The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment: April 2015

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ENVIRONMENT POLICY-Masthead.png

April 2015

The Environmental Policy Project produces this weekly Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment to report on major national and state environmental issues, including land ownership, energy production, air and water regulations, endangered species, pollution and much more.

April 27, 2015

New York study found microbeads in wastewater treatment plants in the state

Click to read more about environmental policy in New York and wastewater treatment.

In April 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that microbeads were found in 74 percent of samples from 34 private and municipal wastewater treatment plants around the state. Microbeads are small, plastic beads that are often found in beauty products; they have also been found in other bodies of water in New York. According to the attorney general, microbeads "act like sponges" and connect with chemicals in rivers and lakes, potentially harming wildlife if they are ingested. The State University of New York assisted the attorney general's office with the study.[1]

Schneiderman said, "Today’s report confirms that from Lake Erie to the Long Island Sound, microbeads, a harmful form of plastic pollution, are finding their way into waters across New York State." In response, Scheniderman recommended new legislation to prevent what he called "plastic pollution" and microbeads from contaminating any waters and potentially causing health problems.[1]

According to a 2014 report from the New York Attorney General's Office, microbeads pass through wastewater treatment plants and are discharged into waterways. They are often mistaken for food by aquatic wildlife, entering their food chain and potentially contaminating fish and seafood. In 2014, Schneiderman sent a bill to the New York State Legislature that would ban microbeads in facial scrubs and would require that microbeads be five millimeters or smaller. The law passed the general assembly in May 2014 by a vote of 108 to 0. It had not received a vote in the New York State Senate as of April 2015.[2][3]

Study suggests higher local support for Keystone pipeline among liberal and Democratic voters

Click to read more about the Keystone XL pipeline.

A new study has found that local support for the Keystone XL pipeline among those who identify as liberal or Democratic is higher than at the national level. Republicans and a majority of independents support the construction of the pipeline while most Democrats and environmental groups are opposed nationally, although the research suggests that this is not the case for those who live near where the pipeline would be built.[4][5]

The study, conducted by Timothy Gravelle of the University of Essex and Erick Lachapelle of the University of Montreal and commissioned by the journal Energy Policy, looked at three polls about the pipeline from 2013 and 2014. The polls, published by the Pew Research Center, served as a way for the researchers to separate out survey respondents who live close to the pipeline's proposed route. The closer one gets to those who live near the route, according to the study, there is more support from Democrats and liberal voters than at the national level.[4]

"Proximity to the pipeline leads to a greater likelihood of favoring the pipeline," the study said. According to the researchers, the idea of NIMBY, an acronym that means "not in my backyard" and suggests that most people are opposed to large changes near their homes, did not apply to those located near the Keystone pipeline. Although conservative respondents did not change in their support for the pipeline based on their closeness to its route, liberal respondents were more likely to favor the pipeline as their distance from it decreased.[4][5]

"As a result, there is no ideological divide as it relates to the Keystone XL near the proposed route; it is only at a substantial distance from the pipeline that differences between liberals and conservatives emerge," said the authors of the study. One of the reasons offered by the researchers for the phenomenon was that the costs and benefits of the pipeline become more apparent for local communities, such as the potential local jobs compared to the environmental costs.[4]

Federal court hears arguments about the Clean Power Plan

Click to read more about the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Air Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments from attorneys for West Virginia and 11 other states that oppose the Clean Power Plan, a series of rules on coal-fired power plants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Twelve states in total are challenging the EPA, including Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.[6][7]

The states argued that the EPA does not have authority under the Clean Air Act to go forward with the Clean Power Plan, and that the EPA's interpretation of the law goes beyond the power they were given by Congress. The plan would require power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2020. The states were represented by Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and former teacher to President Obama, whose administration proposed the plan.[7]

"It is clear they are trying to make law, not execute law," Tribe told the three judges who will decide the case.[7]

The judges raised questions about whether it was appropriate to strike down the plan when it was not yet finalized (according to the EPA, the Clean Power Plan will be finalized in the summer of 2015). Judge Brett Kavanaugh suggested tabling the case until the EPA finalized its plan, while Judge Thomas Griffith wondered if deciding on the issue could set a problematic precedent for similar issues in the future.[7]

The case will likely be appealed to the United States Supreme Court regardless of the D.C. Circuit's decision.

According to the EPA, the plan is projected to generate $55 billion to $93 billion per year in public health and climate benefits and cost $14.1 billion to $18.6 billion in 2030, while a study by energy industry representatives predicted an increase in consumer energy costs by $366 billion.[8][9]

April 20, 2015

U.S. House committees approve bills to block new Clean Water Act rule

Click to read more about the implementation of the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

In April 2015, the U.S. House Committee on Transportation approved a bill aiming to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed expansion of the bodies of water that are regulated under the Clean Water Act. The House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment similarly passed a funding bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, one of the EPA's partners in federal water regulation, that would temporarily prevent the corps from regulating these bodies of water under the EPA's rule.[10]

The EPA's new water plan seeks to clarify which bodies of water should be regulated under the Clean Water Act, since there has been ambiguity over how far the law extends. The plan defines which streams, ponds, ditches and other kinds of water the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can regulate. The scope of the plan could affect whether property owners need a federal permit to make alterations to their land. For example, if a ditch or other surface area reaches a certain high water mark or contributes to the flow of a stream, wetland, bay, river or other body of water, the agencies could require a permit if the owner or developer of that area wishes to make alterations to the property.[10][11]

The legislation approved by the U.S. House Committee on Transportation would also require the federal government to withdraw its rule and replace it with a version written in consultation with state and local governments.[12]

Critics of the proposed water rule, such as agricultural groups, say that it would unnecessarily expand the power of the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps over waters that farmers use in routine agricultural duties. They also believe that it would disrupt daily farming activities such as planting crops, using fertilizer and filling ditches.[13]

Proponents of the EPA rule, such as EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, have said that the plan would not impact ranchers or farmers. At a congressional hearing, McCarthy said that ditches, irrigated farmlands and smaller ponds would not fall under the new regulations unless their flow into certain navigable waters was "significant." The House Transportation Committee's ranking Democratic member, Peter DeFazio of Oregon, also said that concerns about the plan should wait until the rule is finalized by the end of 2015.[14]

The congressional legislation would have to be passed by the House and the United States Senate and signed by the president, who is likely to veto the legislation unless Republicans can get a certain number of votes from Democrats to override the veto.[15]

Minnesota legislators and governor dispute environmental bill

Click to read more about environmental policy in Minnesota.

The Republican-controlled Minnesota House of Representatives released its budget plan, which would limit the Governor of Minnesota's authority to draft regulatory rules for water quality and environmental permits. It would also give the Minnesota State Legislature a greater role in determining environmental policy. The Minnesota State Senate is controlled by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party, the state's equivalent to the Democratic Party, while the state's governor, Mark Dayton, is also a DFL member. The Minnesota House's environmental legislation is likely to stir a strong political debate between the House Republicans, Senate DFLs and the Democratic governor over funding for the state government.[16][17]

Although the state legislature and governor have a say in what environmental laws are passed, the Minnesota executive branch and its agencies have some authority over the details and enforcement of environmental rules. The House bill would allow state legislators to veto certain environmental rules or to set them aside if legislators do not approve. The bill would require an "economic impact" review of environmental rules that would cost the private sector $5 million or more, and it would also require the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to get legislative approval for new water quality standards if they have a total financial impact of $50 million or more within the first five years.[16][17]

Supporters of the legislation say that the bill will allow more oversight of the state's executive agencies in order to hold them accountable for their decisions. "Sometimes when you go through an agency the authority gets a little lost in the weeds, so it's important for us that we have control about what's going on in the state and that includes regulations and permitting," said House Majority Leader Joyce Peppin (R). Rep. Denny McNamara (R), the chairman of the State House's Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee, said the legislation is about making agency budgets more transparent.[16][17]

Opponents of the legislation say that the bill will intrude into the decision-making of state executive agencies and would make agency operations more inefficient. Gov. Dayton said that the legislature would be impeding on the authority of the executive branch. He stated, "If somebody else in the Legislature wants to run the executive branch of state government, they should run for governor." Other critics, such as House Minority Leader Paul Thissen (D), say that the bill would allow political influence on the state's environmental policy.[16][17]

Environmental groups file federal lawsuit over EPA's inaction on regional haze in Utah

Click to read more about the Clean Air Act, air pollution and environmental policy in Utah.

Environmental groups filed a lawsuit stating that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not go far enough in dealing with regional haze in Utah. The lawsuit, filed in federal court and led by the group WildEarth Guardians, is seeking an outcome that compels the EPA to deal with the emissions of two Utah power plants that environmental groups say are causing regional pollution.[18][19]

In 2012, the EPA rejected Utah's plan to control the state's haze since the plan did not go far enough in limiting pollution from two Utah power plants. The state missed a January 2015 deadline to submit an air quality plan to the EPA. In March 2015, Utah's Air Quality Board released its revised plan, which will likely be adopted by the board's members and sent to the EPA for approval. However, environmental groups say that the state's actions are too late and do not go far enough. "Congress sets deadlines for a reason, so we are going to stick to our guns on this one. Whenever the state says they need more time, that is bad news for clean air," said Jeremy Nichols, the director of climate and energy programs at WildEarth Guardians.[18][19]

Specifically, the environmental groups say that two different coal-fired power plants in the state are contributing to the state's haze because of their old age and lack of strict anti-pollution technology. The power plants emit two known air pollutants called nitrogen oxide and "particulate matter," and under the Clean Air Act, the Utah state government is required to control these emissions through an air quality plan, which also must be approved by the EPA.[18][19]

The Utah Air Quality Board's plan does not require new technology to reduce nitrogen oxide, and environmental groups hope the lawsuit will require the EPA to take over the process and implement stricter standards.[18][19]

April 13, 2015

Wisconsin natural resource department considers elimination of science bureau

Click to read more about environmental policy in Wisconsin.

Officials at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are considering eliminating the department's Bureau of Science Services, a division that publishes the scientific literature used by the department's administrators for managing environmental issues and wildlife in the state. According to the agency's website, the bureau employs "researchers, analysts and other critical thinkers" who advise the department in its decision-making. In total, the bureau has 59 budgeted positions, and the elimination of the bureau is expected to shift the bureau's researchers into other agency divisions. The move is part of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposed 2015-2017 executive budget for state agencies.[20][21]

Critics of the potential reorganization have said that the department's decisions on natural resource management could be guided more by political considerations than impartial scientific research if the plan goes forward. "Science is the bedrock of natural resource management in this state," said George Meyer, the executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and a former director of the Department of Natural Resources, in an interview. "Without it, there will be mistakes made in management of our resources."[20][21]

Supporters of the reorganization, such as the department's secretary Cathy Stepp, have said that the agency needs to be streamlined in order to get rid of waste and inefficiency. The budget proposal would cut 66 positions throughout the entire natural resource department, 18 of which would be in the Bureau of Science Services. Stepp has also said that some current staff members in the bureau will be placed into other divisions.[20][21]

Researchers in the Bureau of Science Services serve in different capacities. Their research covers a wide variety of environmental issues such as deer populations, invasive species, endangered species, lake water quality and air pollution levels.[20][21]

Bill Cosh, the spokesperson for the Wisconsin DNR, had said earlier that any potential reorganization would not negatively affect the role of science in the agency's decision-making. "The budget does not eliminate our ability to conduct applied research and technical consultation that directly supports our management programs," Cosh said. "When it comes to making decisions the agency remains committed to doing so by using sound science, following the law and using common sense."[20][21]

U.S. Senate passes resolution supporting the transfer of federal land to the states

Click to read more about federal land and federal land ownership by state.

In March 2015, the United States Senate passed a budget amendment supporting the transfer of federal land to the state governments. The amendment, sponsored by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was approved by a vote of 51 to 49. The measure would allow the federal government to sell or give federal land to state and local governments, and the land could then be auctioned off. Excluding national parks and national monuments, the kinds of federal land up for sale include national forests, wilderness areas, wildlife preserves and properties managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The United States House of Representatives also voted in favor of a separate, nonbinding resolution supporting more state and local control over public land owned by the federal government (the House version passed in a 228-119 vote).[22][23]

The House and Senate measures are symbolic and nonbinding, and further legislation would have to pass the House and Senate and be signed by the president before becoming law.[22]

Supporters of the Senate measure such as Murkowski have said that the burdens on using federal land for energy production are too restrictive, and that state lands are easier to use for oil and gas exploration. Other supporters of the Senate and House proposals, such as Utah Representative Rob Bishop (R), the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, have said that public land management is handled better at the state and local level. "The sad thing is the states, the counties and the tribes in the West are far more effective in how they manage lands than the federal government," Bishop said.[22][24]

Critics such as Will Rogers, the president of the Trust for Public Land, have said that the measure goes against "the historical, bipartisan commitment to protecting our land and heritage." Rogers had also pointed to a 2014 report by the U.S. Department of the Interior estimating that federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges supported roughly 355,000 jobs in 2013, which could be affected by a land transfer to the states.[25]

The Senate measure passed almost on a strict party-line vote, with all Democratic senators voting against the measure and with all but three Republican senators voting in favor of it.[22]

California and Quebec hold second joint carbon dioxide emissions allowance auction

Click to read more about carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases and environmental policy in California.

The state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec completed a second joint carbon dioxide (CO2) allowance auction as part of a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. The program is the first international carbon allowance program between two segments of two different countries.[26]

The program requires California and Quebec to align their carbon emissions through a market system. In 2013, California capped its emissions to 162.8 million metric tons (MMmt) of carbon dioxide and emitted roughly 11 percent less carbon than the cap allowed, creating a surplus. Similarly, Quebec also achieved a surplus of 1.82 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that year.[26]

A cap-and-trade program is considered a more market-friendly approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which are commonly linked to changes to the climate. The "cap" on emissions requires governments to keep their emissions low. The "trade" part of the system allows a market for carbon "allowances." The less carbon that is emitted, the less each government has to pay for its emissions. The California-Quebec program is meant to provide an economic incentive for the two governments to invest in renewable energy resources and more anti-pollution technology. The cap on carbon emissions is gradually reduced every year, and the overall goal for California and Quebec is a 15 percent reduction of carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2020.[27]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 39 percent of California's electric power sector comes from sources that do not emit carbon, compared to 95 percent of Quebec's electric power sector, which is generated almost solely by hydroelectric power.[26]

April 6, 2015

California responds to one of the worst droughts in a generation

Click to read more about environmental policy in California.

California Governor Jerry Brown ordered a mandatory 25 percent reduction in water use in California towns and cities during one of the worst droughts that the state has faced in years. The state's snow-topped mountains contain only 6 percent of their typical water levels, while the state has been forced to use reservoirs and ground water at an increasing rate. The mandatory water rationing does not apply to the state's farms, however, which use nearly 80 percent of California water and account for 2 percent of California's economy.[28][29][30]

Brown has defended the exemption for the state's agricultural sector, but left open the possibility of re-examining how water rights are distributed if the drought continues. "Some people have a right to more water than others," Brown said in an interview. "That's historic. That's built into the legal framework of California. And yes, if things continue at this level, that's probably going to be examined."[31]

The use of ground water has rapidly increased since the drought began. An estimated 65 percent of the fresh water use came from underground sources in 2014, compared to under 40 percent in non-drought years. Ground water includes pools of water found in underground aquifers, which take thousands of years to fill up. According to the National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA), ground water use could account for 75 percent of the state's total usage in 2015.[30]

Critics of the state government's response to the drought, which is estimated to cost $1 billion for new water infrastructure spending in addition to the mandatory water rationing, have said that the agricultural sector should have to make similar reductions in water usage so that the burden does not fall on urban areas. According to the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board, "Californians who live in cities will be paying higher bills, and agriculture gets more time. That’s not fair — with a drought this serious, the restrictions should be for everyone."[32]

EPA issues moratorium on new pesticides linked to declining bee populations

Click to read more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pesticides.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would likely not approve the use of certain new pesticides owing to their effects on honey bees. Chemicals in the pesticides have been linked to declining bee populations, although the EPA's moratorium would not apply to products already on the market.[33][34]

For the companies that have applied for approval of their new products, the moratorium would prevent production and use of the products pending the results of an EPA study on the risks to bee populations. The chemicals in the pesticides have been linked to chronic effects on honey bees, butterflies and birds. "EPA believes that until the data on pollinator health have been received and appropriate risk assessments completed, it is unlikely to be in a position to determine that such uses would avoid 'unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,'" the EPA wrote.[34]

Some environmental and wildlife groups, such as the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity, have said that they support the EPA's action, but that the moratorium did not go far enough in restricting the use of pesticides already on the market. Critics, including farmers and nursery owners, have said that the pesticide is crucial for getting rid of the pests that destroy plants and crops. In April 2015, Portland, Oregon, became one of eight cities in the United States to ban the use of these pesticides.[35]

The EPA is studying the six types of pesticide and their impact on honey bees, and its evaluation of four of them is expected by 2018, with an evaluation of the remaining two following in 2019.[33][34]

Energy company reaches environmental settlement with Virginia

Click to read more about the Clean Water Act and environmental policy in North Carolina and Virginia.

In April 2015, Duke Energy, a major energy company in North Carolina, agreed to a $2.5 million settlement with Virginia for a coal ash spill, which covered the Dan River with sludge stretching over 70 miles in February 2014. The spill managed to affect areas in both North Carolina and Virginia, and the company already agreed to pay $102 million in fines to the federal government for violating the Clean Water Act.[36][37]

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality said that the vast majority of the settlement ($2.25 million) would go to environmental projects in communities affected by the spill, while $250,000 would be delivered to the state's environmental emergency fund.[36]

The company's December 2014 regulatory filings stated that nearly 200 leaks had occurred in 32 Duke-owned coal ash dumps throughout Virginia. More than 3 million gallons of the contaminated waste water were released each day at those sites. Although originating in North Carolina, the spills left more than 2,500 tons of toxic ash backed up at a Virginia dam. Officials near the affected dam had said that economic development was hindered in the area due to fear over the quality of the river water, although local testing has determined that the water supply is safe.[37]

In a statement, the company's president had called the settlement fair. "Duke Energy is committed to working with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to expedite the benefits of this agreement and to help protect and promote natural resources in the state," Paul Newton, Duke Energy's president, said in the statement.[37]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Washington Examiner, "N.Y. AG: Study shows microbeads in majority of samples from 34 state wastewater-treatment plants," April 22, 2015
  2. ↑ New York State Attorney General, "Unseen Threat: How Microbeads Harm New York Waters, Wildlife, Health and Environment," accessed April 27, 2015
  3. ↑ New York Audubon Society, "NYS Passes First Microbead Ban Legislation," May 5, 2014
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Washington Post, "The Keystone XL debate is highly partisan — unless you live near the proposed pipeline route," April 17, 2015
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Science Direct, "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," November 13, 2014
  6. ↑ The Viewpoint, "12 States Sue EPA Over Proposed Power Plant Regulations," September 15, 2014
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Utility Drive, "D.C. Circuit Court skeptical of Clean Power Plan legal challenge," April 16, 2015
  8. ↑ U.S. Federal Register, "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," accessed September 22, 2014
  9. ↑ NERA Economic Consulting, "Potential Energy Impacts of the EPA Proposed Clean Power Plan," October 2014
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Agri-Pulse, "Republicans advance bills to block Clean Water Act rule," April 15, 2015
  11. ↑ Goodwin Proctor Newsletter, "Supreme Court Requires 'Significant Nexus' to Navigable Waters for Jurisdiction under Clean Water Act §404," July 5, 2006
  12. ↑ Farm Futures, "House committee approves bill to nix Waters of the U.S. proposal," April 16, 2015
  13. ↑ Farm Futures, "Groups Release 'Waters of the U.S.' Mapping Tool," September 4, 2014
  14. ↑ Pacific Legal Foundation, "Congressmen at joint hearing express concern about 'waters of the US' rule," February 5, 2015
  15. ↑ Farm Futures, "House committee approves bill to nix Waters of the U.S. proposal," April 16, 2015
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Minnesota Star Tribune, "House GOP legislators, Dayton spar over environmental bill," April 16, 2015
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 Crookston Times, "Beneath Minnesota budget dispute, a tussle over regulatory power," April 20, 2015
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Deseret News, "Lawsuit targets EPA in Utah regional haze plan 'failure'," March 30, 2015
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 Good 4 Utah, "Environmental groups file suit against EPA over failing to hold Utah accountable for haze," April 7, 2015
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 Minn Post, "Wisconsin DNR mulls dissolving its science bureau," April 9, 2015
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, "Wisconsin DNR mulls dissolving science bureau," April 7, 2015
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 High Country News, "Federal public land transfers get a Congressional boost," March 31, 2015
  23. ↑ East County Magazine, "Congress Passes Measure to Allow Selling Off National Forests and other Public Lands," April 6, 2015
  24. ↑ Deseret News, "Rep. Rob Bishop plans public lands hearings on federal ownership," March 31, 2015
  25. ↑ The New York Times, "Our Land, Up for Grabs," April 2, 2015
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, "California and Quebec complete second joint carbon dioxide emissions allowance auction," March 11, 2015
  27. ↑ Environmental Defense Fund, "How cap and trade works," accessed April 13, 2015
  28. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Water wars boil over," April 4, 2015
  29. ↑ Time, "California Governor Defends Water Restrictions That Largely Spare Farms," April 5, 2015
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Washington Post, "California’s water woes primed to get worse as groundwater is drained," April 2, 2015
  31. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Gov. Jerry Brown defends agriculture’s water use amid drought," April 5, 2015
  32. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Gov. Jerry Brown’s mandatory water cuts should be for everyone," April 3, 2015
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Reuters, "U.S. to halt expanded use of some insecticides amid honey bee decline," April 3, 2015
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 The Hill, "EPA restricts pesticide that could harm bees," April 2, 2015
  35. ↑ Center for Biological Diversity, "Groups: EPA Must Do More to Protect Pollinators From Harmful Pesticides," April 2, 2015
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Wall Street Journal, "Duke Energy to Pay Virginia $2.5 Million Over Coal Ash Spill," April 3, 2015
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 Star Tribune, "Virginia environmental officials, Duke agree to $2.5 million settlement over coal ash spill," April 3, 2015

See also

Footnotes

v • e
The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment
StatesEnvironmental Policy Project
Archives
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Policy_Tracker:_Energy_and_Environment:_April_2015&oldid=9067561"