OREANDA-NEWS. Duke Energy's sentencing on misdemeanor charges stemming from a major coal ash spill in North Carolina has been postponed while the utility negotiates to retain the right to secure federal contracts.

Duke is holding discussions with the US Environmental Protection Agency about debarment, which would block it from pursuing federal contracts. Duke has contracts to supply power to a number of government entities, including post offices and military bases.

The utility wants to be able to bid on future contracts after it pleads guilty to nine misdemeanor violations of the federal Clean Water Act in connection with the coal ash spill at itsDan River plant in Eden, North Carolina, as well as charges at other North Carolina plants. The charges cover maintenance issues at the Cape Fear plant in Moncure and unauthorized discharges at the Riverbend station in Mt. Holly, HF Lee Steam plant in Goldsboro, and the Asheville plant in Asheville.

Duke wants the issue resolved before a US District Court judge makes a final decision on its plea during a sentencing hearing. The hearing has been rescheduled to 14 May.

The company in February made a plea deal to close a federal grand jury investigation related to the coal ash spill and ash basin operations at other North Carolina coal plants. Duke agreed to pay \$102mn to settle that case.

Duke's coal ash operations came under review after a storm water pipe under a coal ash basin at the retired Dan River station broke on 2 February 2014, releasing ash into the Dan river in Rockingham County, North Carolina.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on 3 April proposed a \$2.5mn settlement with Duke to settle violations related to the spill, which also reached Virginia.

And the utility on 9 April appealed a \$25.1mn fine from North Carolina regulators over alleged groundwater violations at the LV Sutton plant in Wilmington. Duke said it had complied with state law and environmental regulations. Its appeal of the fine from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources argues the agency violated state law and its own rules and procedures as well as public policy and the longstanding interpretation of the regulations.