Duke Energy Attempts to Block Citizens' Groups in Coal Ash Case
'Instead of cleaning up, what they’ve done is lawyer up'
Duke Energy is attempting to block citizens' groups from taking part in regulatory action against the company's 14 polluting coal ash dumps across North Carolina.
According to the Associated Press, Duke filed a motion on Monday to remove the citizens' groups from the case, arguing that the groups ought to be "prohibited from expanding this enforcement action beyond the claims asserted and relief sought by" the state environmental agency.
The energy giant is hoping to block local and environmental organizations from having "any role in the case," leaving litigation and enforcement to state regulators--who have a long history of giving preferential treatment to Duke.
"Duke fears that we would seek to strongly enforce the law against Duke's illegal coal ash pollution and dangerous storage on North Carolina rivers," said Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an interview with Common Dreams. "Well, they're right. That's exactly what we will do and what we have done."
As AP explains:
The state enforcement case began last year when the environmental law group, working on behalf of a coalition of citizens groups, tried to use the U.S. Clean Water Act to sue Duke in federal court over groundwater pollution leeching from its coal ash dumps.
The state environmental agency instead used its authority to issue violations and take the case to state court, quickly negotiating a settlement involving two plants that would have fined Duke $99,111 with no requirement that the $50 billion company clean up its pollution. The citizens groups protested, calling it a "sweetheart deal" intended to protect Duke from possibly harsher federal penalties.
Following the uproar over the February coal ash spill into the Dan River and amid the ongoing federal probe into the relationship between the utility and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the state agency asked a judge to dismiss the earlier settlement, saying it now intends to pursue enforcement through the court system. Citizens' groups have since intervened in the case.
"What Duke's CEO has been saying publicly is they accept responsibility," said Holleman. "But instead of cleaning up, what they've done is lawyer up. They have filed a legal document in court denying any legal liability whatsoever."
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Duke Energy is attempting to block citizens' groups from taking part in regulatory action against the company's 14 polluting coal ash dumps across North Carolina.
According to the Associated Press, Duke filed a motion on Monday to remove the citizens' groups from the case, arguing that the groups ought to be "prohibited from expanding this enforcement action beyond the claims asserted and relief sought by" the state environmental agency.
The energy giant is hoping to block local and environmental organizations from having "any role in the case," leaving litigation and enforcement to state regulators--who have a long history of giving preferential treatment to Duke.
"Duke fears that we would seek to strongly enforce the law against Duke's illegal coal ash pollution and dangerous storage on North Carolina rivers," said Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an interview with Common Dreams. "Well, they're right. That's exactly what we will do and what we have done."
As AP explains:
The state enforcement case began last year when the environmental law group, working on behalf of a coalition of citizens groups, tried to use the U.S. Clean Water Act to sue Duke in federal court over groundwater pollution leeching from its coal ash dumps.
The state environmental agency instead used its authority to issue violations and take the case to state court, quickly negotiating a settlement involving two plants that would have fined Duke $99,111 with no requirement that the $50 billion company clean up its pollution. The citizens groups protested, calling it a "sweetheart deal" intended to protect Duke from possibly harsher federal penalties.
Following the uproar over the February coal ash spill into the Dan River and amid the ongoing federal probe into the relationship between the utility and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the state agency asked a judge to dismiss the earlier settlement, saying it now intends to pursue enforcement through the court system. Citizens' groups have since intervened in the case.
"What Duke's CEO has been saying publicly is they accept responsibility," said Holleman. "But instead of cleaning up, what they've done is lawyer up. They have filed a legal document in court denying any legal liability whatsoever."
_____________________
Duke Energy is attempting to block citizens' groups from taking part in regulatory action against the company's 14 polluting coal ash dumps across North Carolina.
According to the Associated Press, Duke filed a motion on Monday to remove the citizens' groups from the case, arguing that the groups ought to be "prohibited from expanding this enforcement action beyond the claims asserted and relief sought by" the state environmental agency.
The energy giant is hoping to block local and environmental organizations from having "any role in the case," leaving litigation and enforcement to state regulators--who have a long history of giving preferential treatment to Duke.
"Duke fears that we would seek to strongly enforce the law against Duke's illegal coal ash pollution and dangerous storage on North Carolina rivers," said Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an interview with Common Dreams. "Well, they're right. That's exactly what we will do and what we have done."
As AP explains:
The state enforcement case began last year when the environmental law group, working on behalf of a coalition of citizens groups, tried to use the U.S. Clean Water Act to sue Duke in federal court over groundwater pollution leeching from its coal ash dumps.
The state environmental agency instead used its authority to issue violations and take the case to state court, quickly negotiating a settlement involving two plants that would have fined Duke $99,111 with no requirement that the $50 billion company clean up its pollution. The citizens groups protested, calling it a "sweetheart deal" intended to protect Duke from possibly harsher federal penalties.
Following the uproar over the February coal ash spill into the Dan River and amid the ongoing federal probe into the relationship between the utility and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the state agency asked a judge to dismiss the earlier settlement, saying it now intends to pursue enforcement through the court system. Citizens' groups have since intervened in the case.
"What Duke's CEO has been saying publicly is they accept responsibility," said Holleman. "But instead of cleaning up, what they've done is lawyer up. They have filed a legal document in court denying any legal liability whatsoever."
_____________________