James D. Prah: Duke Energy, not regulators, at fault

In response to Tom Reeder’s July 26 letter “New coal ash law requires water connections, protects environment”: I would like to point out that he placed the blame on regulators rather than the source of the problem, Duke Energy.

For example, he pointed to the Tennessee disaster as a failure to regulate structural integrity of the ash pits when it should be incumbent upon the company to ensure that its ponds are structurally safe. It should be rather basic to construct and maintain one’s infrastructure to avoid simple issues such as the failure of a pipe.

Duke Energy found that there was leakage contaminating ground water which exceeded federal standards and did nothing because the state failed to tell it to do so. This is like saying, “I know I had bad brakes and was speeding when I caused the accident, but it’s not my fault because the sheriff didn’t stop me.”

Is this good stewardship or just a good business plan? A basic question is why didn’t state regulators reign in Duke Energy with such egregious deficiencies? Could it be that Duke Energy’s lobby had undue influence on the regulators protecting profits rather than the environment? I wonder.

This story was originally published August 9, 2016 at 5:29 PM with the headline "James D. Prah: Duke Energy, not regulators, at fault."