Navigating PFAS Treatment: Financial And Strategic Considerations For Utilities

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals,” present a growing challenge for water utilities. In 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, set National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for six PFAS compounds and required utilities to install treatment by 2029. In 2025, the EPA indicated that maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS will remain though with a proposal to extend the compliance deadline to 2031. Although the extension (should it become official) would afford utilities additional time, it would not eliminate the need to make consequential long-term financial decisions in the very near future.

As utilities make decisions about how to address PFAS, treatment technologies continue to evolve creating additional challenges for planning and implementation. This post highlights some key financial considerations associated with investing in PFAS-related water treatment solutions, which will shape long-term operational costs.

PFAS In North Carolina
To help utilities, researchers, and the public explore this information, the School of Government’s Environmental Finance Center, with funding from the NC Collaboratory, created an interactive dashboard that compiles PFAS sampling data from multiple sources and allows users to:

• View results for specific PFAS compounds.
• Explore all tests conducted at a particular sampling location.
• Filter data by source.
• Compare maximum, average, and most recent concentrations.
• Search by system name or Public Water System ID.

By centralizing this information, the dashboard can help identify which utilities may need to install PFAS treatment technologies and support risk-informed planning and decision-making across the state.

The dashboard compiles data from NC DEQ, the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, the NC PFAS Testing Network, and other utility websites. The data indicate that hundreds of water systems in North Carolina may exceed PFAS levels.

Navigating PFAS Treatment Choices
Once a utility identifies a need for PFAS treatment, the next step is evaluating technology options and costs. The largest drivers of cost are the treatment technology selected and the media used to capture PFAS from water. These choices determine both upfront capital expenses and ongoing operational costs, especially through media replacement or regeneration.

Utilities have several treatment options. Established technologies, like granular activated carbon and anion exchange resins, are proven and widely available but may be less effective for some PFAS compounds and can require frequent media replacement. Newer sorbent technologies may offer improved performance and lower long-term operating costs, but they require additional upfront investment for pilot testing, certification, and retrofits.

North Carolina’s drinking-water rules require treatment media and components to meet ANSI/NSF standards (§ 15A NCAC 18C .1537). Utilities and suppliers must either use certified media, use an organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute to test and certify a new media, or notify NC DEQ before introducing any new water supply product that hasn’t previously been used.

With the federal compliance schedule potentially shifting out by a couple of years, utilities face a delicate balance:

• Rely on established technologies and face potentially higher long-term costs or reduced effectiveness.
• Pursue certification and pilot testing for novel media, which requires time and upfront investment.

The latter option also carries the risk of schedule delays or non-compliance but could potentially reduce long-term operational costs.

Cost-Effectiveness and Performance in PFAS Treatment Media
Because operational costs heavily influence long-term budgets, utilities evaluating treatment options should focus on the overall cost-effectiveness of each technology. While some novel sorbents are already produced at commercial scale with known pricing, many remain in research or early development stages, making their cost projections uncertain. At the same time, highly selective sorbents may treat water that is difficult for conventional media, potentially lowering total treatment costs even if the media itself is more expensive.

For this reason, comparing media prices alone is insufficient. Instead, utilities should rely on performance-based metrics such as cost per volume treated, which incorporates both media price and bed volume to obtain a more accurate picture of the economic viability of each technology.

The Funding Challenge
External funding options come with varying eligibility requirements. For example, the EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund supports PFAS-related projects but only for technologies recognized as Best Available Technology. This would exclude most novel sorbents. This limitation could present a significant barrier to adoption, even for materials that offer improved efficiency and sustainability. In contrast, utilities may be able to leverage funding programs without strict technology requirements like the Community Development Block Grant – Infrastructure (CDBG-I) to support PFAS treatment projects that meet or exceed regulatory targets.

Recognizing the funding challenge and that utilities do not produce PFAS but instead pass treatment costs through to ratepayers, two separate bills filed in the North Carolina House and Senate aim to hold PFAS polluters accountable.

• House Bill 569: PFAS Pollution and Polluter Liability, which would make manufacturers that produce PFAS from scratch responsible if their emissions exceed EPA limits and contaminate waterways used by public utilities. Funds collected from polluters would be directed toward covering the costs of water treatment.
• Senate Bill 666: the 2025 Water Safety Act, directing the Department of Environmental Quality to set PFAS emission limits and create a $56M fund to reimburse public utilities for expenses incurred in removing these compounds from drinking water.

Planning Under Uncertainty
The regulatory uncertainty introduced by the potential deadline extension adds complexity to financial planning. Utilities will have to consider:

• How the longer compliance timeline might shift the timing of planned capital projects and major investments?
• Will the extension allow for more time for pilot testing and technology maturation?
• How would the extension affect how the utility finances these projects (e.g., borrowing plans, cash flow management, or rate adjustments)?

Working through these questions will help utilities prepare their budgets and plan for investments (with the understanding that circumstances can change). This exercise should include comparing the full costs of conventional and novel sorbents, testing technologies on a small scale under site-specific conditions, and building flexible financing plans using available funding options or phased investments.

Regulatory flexibility can also present opportunities. Utilities may stagger technology adoption to reduce immediate upfront costs, begin testing and working with novel sorbents early enough to complete certification, and refine operational and maintenance plans to optimize long-term cost-effectiveness. By approaching PFAS compliance as a strategic investment, utilities can better manage costs while positioning themselves to adopt the most effective and sustainable technologies once deadlines are finalized.

Here’s What to Focus on Right Now

1. Confirm your PFAS monitoring status.
   Reviewing your system’s data using the EFC dashboard is a good starting place to check whether PFAS detections are present and how they compare to the new standards.
2. Determine whether treatment is likely to be needed.
   If monitoring data suggest PFAS levels could approach or exceed regulatory limits, plan to evaluate treatment options.
3. Identify your most realistic technology options.
   Create a short list of 2 to 3 technologies that are feasible for your system size and source water characteristics.
4. Understand funding constraints early.
   Check which funding programs your utility is eligible for and whether they support conventional or newer technologies.
5. Start early with a small, targeted evaluation.
   Even if the compliance date does shift, beginning preliminary technology and cost assessments now helps avoid last-minute decisions.