Federal officials hear a big “no” to offshore drilling from Carolina coastal residents. This week in CIB.
Coast Watch: Coastal Voices Oppose Offshore Drilling
The politicians currently in charge of state government in Raleigh may drool on command from Big Oil, but federal regulatory agencies should not be fooled. Coastal residents in North Carolina are not happy about the prospects for drilling off the Carolina coast.
Almost 300 of those opponents turned out for a meeting at Wrightsville Beach last Tuesday to discuss the risks of offshore drilling. They heard from concerned coastal leaders like the locally elected chair of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. That event, organized by ten conservation groups, took place across a hotel hallway from the official public information and comment-gathering meeting of the US Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM). According to news reports, about 400 individuals passed through the BOEM commenting process that day.
Across town in Wilmington, a pro-drilling event organized by the oil industry “astroturf” group NC Energy Forum drew barely half the crowd of the anti-drilling forum. The pro-drilling activity’s featured speaker was a Winston-Salem investment banker who fronts the Energy Forum entity for its backer American Petroleum Institute.
Coastal conservation advocates might say that the contrast between the events showed the true face of support and opposition to offshore drilling in North Carolina. Read more details and description here.
In a straight-up analysis of the economic pros and cons of offshore drilling for the people of NC – especially those who actually live and work on the coast – the risks and benefits are not a close call. Any oil profits would primarily flow elsewhere, while the coast’s fundamental economic engine of tourism and seafood would bear the risks and suffer any damages.
Turnout at the official BOEM session in New Hanover County last week substantially outpaced the combined attendance at previous public events in Washington D.C. and Norfolk, VA the week before. That fact may not have been lost on federal officials. The office of US Representative Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC3) announced later last week that BOEM had agreed to a request from Jones and the Dare County Commissioners to hold an additional public session there. The date of that meeting has not been announced but is expected to take place in mid-March.
Judicial Watch: Duke Faces Charges for Spills
Federal prosecutors last week filed charges in federal district court against Duke Energy for multiple counts of “criminally negligent” discharge of pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act. The charges stemmed from coal ash related leaks and spills in locations east, west, and central across North Carolina.
The filings refer to discharges into the Catawba River, Neuse River, and French Broad River, in addition to the massive spill into the Dan River last year. While filed in all three U.S. District Courts in the state, they are to be consolidated before a judge in the Eastern District. According to news reports, the formal filings are to provide the means for official judicial review and approval of a settlement tentatively reached between prosecutors and Duke.
Duke indicated publicly last week that it had agreed to pay $100 million in fines to settle the charges under federal investigation related to its handling of coal ash storage in the state. Duke’s response to the formal filings confirmed that linkage.
In the realm of environmental law prosecutions, $100 million may be considered a significant penalty level. Certainly, it underscores how laughable was the $99,000 fine proposed in 2013 by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as a settlement for Duke’s groundwater contamination related to unlined coal ash pits. (That proposed settlement was later withdrawn following the reactions of public outrage, disbelief, and general hilarity it garnered.)
However, we also note this: Duke’s 2014 net earnings (profit) were $1.9 billion. That’s down from $2.7 billion in 2013, reflecting both the expected criminal investigation settlement and expected taxes (more than three times the criminal penalty amount) on anticipated foreign profits over the next seven years.
Even for a Fortune 500 corporation, $100 million is real money, not just a parking ticket. By comparison, to an individual making $50,000/year that level of penalty would look like about $2,600. Equally clearly, though, it’s not for Duke Energy at the level of a major investment—like a new house or car to that middle-income individual. It should not be considered as a substitute for (or an impediment to) the necessary real investment by Duke in cleanup and safe storage of its serious remaining coal ash problem.
Legislative Watch: Snow Days
We want to assure you that we have not forgotten about the General Assembly. The honorables just weren’t around last week. Too cold. On the one hand, that reminds us why our friends from up north and the Midwest make mock of us southerners in the wintertime. On the other, having a week off from worrying about what the legislature might be doing to the environment is a bright side to sub-zero wind chills.
Education & Resources: Wind Energy Webinar
With troubling news linked to oil and coal leading our news items this week, it’s well to wrap up with a hopeful note about clean energy. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) is offering a webinar on transmitting wind energy to the Southeast. While we’re trying to press forward in developing our clean offshore wind energy resources here, generators out west are already producing electricity from wind—and eastern utilities are buying some of it. This webinar is a review of a project designed to increase that access.
The SACE webinar on “Bringing Low Cost Wind Power to the Southeast” will be held March 10 at 11am. Click here for more information and to register.
That’s our report for this week.
