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. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.

ADVERTISEMENT