FirstAlerts

Kentucky Charcoal Company Owner Pleads Guilty to Falsifying Clean Air Act Reports

Nicholas Upchurch admitted to submitting fabricated air permit compliance data for his Burkesville facility in a developing federal case.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 11:22 a.m. ET
According to official Justice Department records released on August 18, 2026, 46-year-old Nicholas Upchurch guilty in federal district court to falsifying environmental compliance reports. Upchurch owned Rebel Smoke, a company in Burkesville, Kentucky, that used kilns to convert wood to charcoal. The legal proceeding remains open as a federal district court judge considers whether to accept the plea agreement. Official court documents state that air emissions from the Rebel Smoke facility were required to be routed through emissions control facilities to reduce air pollution released into the environment. As part of his plea agreement, Upchurch admitted to fabricating data submitted to the Commonwealth of Kentucky to demonstrate compliance with the facility's air permit. The EPA's Investigation Division conducted the investigation leading to the charges, assisted by the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet's Department for Environmental Protection. The falsification count carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $250,000 fine, according to the official release. A sentencing date has not been scheduled. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department's Energy and Natural Resources Division and Assistant Administrator Jeffrey A. Hall of the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced the plea. Senior Trial Attorney Adam Cullman is prosecuting the case with assistance from former Senior Trial Attorney Matthew Morris.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 118 Aug 2026, 15:22current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.