It’s a billion-dollar decision. Probably many billions. And people all around Alabama are waiting anxiously for the feds to decide what happens next.

Can Alabama leave its 100 million tons of coal ash where the utilities dumped it, in unlined ditches along the rivers across the state?

Or do they have to dig it up and haul it away, to be buried in lined landfills, as is happening in many other states? Or maybe dig it out, line the ponds, and dump it all back in?

The concerns are huge: Will coal ash continue to seep into and contaminate the groundwater? Will the holding areas one day give way and plug the river with the discarded waste of powerplants as once happened in Tennessee?

The fixes are enormous: In 2020, Alabama Power estimated it would cost $3.3 billion to close its ash ponds using a method called cover in place.

That was the cheap option, which did not involve digging the ash out to put a liner underneath it. Much less removing it. That estimate also does not include ash ponds managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and PowerSouth.

Alabama state officials, utilities and environmental groups can only wait now, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decides Alabama’s fate.

The EPA already proposed a rejection of Alabama’s state coal ash permitting program, the plan that would leave everything where it is. Now the EPA can either revise or finalize that decision in the coming weeks.

Arsenic, lead, and mercury

What to do with the heaps of ash left from burning coal to run a power plant? Utilities were once allowed to choose between covering the ash in place or moving it to a lined landfill. But they could only leave it in place if the federal rules were met.

The rules may vary by presidential administration.

The EPA stated in its 2015 coal ash rules, under Obama, that coal ash cannot pollute groundwater with heavy metals and harmful substances, including arsenic, lead, and mercury. The agency said at the time that if the ash ponds continue to pollute after they’re capped, the utilities will have to dig them up anyway.

The Trump Administration didn’t emphasize that part so much, and tried to roll back some of those provisions in the rule.

Now the EPA, under President Biden, is putting it more bluntly — when rejecting Alabama’s plan to leave the coal ash in place.

“Under the federal regulations,” the agency said, “surface impoundments cannot be closed if, once closure is complete, the coal ash continues to be saturated by groundwater.”

Frank Holleman, director of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s coal ash program, said that could put all of Alabama’s ash ponds in the crosshairs.

“As far as we can tell, every coal ash lagoon or impoundment in Alabama is in contact with groundwater,” Holleman said. “We’re not aware of one that isn’t.”

What will it cost?

It’s not certain yet that EPA will force Alabama to excavate its ash ponds, though the statements from the agency seem to point in that direction.

We also have no idea how much that decision would cost Alabama.

Almost certainly more than the $3.3 billion estimate from three years ago. How much more? No one has said yet.

In the eight years since the federal coal ash rules were finalized, Alabama Power has not provided any estimates of how much it might cost to move its coal ash to lined landfills, only saying that removal would be more expensive than cover in place.

After the public hearing on the EPA’s decision, an Alabama Power representative declined to answer whether the company knew how much removal might cost for its ash ponds.

An emailed statement said only that cost was one factor evaluated when choosing the unlined, cover-in-place option.

“Alabama Power’s decision to close in place was thoroughly researched and vetted by third-party experts,” the company said in a statement to AL.com in September. “These experts evaluated both closure options (closure in place and closure by removal) for each of our sites and identified closure in place as the more favorable option.

“The experts evaluated all sites based on key factors such as safety, site specific geology, volume of ash, protection of human health and the environment and regulatory compliance when shaping the final plans. Cost was only one of the multiple factors assessed.”

How much ash to cover?

According to the EPA, Alabama’s unlined coal ash ponds hold roughly 100 million cubic yards of coal ash and cover more than 2,000 acres across the state.

The ash pond at Plant Barry in Mobile County covers 597 acres and contains nearly 22 million cubic yards of coal ash. Ponds at Plant Gorgas in Jefferson County and Plant Gaston in Shelby County contain about 25 million cubic yards each, and Plant Miller in Jefferson County holds about 10 million cubic yards.

Many of the public cost estimates from other states deal with much smaller ponds.

In Memphis, the TVA estimates that excavating the 3.5 million cubic yards of ash from the Allen Steam Plant will cost $300 million, roughly $86 million per cubic yard.

At the TVA Gallatin plant outside Nashville, the TVA estimate is $640 million for 12 million cubic yards, roughly $53 million per cubic yard.

Some utility estimates have been shown to be way off, once actual costs are considered.

In Virginia, Dominion Energy first estimated that removing ash from its four power plants in the state would cost between $2.6 billion and $6.5 billion. The next year, the Virginia Legislature directed Dominion to get bids. The proposals ranged from $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion, well below the upper estimate.

Holleman at the Southern Environmental Law Center told AL.com that utilities often inflate the projected costs in order to dissuade opposition to cap in place.

“The utilities are largely in control of these cost projections and, in general, their projections are not reliable,” he said. “What we have found is that when utilities are fighting excavation, they tend to overstate the cost of excavation and understate the costs of cover in place.”

He also pointed to South Carolina, where the estimated cost of ash removal was first ballparked at $100 per ton but turned out to be only $20 per ton. All South Carolina utilities have now committed to move their coal ash to lined landfills.

Where would the coal ash go?

At a public hearing on EPA’s decision on Sept. 20, Alabama Power Vice President of Environmental Affairs Susan Comensky, argued that removal of coal ash presents challenges aside from cost.

“Closure by removal would take decades to complete, which exceeds the regulatory closure timeframes, and there is not enough available landfill capacity to accept the approximately 100 million cubic yards of ash in our ponds,” she said.

Not everyone buys that argument.

John Kinney, staff scientist at Black Warrior Riverkeeper, argued that the power companies could create landfills on-site to hold the ash waste without having to truck it across the state.

“Alabama Power is one of, if not the largest private landowners in the state of Alabama,” Kinney said during the public hearing. “Meaning they’ve got a lot of land, and a lot of land close to their facilities, where they can build landfills and dispose of it.

“So all this nonsense that we hear about it having to be trucked all over the state is just quite frankly not true.”

Utilities in other states have built lined landfills on site, including the TVA’s Gallatin plant.

Duke Energy’s W.S. Lee Plant in South Carolina had two major ash ponds before closure began. The ash from the smaller of the two ponds was excavated and sent by rail to a CCR landfill. Now, Duke Energy is building a double-lined CCR landfill onsite to contain the ash from the other lagoon.

Alabama Power now is asking the EPA to reconsider its decision.

“We urge EPA to reconsider its denial and approve the Alabama state CCR permit program,” the company said in a statement emailed to AL.com on Saturday. “In 2016, Congress authorized states to develop state CCR permit programs and, in 2018, ADEM adopted state regulations that mirror the federal regulations, as EPA acknowledged in its review of ADEM’s permit program.”

The state’s largest utility says the current plan meets requirements.

“Alabama Power’s plans are safe, compliant with federal and state regulations, and protect human health and the environment.”

COMING TOMORROW: How did it come to this? Did Alabama err by rushing to allow utilities to cover in place?