A group of U.S. power companies has formally requested significant changes to federal coal ash regulations, emphasizing their need to alleviate what they describe as burdensome compliance requirements. These firms, which collectively manage over half a billion cubic yards of coal ash, argue that current rules jeopardize operational efficiency and economic growth while imposing excessive environmental protections. Critics, however, warn that these proposals could exacerbate groundwater contamination and undermine public health safeguards.
What changes are being demanded?
In a letter to Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s EPA nominee, the coalition has called for the rollback of regulations targeting legacy coal ash storage sites and the rescission of rules governing the practice of “beneficial reuse” of coal ash. The companies also aim to overturn recent enforcement actions, including those stipulating cleanup of ash in contact with groundwater. The case of the Gavin Power Plant in Ohio was specifically highlighted, where current EPA rules could set a precedent for other cleanup mandates. The letter also challenged EPA’s new emissions regulations, claiming these would disrupt the power supply and hinder technological advancements like AI.
Could prior regulatory actions provide insight?
The Obama administration, beginning in 2015, enacted the first comprehensive federal coal ash rules after catastrophic incidents like the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority spill. These rules excluded “legacy” coal ash sites, a gap addressed under the Biden administration in 2022. Recent EPA enforcement efforts have closed loopholes and expanded cleanup requirements. These changes have faced resistance from industry groups and Republican attorneys general, who argue the rules are impractical and overly stringent. Environmental advocates, however, emphasize the necessity of these measures, citing widespread contamination of groundwater near coal ash sites.
Reports indicate that power companies like Duke Energy and Talen Energy have struggled with coal ash compliance in the past, with notable incidents such as the 2014 Dan River spill and contamination affecting the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. These events have propelled stricter scrutiny from federal agencies and litigation from environmental groups. Despite advancements in cleanup practices, opposition from industry stakeholders remains a consistent obstacle.
The industry letter’s claims were met with criticism from environmental organizations. Lisa Evans of Earthjustice disagreed with the companies’ assertion that the regulations lack practicality.
“If coal ash is contaminating groundwater at nearly every site in the country, it’s going to be hard to justify rules that allow continued pollution,” she said.
Duke Energy and Vistra declined to comment on the letter, while other companies did not respond. Advocacy groups emphasize that loosening regulations could lead to repeated environmental disasters and further harm public trust in regulatory bodies. Moreover, the EPA’s established legal processes and public accountability mechanisms make it challenging to enact sweeping changes without rigorous justification.
The coalition’s demands reflect longstanding tensions between industrial compliance costs and environmental safeguards. While regulatory adjustments might streamline operations for power companies, public and environmental health risks remain a significant concern. Revising coal ash rules would require extensive stakeholder engagement, technical justifications, and adherence to federal standards like the Administrative Procedure Act. Without a clear resolution balancing industrial and public interests, the debate over coal ash management is unlikely to subside.
