IBJNews

Duke Energy wins verdict reversal in clean-air case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp., the owner of utilities in the U.S. Midwest and Southeast, won reversal of a jury verdict finding that three of its coal-fired power generators in Indiana were violating the federal Clean Air Act.

A federal jury in Indianapolis decided in 2008 that renovations at the plant operated by Duke’s Cinergy unit near the Wabash River were so extensive as to fall under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s New Source Review regulations, requiring installation of the best available technology for controlling smog- and acid rain-causing pollutants.

The renovations complied with Indiana’s plan for implementing the federal Clean Air Act, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago said in Tuesday’s ruling. The state’s plan, approved by the EPA in 1982, was still in effect when Cinergy started the work in 1989, the court said.

“The Clean Air Act does not authorize the imposition of sanctions for conduct that complies with a state implementation plan that the EPA has approved,” U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner said in the 12-page decision. “The blunder was unfortunate but the agency must live with it.”

The appeals court also said that U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney, who had presided over the trial in Indianapolis, had improperly admitted expert testimony proffered by the EPA.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke has said the work at the plants constituted routine maintenance and that federal regulations weren’t violated.

“We’re reviewing the decision,” Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, said.

Cinergy Corp., which operated the Wabash plant near Terre Haute, was acquired by Duke in 2006. Citing an increase in sulfur dioxide emissions, McKinney last year ordered the units to be shut down because of the violations.

“This vindication is certainly a win for our customers and company and will allow us to utilize the investment that’s been made in the Wabash station to meet the energy needs of the region in a cost-effective manner,” Tim Pettit, a spokesman for Duke, said in an e-mailed statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ?
    "This vindication is certainly a win for our customers...."

    Amazing logic....customers win by continuing to breath air poisoned by Duke?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT