cost of clean up, which Duke has said could reach $10 billion.
But Rep. Rick Glazier (D - Fayetteville), a strong voice for Democrats in the NC House who helped craft the bill, calls it a good first step in the right direction.
"As a first step compromise between everyone," Glazier said, "I think it's an important piece of legislation."
The bill, which the Governor says he will sign, gives Duke 15 years to close all of its 14 coal plants around the state and sets up guidelines for how to make that happen.
"I am certain that there are going to have to be changes over time," Glazier said. "But what this bill did do was establish a process, set in place pretty strict standards for the most part, a pretty good time table for closure. And now it's going to be up to the legislature and the people to hold Duke on a tight leash."
Despite saying he's "in the camp that rate payers should not have to pay for the clean up," Glazier largely dismissed the absence of language requiring Duke to foot the bill.
"I don't believe it was time for us to decide with finality the cost issue," Glazier said. "How much is Duke's responsibility - which I believe is most of it - and how much the state is responsible for allowing this to go on for several decades, those are questions left better answered in the future."
Hansley couldn't disagree more.
"We deserved better," she said. "I think there are many places where we had a chance to get it right and for them to say, 'Oh well, we did something,' is pretty much a slap in the face."
For Glazier, this bill was a hard fought compromise. It was the very first bill filed in the Senate earlier this year and was the last bill passed before lawmakers went home. Glazier lays blame for that squarely with Senate Republicans.
"In my view, the Senate Republicans deserve no credit for the passage of this coal ash bill," Glazier said. "They fought tooth and nail against tougher provisions in the conference report and only at the end, and probably for political reasons, did they finally agree to the conference report. But they were the reason it didn't pass weeks ago."
For their part, Senate Republicans chalk this up as a victory, as do many other lawmakers.
The bill passed the House 84-13 and the Senate 38-2.
And Glazier expresses no regrets about his support for the bill. He touts a late-added provision that he says will prevent Duke, at least in the short to medium term, from what's referred to as "cap-in-place."
That is a method of coal ash basin closure that would allow the energy company to leave some ash where it is. That's been a major issue for environmental groups, which say cap-in-place will lead to more ground and groundwater contamination.
But Glazier says the bill passed Wednesday requires Duke to only cap-in-place basins if they can prove it won't leak.
"If Duke can't show, by evidence, that it has designed an impervious barrier and that it will permanently separate out and make sure there's no interaction between subsurface water and coal ash, it may not use cap in place for low risk," Glazier said. "And in my view, there's no existing technology that would allow them to meet that standard. Right now, if it were to be done today, they would not be able to cap in place any of the low risk facilities."
A spokesperson for Duke Energy told ABC11 today that the company is still "evaluating the legislation."
"What we have to do is understand the plans, understand what the costs will be, then look to the commission to understand how those costs will be managed," said company spokesperson Jeff Brooks, referring to the Utilities Commission. The Commission would have to sign off on any rate hike.
But Brooks says closing plants is part of the cost of doing business.
"It's important to understand that the closure of the basins is part of the closure of the plant," he said. "It's there with the building of the plant, the operating of the plant, and the closing of the plant."
