Industry leaders call for urgent overhaul of power plant rules: 'These regulations ... threaten the reliability of the power grid'
A coalition of utilities from across the country is pushing to weaken federal rules meant to control toxic coal ash, WRAL News reported. In North Carolina, where coal ash is already a widespread feature of the landscape, residents and advocates say the outcome could shape public health for generations.
North Carolina utility Duke Energy is the largest among 10 power companies that recently signed a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency urging the rollback of environmental rules.
The companies argued that regulations under the former government expanding federal oversight of coal ash disposal exceeded the EPA's authority and placed an undue burden on operations. They also opposed rules requiring carbon-capture technology at existing coal-fired and new gas-fired plants, saying the tech is not ready and would be too costly.
"These regulations, individually and collectively, threaten the reliability of the power grid, jeopardize national security, are a drag on economic growth, increase inflation, and hinder the expansion of electric power generation," the group wrote, per WRAL News.
Environmental advocates strongly oppose the proposal. As reported by WRAL News, they warn that rolling back safeguards would leave communities, especially those near coal ash sites, exposed to greater health risks.
Coal ash is the waste left behind when coal is burned. It contains harmful heavy metals, including arsenic and mercury, and is now classified as carcinogenic. For years, it was used as a cheap fill material in construction. Today, 72 documented sites across North Carolina hold at least 8.85 million tons of coal ash.
Although the EPA does not classify coal ash as hazardous waste, it acknowledges that improper handling poses serious health risks. Weakening federal rules could make it easier for utilities to delay cleanup and continue relying on coal and gas for power.
Even if national rules are rolled back, North Carolina's cleanup is protected under a 2020 consent order. Duke Energy must excavate 80 million tons of ash from six major sites, a process already underway.
Duke previously pleaded guilty to criminal negligence and was hit with $102 million in fines for a 2014 coal ash spill into the Dan River. The company has also faced additional enforcement under the Clean Air Act.
Current EPA rules require coal plants to retire by 2032 or install systems that cut air pollution by 90%. Industry leaders say those options are currently unrealistic.
Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home?
Yes — always
Yes — often
Yes — sometimes
No — never
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Environmental groups are urging the EPA to defend the current rules in court. They say weakening protections would reverse progress and put more people at risk.
What happens next carries real urgency. Whether the EPA holds firm may decide how long coal ash continues to shape communities across the country.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules
The Trump administration on Friday took a step to undermine Biden-era rules that tightened fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks. The Transportation Department published an interpretive rule that says that the Biden administration improperly considered electric vehicles as a way to make vehicle fleets more efficient While this determination does not formally end the Biden-era rule, the Trump administration indicated that while the rulemaking process plays out it may not enforce the Biden-era standards. 'Pending the rulemaking process for the establishment of replacement standards, [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] will exercise its enforcement authority with regard to all existing… standards in accordance with the interpretation set forth in this rule,' it stated. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to push an electric vehicle 'mandate.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States,' Duffy said. 'The previous administration illegally used [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards as an electric vehicle mandate.' The Biden administration issued a rule requiring cars to be about 2 percent more fuel efficient each year while heavy duty pickup trucks and vans would have to be 10 percent more efficient each year from 2030 to 2032 and 8 percent more efficient in the years after. President Trump has long talked about getting rid of the Biden administration's efforts to promote electric vehicles. He has argued that these efforts harm consumers' freedom to choose what kinds of cars they want to drive and could lead to strife for autoworkers. Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that shifting toward more electric vehicles would mitigate air pollution and climate change – and put the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market. While Trump has long lamented the previous administration's electric vehicle policy, the release of the administration's determination comes just one day after an explosive feud emerged between the president and Tesla mogul Elon Musk. The Transportation Department rules came alongside a separate, more stringent regulation for vehicle tailpipe emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in practice has a greater effect on the vehicle market's fuel efficiency and is not impacted by the Trump administration's latest maneuver. However, the department's fuel economy rules would act as a backstop if the EPA rule was to be overturned. Republicans are attempting to eliminate that rule through their 'big, beautiful bill.'
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Iran orders ballistic missile ingredients from China: report
Iran has reportedly ordered thousands of tons of ballistic missile materials from China amid tense negotiations with the United States over the future of its nuclear program. Ammonium perchlorate shipments — enough to fuel hundreds of ballistic missiles — will arrive in Iran in the coming months, sources familiar with the transaction told The Wall Street Journal. Some of the rocket propellant will likely find its way to Iran-aligned militias in the region, including the Houthis in Yemen, who have been terrorizing ships passing through the Red Sea and firing missiles at Israel. Advertisement The deal with China comes as Iran looks to strengthen its military while brokering a deal with the Trump administration over its nuclear program. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday called the US 'arrogant' as he rejected a revised nuclear deal that would allow Tehran to continue low-level uranium enrichment. Trucks carry Iranian long-range missiles Fatah during the annual military parade marking the Iraqi invasion in 1980 in September. ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH/EPA-EFE / Shutterstock Advertisement The chemical shipments could fuel hundreds of ballistic missiles, according to the report. via REUTERS 'The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear program. Who are you to decide whether Iran should have enrichment?' he said in a televised speech. After the proposal fell through, Trump warned in a social media post that 'time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons.' The rocket fuel chemicals were ordered over the past few months by an Iranian company called Pichgaman Tejarat Rafi Novin Co. from a Hong Kong-based business Lion Commodities Holdings Ltd, according to the Journal's sources. Advertisement A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson told the paper that China wasn't aware of the contract. 'The Chinese side has always exercised strict control over dual-use items in accordance with China's export control laws and regulations and its international obligations,' the spokesperson said.
3 hours ago
Trump EPA rollbacks would weaken rules projected to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives
When the head of the Environmental Protection Agency announced a wide-ranging rollback of environmental regulations, he said it would put a 'dagger through the heart of climate-change religion' and introduce a 'Golden Age' for the American economy. What Lee Zeldin didn't mention: how ending the rules could have devastating consequences to human health. The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments as well as a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated; they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. But experts say the numbers are conservative and that even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. 'More people will die,' said Cory Zigler, a professor of biostatistics at Brown University who has studied air pollution deaths from coal-fired power plants. 'More of this type of pollution that we know kills people will be in the air.' The AP set out to look at what could happen if all the rules were eliminated, by first examining exhaustive assessments the EPA was required to produce before the rules were approved. Though the agency's priorities can change as presidential administrations change, the methods for the assessments have been largely standard since Ronald Reagan's presidency and are deeply rooted in peer-reviewed scientific research. The AP used those and eight different government and private group databases for its estimate of financial costs, some death estimates and analysis of pollution trends. AP performed additional analysis of potential deaths by drawing on peer-reviewed formulas and scientific research on the impacts of increased heat and pollution. And AP vetted its work with multiple outside health experts, who said it is scientifically justified, but likely an undercount. Multiple experts say the science behind the rules is strong, and they pointed to the rigorous process that must be followed to change them, including requirements for public comment. Zeldin acknowledged as much last month. 'I'm not going to prejudge outcomes with what will be a lot of rulemaking,' Zeldin said in April. Virtually all the benefits from the rules come from restricting the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The fossil fuel industry was a heavy contributor to President Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and Republicans overall. In announcing the proposed changes, the EPA repeatedly cited the costs of the rules and omitted the benefits in all but one instance. Asked for comment on the AP findings, an EPA spokesperson said the agency's plans would 'roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden 'taxes' on U.S. families.' 'Unlike the Biden EPA attempts to regulate whole sectors of our economy out of existence, the Trump EPA understands that we do not have to choose between protecting our precious environment and growing our economy,' spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said. Scott Segal, an attorney at Bracewell LLP who represents energy and manufacturing interests, suggested that EPA analyses under the Biden administration emphasized worst-case scenarios, inflated health benefit claims and missed the big-picture economic benefits of booming industry. 'If you only count lives saved by regulation, not lives harmed by regulation, the math will always favor more regulation,' Segal said. 'This framing misses the larger point: public health isn't just about air quality -- it's also about job security, housing, access to medical care, and heating in the winter." The EPA regulatory analyses are immense documents that numerous health and environment researchers and former officials say are grounded in science, not politics. For example, in January 2024, the EPA produced a 445-page analysis of tightening standards on dangerous particle pollution that cited more than 90 different scientific publications, along with scores of other documents. The Biden EPA presented four different regulatory scenarios and ultimately chose one of the middle options. Two experts who reviewed AP's work said the EPA documents that underpinned the analysis were themselves conservative in their estimates. University of Washington health and environment professors Kristi Ebi and Howard Frumkin said that's because EPA looked at added heat deaths and air pollution mortality, but did not include climate change's expected deaths from increased infectious disease, flooding and other disaster factors. 'This is a rigorous, compelling and much-needed analysis,'' said Frumkin, who was appointed director of the CDC's National Center for Environmental Health during George W. Bush's administration. 'It makes clear that regulatory rollbacks by the Trump administration will have major, direct consequences for health and well-being. Because of these regulatory rollbacks and funding cuts, Americans will die needlessly." That's a sentiment echoed by two former Republican EPA administrators, William Reilly and Christine Todd Whitman, who served in the George Bush and George W. Bush administrations respectively. 'This administration is endangering all of our lives — ours, our children, our grandchildren,' said Whitman, who led EPA under George W. Bush. A visit to Evansville, Indiana, helps show how EPA regulations have made a difference. The city of about 115,000 lies where the state's southwest tip meets Kentucky at the curving Ohio River. Industry lines the banks and coal barges float past carrying loads destined to fuel power plants. Kirt Ethridge, 30, grew up in Evansville and still lives there. As a child, he recalls looking down from high ground into the bowl-shaped valley where the heart of the city lies and seeing a haze of pollution atop it. He thought that was normal. He didn't think much of the looming smokestacks of the coal-fired power plants and factories that ringed the city, nor the line of inhalers waiting on a bench before he and his classmates ran the mile. He suffered asthma attacks in class, sometimes more than once a week, that sent him to the nurse's office. Once, he was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. 'It's a very scary feeling, particularly as a kid, to not be able to get enough air in your lungs,' he said, describing it as like 'breathing through a straw.' In southwestern Indiana, coal-fired power plants were to blame for between 19,000 and nearly 23,000 deaths from 1999 to 2020, according to work by Zigler published in the journal Science that examined death rates among Medicare recipients and modeled where plants' pollution would spread. Nationally, he and his team found a sharp decline in air pollution deaths from coal-fired power plants after the mid-2000s, from an average of 43,000 a year to just 1,600 a year in 2020, with a similar cut in particle pollution. That's when two different forces came into play: Cheaper and less polluting natural gas pushed aside dirtier and costlier coal, while at the same time stricter regulations required more pollution control devices such as scrubbers. Duke Energy operates its biggest power plant near Evansville — Gibson Station, which can power about 2.5 million homes. Emissions have declined significantly as the company installed scrubbers that pull unwanted chemicals out of smokestacks, along with other pollution control technology. Duke Energy spokeswoman Angeline Protegere said the scrubbers were a response to 'regulations over the years as well as market factors.' Put simply, the air got cleaner around places like Evansville. Vanderburgh County and neighboring counties violated national annual air standards for fine particles from 2005 to 2010, but no longer do, even as standards have tightened. The same is true across the United States. The amount of tiny airborne particles in the last 10 years nationwide is one-third lower than 2000-2009, EPA statistics show. Smog pollution is down nearly 15% and sulfur dioxide has plunged 80%. 'The Clean Air Act, the EPA's founding legislation, has been a powerful engine for improving public health as our air has grown visibly clearer and cleaner,' said Gina McCarthy, who headed the EPA under President Barack Obama and served as Biden's White House climate adviser. 'Millions of Americans have avoided illnesses, hospital visits, and premature deaths thanks to EPA's cleaner car and truck standards in concert with rules that limit industrial pollution.' Five rules together were estimated to have more than $200 billion a year in net benefits, based on EPA documents that estimated reduced illnesses and deaths and the costs for companies to comply. Three rules dealt with cars and trucks. The 'clean car rule' is a tightening of EPA emission standards for vehicles that was supposed to take effect for 2027 model years and eventually have annual net benefits of more than $100 billion a year, according to the agency's 884-page regulatory analysis. The EPA estimated that over the next three decades this rule alone would prevent 7.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, 8,700 tons of particulate matter and 36,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. Two other proposed rules — one that deals with car models from 2023 to 2027 and another aimed at heavy trucks and buses — are estimated to save nearly $38 billion a year combined through reduced health problems from air pollution, according to EPA's own detailed calculations. Almost none of those benefits are to be found in 10 fact sheets the EPA produced in conjunction with Zeldin's announcement. Nine make no mention of benefits from the rules, while eight mention the costs. In 17 of the 20 rules with explicit cost-benefit analyses, AP found that estimated benefits are larger than the costs — and sometimes far larger. For example, Biden's proposed power plant rule was designed to save more than $24 billion a year, prevent about 3,700 annual premature deaths and 3 million asthma incidents from fossil fuel-powered plants, according to EPA documents last year and work by the Environmental Protection Network. Under Trump, the EPA's fact sheet on that rule notes nearly $1 billion in costs but nothing about the far higher estimated benefits. Another rule the EPA updated last year sets standards for pollution permitted in the air, called National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The update, required by the Clean Air Act, cuts allowable soot particles by 25% to reflect new science on the harms from such pollution. The EPA in Biden's time calculated the change would annually save as much as $46 billion, 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 asthma incidents. But the new EPA fact sheet only mentions the estimated costs of the change — about $614 million — and not benefits estimated at 76 times that amount. 'The human body count and human health toll of particulate matter alone is just absolutely massive,' said K. Sabeel Rahman, a Cornell law professor who was a top federal regulatory officer from 2021 to 2023. 'Literally tens of thousands of people will lose their lives" if the standard is rolled back, he said. In southwest Indiana, many people have noticed a positive difference from the EPA regulations. And they're concerned about changes. In Bloomfield, Jessica Blazier's 11-year-old son Julian has multiple health conditions that make him more sensitive to air quality, including nonallergic rhinitis, which inflames his nasal passage and makes breathing 'feel like a knife sometimes," in his words. Jessica Blazier said the proposed EPA rule rollbacks are 'almost adding insult to injury in our particular circumstance.' In Evansville, Ethridge is now raising kids of his own, including a 5-year-old daughter who was born early and doesn't tolerate respiratory illnesses well. Whenever Eliza gets sick, she uses a children's nebulizer that is shaped like a penguin and stored in an igloo-shaped case. 'I want to raise my kids in Evansville,' he said. 'I don't want to raise my kids in a bowl of pollution.' Borenstein and Daly reported from Washington, Walling and Bickel from Evansville, Indiana, and Wildeman from Hartford, Connecticut. ___
