Evergy Inc

Evergy operates a generation fleet that remains heavily reliant on coal-fired power plants. As of its 2024 annual report, coal and other solid fuels accounted for approximately 35% of its total megawatt-hour generation. The utility is actively engaged in the coal supply chain, as evidenced by a July 2025 lawsuit in which Evergy sought $55 million in damages from BNSF Railway for failure to deliver coal shipments in 2022.

The company has a documented pattern of non-compliance with environmental regulations governing its coal operations. In November 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with Evergy Kansas Central Inc. over alleged violations of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rules at multiple facilities. A July 2025 Kansas Corporation Commission document also cited a "bait and switch" position from Evergy regarding planned coal plant retirements in its integrated resource plan. External assessments, including a September 2025 Sierra Club report, have graded Evergy poorly for a "multi-year backslide" on renewable investments and greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Despite public commitments to clean energy, coal remains a material and ongoing part of Evergy's business model.

Evergy Inc. operates a generation fleet that is approximately 47% coal-fired, with coal combustion producing toxic coal ash. The company has been cited for environmental violations related to this waste. In 2022, Evergy settled with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice over Clean Air Act violations at its Lawrence Energy Center in Kansas, which included failures to control sulfur dioxide emissions. The company's coal ash management has also drawn regulatory scrutiny for potential groundwater contamination.

The evidence gathered does not specify a singular, major environmental disaster like an oil spill for Evergy. However, the company's ongoing reliance on coal-fired generation and the associated toxic byproducts of combustion constitute documented environmental damage from its operations, falling under this exclusion category. Further evidence of specific contamination incidents or regulatory penalties related to land or water pollution would strengthen this narrative.