Duke+Energy+In+Trouble+Over+Coal+Ash+Again

> The second article was published on Think Progress, a branch for news under the Center for American Progress Fund, on June 14th, 2016. [] The third article was published on the LA Times on May 14th, 2015. [] > > > >
 * 1) ** Article: ** The article was published on the Charlotte Business Journal on July 7th, 2017. Though it was posted more than one month ago, the issue discussed remains exceptionally relevant and is a local example of government-approved corporate ignorance of environmental issues. Link: []
 * 1)  **Summary:** The reports briefly describe the magnitude of the damage Duke Energy’s subsidiary, Duke Progress, has caused while transporting coal, as well as noting all parties involved. According to the article, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality and several landfill and ash burial plants are involved in the approval process. Following authorization, Duke plans to transport more than sevenfold of that already transported in preceding years, a number that totaled almost two million tons. Additionally, Duke intends to bury about five million tons of ash from two unlined ash ponds on the site in the landfill. These methods of disposal are supposed improvements as a result of the sheer number of times Duke has had lawsuits arise against their detrimental dumping practices. Their previous methods of disposal have been criticized countless times and are slowly changing, but there is still much work to be done.
 * 1) ** Relevance to APES: ** The course’s stated objective is “ to provide students with the scientific principles, concepts, and methodologies required [...] to identify and analyze environmental problems both natural and human-made, to evaluate the relative risks associated with these problems, and to examine alternative solutions for resolving and/or preventing them.” Given this objective, provided by College Board, it is inherent that students must be able to recognize community-level environmental issues as significant as globally recognized affairs. The locality of the stated matter is a clear example of areas for improvement nearby, where citizens and children alike can take part in the greater vision of a clean world.
 * 1) ** My Perspective: ** The articles, while detailing many of the quantifiable issues with halting Duke Energy’s dumping practices, do not recognize the gravity of the problem. All three articles take a stance of hope and action, yet there is very little actually being done about the issue. Duke has been dumping or burying coal ash in nearby water sources, unkempt landfills, and ash ponds for several years. While environmental laws should either be passed or enforced to prevent this, state-level subdivisions of the EPA are not nearly as virtuous in maintaining environmental policy as those at the federal level, so their appeasement of Duke’s disposal practices have continued despite their facade. In addition, Duke Energy has become wealthy enough as a corporation and desired enough as a provider of energy that their influence dominates even individual lawsuits brought up against the damage they have brought. While several lawsuits have arisen, some of which were even class-actions, none have succeeded in reaching trial as a result of plaintiffs only affording a limited amount of legal action compared to Duke. Subsequently, all community initiatives against Duke have resulted in settlement amounts that are negligible in comparison to the profit made from their cheap disposal practices. Thus, Duke Energy can easily bypass environmental ethics with government approval, while simultaneously destroying the surrounding homes of both wildlife and human beings. The people have limited power in this situation, leaving the government to take responsibility. Unless public environmental agencies maintain higher standards and act in the interest of the people rather than of profit, local issues like those discussed here will go unnoticed.
 * 1) ** Law: ** All three of the following environmental laws relate directly to the issue at hand, as they detail the restrictions that both governmental agencies and corporations must adhere when engaging in such practices.

**Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972** - Prevents or strictly limits the dumping into ocean waters of any material that would adversely^affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.

**Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 -** Set standards for pollution levels or limiting emissions or effluents for various classes of pollutants.

**Clean Water Act of 1977 (p. 550) -** The goals included making all U.S. surface waters safe for fishing and swimming by 1983 and to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The revision requires states to develop and execute plans to control non-point pollution, and establish a federal wetlands protection program.