Supreme Court Upholds Biden's Plan to Regulate Toxic Coal Ash, Protecting Public Health

In a significant ruling for environmental protection, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Biden administration's plan to regulate the health risks posed by coal ash, a toxic byproduct of coal combustion used to generate electricity. The court's decision came in response to a request from East Kentucky Power Cooperative, an electric utility, which sought to block the Environmental Protection Agency's (E.P.A.) initiative aimed at monitoring and remediating sites contaminated by coal ash. The Supreme Court's order, delivered without elaboration and with no dissenting opinions noted, signifies a continued commitment to enforcing environmental regulations despite challenges from industry stakeholders. East Kentucky Power Cooperative contended that the E.P.A. overstepped its statutory authority by imposing requirements on facilities that had ceased producing coal ash. They argued that the law only applies to sites where solid waste is currently disposed of, implying that inactive sites should be exempt from monitoring and remediation. In response, E.P.A. legal representatives countered that the utility's interpretation was fundamentally flawed. They stressed that evidence indicated that legacy coal ash impoundments continue to leak contaminants into the surrounding soil and groundwater, thereby posing ongoing environmental and health risks. The agency asserted that even after coal ash has been removed, leachate—liquid that has percolated through coal ash—remains at these sites and is regarded as "solid waste" under the relevant environmental law. The financial implications of the E.P.A.'s plan were another point of contention. The utility disclosed that monitoring one inactive site could cost upwards of $16 million, while the E.P.A. estimated the cost at only $229,000. This stark discrepancy highlights the ongoing debate over the economic burden of environmental compliance versus the potential risks posed by coal ash contamination. Environmental advocacy groups weighed in on the debate, expressing that there was no urgent need for the court to intervene, particularly given that the earliest compliance deadlines under the E.P.A.'s plan extend into 2028. They emphasized that these deadlines primarily involve basic groundwater monitoring, yet the potential hazards associated with coal ash cannot be overlooked. The groups reminded the court that coal ash contains harmful substances such as arsenic, lead, and mercury, which are linked to severe health risks including various cancers and neurological disorders. The Supreme Court's refusal to grant the utility's request aligns with its recent trend of avoiding intervention in environmental cases before they have been thoroughly reviewed in lower courts. This decision follows other rulings in October, where the justices declined to block E.P.A. efforts to regulate carbon emissions and other pollutants, reinforcing a broader commitment to environmental regulation in the face of industry opposition. As the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding coal ash continues to evolve, this ruling marks a significant step towards safeguarding public health and the environment from the lasting impacts of toxic waste. The implications of this decision are likely to resonate across the energy sector, prompting increased scrutiny of coal ash management practices and potentially influencing future regulatory actions.