Delaware State University is the latest public flagship HBCU to launch a research initiative dedicated to the growing hemp industry.
DSU will work with the state’s Department of Agriculture to help train farmers and agribusiness owners in growing and manufacturing hemp for commercial and industrial use.
During this initial year, farmers interested in growing hemp are required to apply to be a part of the research pilot program. Accepted farmer will be permitted to grow a maximum of 10 acres of hemp. The University’s researcher will than study the crops of those participants and collect data which will provide farmers with valuable information for future cultivation.
“Those farmer’s fields will become our laboratories,” said Dr. Sathya Elavarthi, associate professor of applied agriculture science and director of the pilot project.
Delaware State joins Tennessee State University and Southern University in the group of public HBCUs seeking to develop research and commercial interests which exceeded $1 billion in revenue last year.
DC Rooftop solar energy systems are under attack by DCRA i
Author: “Hilary (Anon) K. Published: Mon, Apr 08, 2019 8:24 a info@poitivechangepc.com
Hello, Mr. Bethea,
I would be interested in discussing your project with you.
I may not be the most knowledgeable person to interview on this subject, but I do have a lot of speaking experience (as you can see from my signature, below). I also have solar panels on my house, but I am not in DC at present, so it partly depends on how you want to conduct the interview, technically.
Thank you very much for reaching out to the DC SUN list serve.
Peace & good health,
~~Hilary
The Washington Post” — http://tinyurl.com/KacserPostWren-Amusing & http://tinyurl.com/KacserPostPressley-Perfectly
“Hilary Kacser…high style and wit….blissful improvisations” https://dctheatrescene.com/2017/10/10/review-blancaflor-gala-wizard-girl/ October2017
202-250-1727 — text & cell — current best number as of April 2019
(202-783-8999 — home office land)
——————————————–
On Mon, 4/8/19, <info@positivechangepc.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Solar United Neighbors of D.C.] DCRA targets Rooftop Solar
To: solardc@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2019, 9:59 AM
Hello:
To the solar dc google
group I produced a nationally syndicated weekly
radio podcast radio show ” Solar Now And The
Future With Its Economic Impact On Black America. I’m
providing any of you being effected by DCRA Zoning attack on
rooftop solar to be a guest on my radio show to explain what
this attack. From 11:00 am -11:30 am Est. 4/10/19.. Please
get back to me because the public has know Idea of what you
are talking about and what the issues
are.
Ronald
Bethea Talk Show Host. I can be reached at
202-246-4924
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: [Solar United Neighbors of D.C.] DCRA targets
Rooftop Solar
From: Guillermo Rueda <g.rueda.aia@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, April 07, 2019 4:07 pm
Solar Neighbors,
Rooftop solar energy systems are
under attack by DCRA in a zoning appeal case by ANC-1C,
scheduled for May 15. Help protect the city’s drive toward
100% renewable energy by writing to the Board of Zoning
Adjustment (BZA) in support of this appeal.
BACKGROUNDThe
case is about a developer who wants to add a new upper floor
to a row house in an RF-1 neighborhood that would cut the
solar energy production next door by 35%. This is contrary
to RF-1 zoning regulations that prohibit additions to
buildings that interfere with neighboring solar energy
production. In this case, DCRA says that the project is not
an “addition” but instead a “new” larger building
and that, therefore, the solar panels are not
protected.
If the BZA buys this illogical
reasoning, it will set a new precedent to allow developers
across the city to build illegal upper floor additions that
ignore these rules.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Write and email to bzasubmissions@dc.gov by
May the 8th, subject line “Case 19961,” and state
your support for this appeal and opposition to this
misrepresentation of the zoning
regulations. Support ANC-1C’s appeal – BZA
case # is 19961.
Thank
you,
—
MD is moving to 100% clean electricity by 2040.Thank your legislators!
Author: CCAN Action Fund Published:Mon, Apr 08, 2019 7:37 pm
|
|
Dear Ronald, I’ve been waiting for WEEKS to give you this good news: We won! Today, on the last day of the 90-day session, the Maryland General Assembly finally passed the Clean Energy Jobs Act! You heard that right!! Two veteran legislators — Senator Brian Feldman of Montgomery County and Delegate Dereck Davis of Prince George’s County — rescued the bill, garnered the votes, and played star roles in final passage of the strongest climate legislation Maryland has ever embraced. They were helped by freshman Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (D-Montgomery) who played a critical role as “floor leader” during the House debate, a rare honor for a first-year legislator. This victory took 90 full days of intense advocacy and struggle in Annapolis. It took letters from climate scientists, rallies by solar workers, and countless phone calls and emails from residents like YOU. But now Maryland joins the exclusive company of California, Hawaii, New Mexico, DC, New Jersey, Vermont, and New York as the states with the highest clean-energy goals in the nation in the fight against climate change. The legislation will transform the way electricity is used in our state, making roof-top solar power and utility-scale solar common forms of generation in coming years. It will also further kickstart the state’s offshore wind industry, with incentives for 1200 megawatts of ocean-based power. On the negative side, legislators could not muster the votes to end subsidies for waste incineration under the state’s renewable power standard. This is a bitter setback in an otherwise radically strong bill. We at CCAN will continue to work with local leaders to shutter the large trash incinerators in Baltimore City and Montgomery County and move to a zero waste economy. It is WRONG to subsidize trash burning as clean energy. Period. But the combined positive results of the Clean Energy Jobs Act are stunning. The bill will create tens of thousands of new solar and wind jobs, will create billions of dollars in net economic expansion for the state, and will invest millions in minority-, women-, and veteran-owned clean energy businesses and worker training programs. The total pollution reduction benefits are equal to taking 1.7 million cars off of Maryland roads. The Maryland House of Delegates and the Senate both provided veto-proof majorities to pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act today: 95-40 in favor in the House and 31-15 in the Senate. But I’ll be honest, this year’s General Assembly session has felt like running a marathon. It has been HARD. With the whole state of Maryland cheering us on, we gave it our all. And, as always, victories don’t happen without YOU. You helped us generate hundreds of calls and emails to your leaders in Annapolis. You came to rallies and lobby nights. Finally, it has paid off. Now that the Clean Energy Jobs Act has passed, it will go to Governor Hogan’s desk. In 2016, Hogan vetoed an earlier version of the Clean Energy Jobs Act getting us to 25% renewable electricity by 2020, and we had to override his veto the following year. Meanwhile, on the trash incineration issue, we were bitterly disappointed by the outcome. But we were totally inspired by the community activists in Baltimore City and Montgomery County who fought so hard — including a powerful lobby night in Annapolis — to bring justice to this incineration issue. The battle is not over. We will be back! Unfortunately, another major bill we fought for did not pass this year. Following a two-year-long campaign led by community activists fighting TransCanada’s Potomac Pipeline, we introduced the Pipeline and Water Protection Act (PAWPA). This bill would have required the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) to always conduct a water quality review under the authority granted by section 401 of the Clean Water Act. MDE failed to conduct this review for the Potomac Pipeline, and the project was ultimately approved. Thankfully, the Board of Public Works voted unanimously 3-0 to deny one final key permit, but it’s likely that TransCanada will sue to start construction. We were so excited when the Senate Education, Health and Environment committee voted 7-4in favor of PAWPA. Unfortunately, the House Economic Matters committee voted it down. We will continue to work with the Maryland Department of Environment to improve transparency and public participation, and ensure they do everything in their power to protect our environment from the dangers of fracked-gas pipelines. But back to the good news. We are hoping Governor Hogan signs the Clean Energy Jobs Act by mid-May. Thankfully, we have seen a shift in tone from Governor Hogan’s administration since his 2016 veto of a similar clean energy bill. Last December, he co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post calling on states to lead the way on climate change. And his own administration modeled the Clean Energy Jobs Act when searching for ways to meet our 40% greenhouse gas reduction obligation. We’re hopeful he will do the right thing and sign the bill when it comes to his desk. We’ll keep you posted! Thanks again. Sincerely, Mike Tidwell |
Will FERC trample state and local authorities in DER rulemaking?
Author: Jim Matheson Published: April 5, 2019 Utility Dive
following is a contributed article by Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may be poised to upset a long-standing balance among local, state and federal decision-making as it considers aggregating distributed energy resources in a way that eliminates local jurisdiction. This outcome would represent a short-sighted and severe overreach by the commission.
The commission has issued a final rule requiring regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) to enable storage resources, including those connected to distribution systems or behind the meter, to participate in the wholesale market. FERC has also proposed the same approach for all aggregated distributed energy resources (DER), including distributed generation and electric vehicles.
But, the commission’s storage rule and DER aggregation proposal omit important language adopted by FERC in an earlier rulemaking to allow demand response aggregations only with the authorization of the relevant electric retail regulatory authority, typically a co-op board or state regulator.
While electric cooperatives generally believe RTO and ISO market rules should support evolving technologies, we are alarmed that FERC may disregard the important role played by state and local authorities over DER deployment.
The Federal Power Act wisely preserves state and local regulatory authority over retail electricity sales and local distribution service. State and local authorities, including co-ops boards, establish DER-related policies to achieve greater efficiencies and enhance service to consumers.
The absence of that language in the DER proposal gives FERC the last word over how distributed resources are integrated into wholesale markets. It also hands FERC the final say in the regulation of significant aspects of retail electric service, distribution service, and efforts by co-ops and other local utilities to plan and operate their systems for the benefit of all consumers.
Bypassing this important element of local control could have serious and harmful consequences for co-ops and their members, including:
- system disruptions, including overloading distribution lines that were not designed with DER aggregation in mind;
- fluctuations in voltage and reduced service quality to consumers;
- increased costs for co-ops and their members if distribution systems require adaptations to accommodate DER aggregation; and
- implementing a mandatory two-way communications backbone needed to maximize DER, which not all utilities or co-ops may have.
Today, local or state entities coordinate the integration of distributed and behind-the-meter resources within the grid to accomplish a wide range of state and local objectives. These include encouraging efficiency, promoting new technology, protecting power quality, and fairly allocating the costs of integration for both DER owners and other consumers on the system. Every state does this differently depending on unique local objectives and circumstances.
In contrast, if FERC regulations determine which entities can aggregate DER and which DER can participate in the wholesale markets, state and local authorities will lose control over a key element of system optimization for the benefit of all consumers.
This is a slippery slope and one deserving of checks and balances
BRIEF House Democrats roll out energy storage tax credit while pushing broader clean energy incentives
Author: Iulia GheorghiuPublished: April 5, 2019
Dive Brief:
- Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., on Thursday introduced legislation long awaited by clean energy advocates: a tax credit for energy storage technologies.
- H.R. 2096 aims to make energy storage technologies fully eligible for the investment tax credit (ITC) that is currently available to solar and some solar-plus-storage projects. The solar ITC is set to phase down from 30% in 2019 to 26% for projects that start in 2020, 22% in 2021 and 10% for all commercial and utility projects that start thereafter.
- More than 100 House Democrats signed a letter to Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., on Thursday, asking for a long-term extension of clean energy tax credits, including storage, alternative-fuel vehicles and energy efficiency-based provisions. The request follows efforts by the Trump administration to “undermine” the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, according to the letter.
While the Green New Deal is getting a lot of attention, Congressional Democrats are also pushing specific, near-term steps to address the challenges of climate change.
On Thursday, House Democrats introduced legislation to increase deployments of clean energy technologies like energy storage. Over 100 Democrats also asked for clean energy tax policies to be added to any upcoming broader tax legislation or infrastructure package.
“We are cognizant that Congress last extended many of these clean-energy tax credits with the understanding that they would eventually begin to be phased out,” the letter said, noting that the ITCs and other tax credits were meant “to serve as a bridge for the implementation of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan” to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants and other carbon emissions reduction policies.
“This is no longer the case. The Trump Administration’s efforts to undermine the CPP and other commonsense safeguards for new and existing power plants, relax fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, curtail potent methane emissions, and withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords have fundamentally altered the framework by which the 2015 agreement was reached,” the letter states.
Among the signatories is Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., who introduced a bill to challenge the president’s 2017 decision to pull the United States out of the Paris accord.
The letter suggests policies to encourage greater adoption of alternative fuel vehicles along with incentives to build out charging/fueling infrastructure for electric and alternative vehicles, and performance-based tax incentives for energy efficiency in new and existing buildings. It also recommends incentives to reduce industrial emissions, and continued wind and solar incentives, including additional incentives for “nascent technologies, such as offshore wind.”
The letter also emphasizes the efforts from H.R. 2096, asking Ways and Means leadership to “clarify the tax code for energy storage technologies, which are critical for the continued deployment and expansion of intermittent, clean energy technologies, such as wind and solar, and help modernizing the electric grid to make it more efficient and resilient.”
In 2017, Doyle introduced a bipartisan bill to create a separate energy storage infrastructure ITC based on the existing tax credits for solar energy. This followed a similar effort on the Senate side, introduced in 2016 by Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and former Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev. Energy storage advocates expect a Senate version of the bill to be introduced during this Congress as well.
The credit, which would be technology-agnostic, could further the investment and deployment in non-lithirum-ion batteries, according to the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). Battery storage can be paired with generation, including wind, solar and gas to create a more efficient grid, according to Greg Wetstone, president and CEO of the ACORE.
“For all the talk about resilience, this is the way to get there,” Wetstone told Utility Dive.
If the storage tax credit is approved, project developers could start initial investment in a storage project and complete it within four years to qualify for the credit. Meanwhile, the interconnection queue for renewables and storage projects continues to grow and the U.S. grid is badly in need of more transmission infrastructure to add new capacity from clean energy developments.
“Transmission is going to be critical to any of these ambitious proposals to get dramatic reductions in greenhouse emissions,” Wetstone said.
2019 Montgomery County Energy Summit
Hosted by: Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection & USGBC National Capital Region Wednesday, April 3, 2019 / Sliver Spring, Md
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pcpcllc/2019/04/03/2019-montgomery-county-energy-summit
ABOUT THE SUMMIT
For the past five years and counting, the Montgomery County Energy Summit has annually offered cutting-edge education focused on the latest trends in commercial energy efficiency, renewable energy, and related topics in Montgomery County. Our core audience includes building owners, property managers, energy contractors, and other green building professionals working in the County and the larger DMV area.
This year’s event, which is themed “Focus on the Here & Now,” will include a keynote presentation, breakout education sessions, an Expo Area featuring the latest in sustainable products and services, breakfast and lunch, and a post-event reception. Our core audience includes building owners, property managers, energy contractors, and other green building professionals working in the County and the larger DMV area.
8:00 to 8:45 am REGISTRATION & BREAKFAST 8:45 to 8:50 am
WELCOME: Remarks, Mark Bryan, Director, USGBC National Capital Region
8:50 to 9:05 am: OVERVIEW OF COUNTY SUSTAINABILITY PRIORITIES : Introduction, Adam Ortiz, Director, Montgomery County DEP Remarks, Tom Hucker, Montgomery County Council
9:05 to 9:20 am: KEYNOTE REMARKS BY CHRIS PYKE
Senior Vice President, Product, Arc Skoru
Chris Pyke, Ph.D. is the Senior Vice President for Product for ArcSkoru, Inc. Prior to joining USGBC, Dr. Pyke was the Chief Strategy Officer for Aclima, Inc. the Chief Operating Officer for GRESB, B.V., and a physical scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a principal investigator for the Green Health Partnership, a 5-year applied research initiative supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Pyke has served in a number of advisory roles, including as a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Working Group III), chair of the US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, and co-chair of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Interagency Working Group on Human Contributions and Responses to Climate Change. Dr. Pyke is on the faculty of the Urban and Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara and a B.S. (Magna Cum Laude) from the College of William and Mary.
9:20 to 9:30 am: REMARKS BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE MARC ELRICH
9:30 to 9:35 am: INTRODUCTION TO EXHIBITOR BOOTHS & EDUCATION SESSIONS
Lindsey Shaw, Manager of Energy & Sustainability Programs, Montgomery County DEP
9:45 to 11:00 am: EDUCATION SESSIONS
Commercial Loans & Grants to Help You Go Solar in the DMV
Enhancing Your Efficiency with MD Utility Incentives: A Deep Dive into Select Programs
Existing Building Retro-Commissioning: Fundamentals & Case Studies
11:30 am to 12:30 pm: EDUCATION SESSIONS
Deciphering the Data: Using Your Building’s Story to Make Sustainability Gains
It’s How You Get There: One Team’s Journey to Achieving NZE
LEED v4.1 for Design & Construction Overview
12:30 to 1:30 pm: LUNCH & VENDOR BOOTH VISITS
Brief Lunch Presentation by Peter Gourlay, Vice President, RMI of Maryland
1:45 to 2:45 pm
EDUCATION SESSIONS
Making the Dollars Count by Counting Dollars: Innovative Financing for Green Buildings
Challenging the No: Finding Energy Efficiency Opportunities in Manufacturing Facilities
Efficient Buildings Create Efficient Communities
Targeting NZE in Existing Buildings: Practical Approaches to Using the Passive House Standard
3:00 to 4:00 pm: EDUCATION SESSION
An Inside Look at Unisphere, Silver Spring’s First Zero-Net Energy Building
4:30 to 7:00 pm: NETWORKING HAPPY HOUR AT THE UNITED THERAPEUTICS’ UNISPHERE
PJM CEO Andy Ott talks reserve market reform and winter reliability
Puerto Rico passes 100% renewable energy bill as it aims for storm resilience
Author: Iulia GheorghiuPublished: March 26, 2019
Dive Brief:
- The Puerto Rico state legislature adopted on Monday a bill that would set a 100% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) by 2050 as part of a broader package of energy reforms.
- The U.S. territory will join Hawaii, California and Washington, D.C., with its 100% RPS target, which includes interim goals of 40% renewables by 2025 and 50% by 2040. Similar to Hawaii’s island economy, Puerto Rico’s energy customers faced high prices from importing fossil fuels for power generation as well as resilience issues from extreme weather and vulnerable transmission infrastructure.
- SB 1121 was delayed after the House left session March 18 without approving the unified version of the bipartisan bill. The bill awaits Gov. Ricardo Rosselló’s signature.
Dive Insight:
Puerto Rico has been rebuilding its grid following the widespread damage from 2017’s Hurricane Maria, which left 1.5 million residents without power for almost a year. The new package of energy policies seeks to advance the transition from baseload fossil fuel generation to distributed clean resources.
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s (PREPA) integrated resource plan (IRP) shows “a very renewables-friendly narrative,” which “would have been unheard of before the storm, completely unheard of,” Javier Rua-Jovet, Sunrun’s Puerto Rico public policy director, told Utility Dive.
That includes the largest solar and energy storage buildout in the United States. The addition of storage would address the intermittency of wind or solar, according to Jorge Camacho, a PREPA consultant and former regulatory staffer in Washington, D.C.
The renewable resources are competing with liquefied natural gas (LNG), a cleaner imported fuel compared to diesel, oil and coal generation.
“There is still an appetite in Puerto Rico for baseload, [and] to satisfy those baseload needs with gas,” Camacho told Utility Dive.
EcoEléctrica, a private generator in Puerto Rico that imports LNG and burns it in a coastal 504 MW combined cycle facility in the south of the island, has “stellar performance,” Camacho said. However, their 25-year power purchase agreement is ending soon and the 100% by 2050 RPS mandate will lead regulators and other stakeholders to re-evaluate the length of a new contract, he said.
“In order to get to 100% by 2050, you know you cannot go ahead and do another 25-year [contract] with EcoEléctrica, that doesn’t make sense, right?” he said.
PREPA received criticism for including gas infrastructure in its latest IRP: three LNG import terminals.
Connecting new resources to the grid can also be a challenge. The bill would establish hard deadlines for distributed solar interconnections: 90 days for medium-sized systems (25 kW to 5 MW) and automatic interconnection for small projects (under 25 kW).
“Even though interconnection of a residential system to the grid should be really fast, it might take months and months and months [with] PREPA, and it has little to do with technical resources, it seems to have to do with administrative resources,” Rua-Jovet said.
While Sunrun has had productive meetings with PREPA, “having a clear law helps because if at some point we find a roadblock, it might take going to the Commission” to resolve it, he said.
As part of SB 1121, the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau will be able to establish performance-based metrics for renewable resource penetration. “Those types of metrics make sense when you have a more rational and, I guess, more private utility,” Rua-Jovet said.
The bill would also ban coal plants starting in 2028. According to the Energy Information Administration, there is only one coal plant on the island, a 454 MW facility at Guayama.
Duke: North Carolina coal ash pond excavation order to cost up to $5B
Author: Catherine Morehouse@cmorehouse10 Published:April 2,2019
Dive Brief:
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on Monday ordered Duke Energy to completely excavate all its coal ash ponds in the state.
While eight of the utility’s 14 plant sites in North Carolina had been slated for full excavation and closure, the fate of the final six and their 11 ponds remained unknown until Monday. The closures were ordered after “rigorous scientific review” from the DEQ and public input from nearby communities concluded excavation is “the only way to protect public health and the environment,” the DEQ said.
One of the six plants covered in the order is the Allen plant, which was named the second most polluted in the country in a national report from Earthjustice on coal ash pollution. Duke now has four months to file a plan with regulators on how it will comply with the order.
Dive Insight:
Duke is spending billions to address coal ash pollution at its North Carolina coal plants and will now have to spend several billion more.
The decision by North Carolina regulators echoes similar directives from state leaders and utilities in Virginia and Georgia, representing wins for environmentalists who argue the only safe way to protect groundwater from coal ash is to fully excavate the ponds and move the ash to plastic-lined pits or recycle it. Most utilities prefer the “cap-in-place” method.
“We believe that the science and the engineering support that capping is protective of the environment,” Director of Policy and Environmental Communications at Duke Energy Paige Sheehan told Utility Dive.
“And that’s … the analysis that we had submitted, to the state,” she added.
Following the spill of more than 39,000 tons of coal ash from the utility’s Dan River plant in 2014, North Carolina lawmakers passed the Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA), amended in 2016 to direct the DEQ to examine the six of Duke’s coal ash sites not slated for excavation and determine next steps. The Monday order indicates the department does not find Duke’s cap-in-place closure plan sufficient for groundwater protection and the utility has until Aug. 1 to file a removal plan.
Requirements by the state under CAMA dictate three main closure options: excavation and disposal into a lined landfill, cap-in-place method, or closure in accordance with federal coal combustion residual rules (CCR), which don’t necessitate a lining but have mandates on monitoring and how far away the bottom of the basin is from aquifers.
Last November, Duke’s compliance filings under the federal rule revealed that 24 of its 26 coal ash ponds were in violation of CCR regulations governing disposal of the waste, including the basins’ distance from nearby aquifers. The ponds at the Allen plant — the second most polluted in the country — were found to be actively leaking cobalt more than 500 times above federal safety levels into surrounding groundwater, along with eight other pollutants, including arsenic, selenium and lithium.
The only two ponds not in violation had been fully excavated.
“Across the Southeast and more, as time develops, across the country, the industry standard now for addressing unlined coal ash pits is to remove the ash,” Frank Holleman, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, told Utility Dive, noting that the concern over many of the sites in North Carolina is their proximity to rivers and waterways.
“This ash being saturated in water is going to continue to pollute the surrounding groundwater in which it sits as well as neighboring creeks, rivers, lakes and drinking water reservoirs, even if you cover it up with a synthetic cover and plant grass on top of it because they’re not getting the ash out of the groundwater,” said Holleman.
The main concern for environmentalists and regulators with the cap-in-place method is that it leaves the bottom of the basin unlined and in contact with groundwater, and in many instances across the country, the heavy metal pollutants from the ash are leaching out around the site.
Duke estimates costs to comply with the new order will add $4-5 billion to the current $5.6 billion clean up, covering construction and engineering as well as transporting the actual waste, said Sheehan. For some sites, closure could take over 30 years, she noted, and the closures will involve a mix of recycling the ash for concrete and excavation and removal.
However, environmentalists also complain that utilities routinely overestimate the costs of removal.
In Virginia, Dominion Energy initially reported removal costs would be between $2.564 billion and about $6.5 billion, while estimating cap-in-place methods would cost $2 billion on the high end. After the utility was ordered by legislators to reexamine the numbers, it found removal costs went down significantly to $2.773-$3.358 billion, if a single bidder were to recycle 45% of its ash over a 15-year span, or $2.345 billion to $5.642 billion if multiple bidders were selected.
“Duke Energy has routinely exaggerated estimates of the cost” to fully excavate, said Holleman. “What we’ve also seen is that utilities, when they’re fighting against having to clean up sites, greatly overstate the cost of excavating and greatly understate the cost of leaving the ash where it is.”
The table below outlines Duke’s November 2018 CCR compliance filings for the six plants subject to Monday’s order.
| Plant | Number of basins | Is the site compliant with federal CCR rules? | # of violations | Violation(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen Plant | 2 | No | 2 | 1.52 meters/5 ft above aquifer requirement |
| Belews Creek Plant | 1 | No | 2 | 1.52 meters/5 ft above aquifer requirement, wetlands impacts requirements |
| Marshall Plant | 1 | No | 2 | 1.52 meters/5 ft above aquifer requirement, wetlands impacts requirements |
| Mayo Plant | 3 | No | 4 | Three violate 1.52 meters/5 ft above aquifer requirement, one violates wetlands impact requirements as well. |
| Rogers (Cliffside) Plant | 3 | No/Yes | 4 | Two violate 1.52 meters/5 ft above aquifer requirement, wetlands impacts requirements. One is compliant with all CCR requirements. |
| Roxboro Plant | 2 | No | 3 | Two violate 1.52 meters/5 ft above aquifer requirement, one violates wetlands impact requirements. |