The state’s main environmental agency ranks the coal ash pits by threat level—but says it could change its mind. This week in CIB:

Administrative Watch: DEQ Ranks Coal Ash Pits…Maybe

The NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) last week announced that it had ranked all 33 coal ash pits at 14 sites around the state as falling in the “high” or “intermediate” risk categories. This tentative set of rankings acknowledges that none of the coal ash pits here are truly “low risk” and would require that the ash from all of the pits be excavated and transferred to safer lined landfills.

As one reporter noted, however, the key word here is “tentative.” 

In its announcement, DEQ asserted that the required statutory review period for the sites wasn’t long enough, and asked for legislative permission to revisit its site classifications in another 18 months. (Rep. Pricey Harrison called this a “gaping loophole.”)

DEQ Secretary Donald van der Vaart referenced the need for the completion of repairs to coal ash pit dams which have been placed in the “intermediate” risk category, and said those repairs should be completed by the end of this year. He also repeated his department’s controversial assertion that well water near the pits “meets federal requirements for safe drinking water.” (As CIB and many others have pointed out, that assertion ignores the state’s own experts’ analysis that toxic contamination in many wells exceeds reasonable thresholds for risk of cancer from drinking water.)

It’s clear that van der Vaart’s DEQ is once again attempting to hedge, delay, and ultimately avoid genuine cleanup of most of the coal ash pits in North Carolina. His statements signaled that once the scheduled dam repairs are made, he will direct his department to declare those pits “low risk” despite continuing leakage of toxins into ground and surface water, with the resulting health risks.

It seems likely to us that the requested 18-month stall is related to the fact that van der Vaart’s proposed time frame would put off full public outrage for this decision until after an election which will determine whether his boss in the governor’s office stays there or is replaced.

Toxic politics strikes again.

Judicial Watch: Court Accelerates Clean Power Plan Review

Last week, the federal Appeals Court considering challenges to the Clean Power Plan announced that it would hear the case before the full court instead of a more usual three-judge panel. Taking a case directly to an ‘en banc’ hearing is a rare move reserved for cases of “exceptional importance” that need prompt review and action.

This case deals with the challenges by multiple states and other parties to the legality of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). A three-judge panel of the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit had been scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on June 2. 

Technically, enforcement of the CPP has been on hold since earlier this year when the U.S. Supreme Court (in another rare move, on a 5-4 split decision) stayed the rule while the Appeals Court deliberated. The Appeals Court had previously refused a request to put the rule on hold while the case was being heard.

The Appeals Court’s decision to move the case directly to a full court hearing on September 27 is expected to actually speed up final judicial action on the CPP’s legality. Observers had fully expected that there would be a request for full ‘en banc’ review of whatever decision was made by the smaller panel. This move skips that step. 

Advocates for assertive action to address the crisis of climate change support the CPP, and believe that the rule stands on a solid legal and scientific footing that should lead to its ultimate vindication in the courts. In addition to the states and special interests challenging the rule, there are dozens of states and public health and environmental groups backing it. 

The EPA has estimated that by 2030 the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants by 32%, save 3,600 lives, and prevent 90,000 childhood asthma attacks every year, and save the average American family almost $85 annually on their electric bill.

Legislative Watch: House Proposes Budget

The NC House last week passed its proposed version of the state’s revised budget for the coming fiscal year. Let’s take a quick look at its major environmental items:

• $5 million for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.
• Eligibility for state recreational forests to receive Parks & Recreation Trust Fund monies.
• $300,000 for “healthy corner stores” in food deserts.
• Repeal of vehicle emissions inspections in 31 counties.
• Authority for DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) to spend some funds closing out low-risk pre-1983 landfills and commercial LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) sites.
• Expansion of funding for the Natural Heritage Program to an annual level of $939,000.
• NCDOT (NC Dept. of Transportation) layoffs and outsourcing are halted until February 2017 to study whether any cost savings will result. 

(Thank you to Grady McCallie of NC Conservation Network for this summary.)

Overall, the budget bill passed by the House has been described as “relatively mild” by environmental advocates. That is in comparison to recent past state budgets which have included various slash-and-burn anti-environmental rampages.

But wait—the Senate has yet to weigh in, and its current leadership has been much fonder of midnight additions and non-budgetary anti-environmental riders. There’s a long way to go to reach final budget adoption this year.

Campaign Watch: Early Voting Begins Thursday

Early voting begins this Thursday (May 26) in the special primary election which concludes June 7. What are the environmental highlights?

Congressional primaries: In several of North Carolina’s recently redrawn Congressional districts, primaries concluding June 7 will determine the Republican or Democratic nominee, or both. A number of the districts have been radically redrawn, and either have no incumbent, or one who is competing without the advantage of most of the base which they formerly represented. Adding to the uncertainty, all the primaries will be decided on June 7 with the nomination going to the highest vote-getter regardless of winning percentage. There will be no runoffs.

The national League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has supported candidates in two of these contests. In the Democratic primary for the 12th District, LCV Action Fund has endorsed incumbent Rep. Alma Adams. Adams scored a 97% positive rating on the LCV National Environmental Scorecard for her first year in Congress and consistently supported clean energy, public health protections, and action to address climate change.

Meanwhile, in the Republican primary for the 13th District, LCV’s GiveGreen contributions program includes Jason Walser, the former executive director for the Land Trust for Central North Carolina. 

Supreme Court election: The June 7 election also includes the primary for one seat on the NC Supreme Court. Observers of the Court believe that the single seat up for grabs this year could be a swing vote on a range of key policy issues which come before the seven-member Court. Those include critical environmental questions, from the interpretation of state statutes to hearing challenged rules and case decisions from the NC Utilities Commission and NC Environmental Management Commission. For a review of how there came to be a Supreme Court primary in this special election, see here.

Click here to review the official state Board of Elections guide on the judicial contest, which includes information about the candidates running.

In any event, don’t forget to give these contests a hard look—and cast your votes. In a likely low-turnout election for key seats, your vote is likely to weigh far more than usual.