- The Washington Times - Thursday, August 17, 2006


The government won a round yesterday in a long-running dispute over how much authority it has to force industrial plants to cut air pollution.

Its victory over Cinergy Corp. in a federal appeals court in Chicago could help the Supreme Court decide the issue in a similar case in the fall.

The Supreme Court’s decision, which is shaping up as a test of the Bush and Clinton administrations’ competing legal approaches for cutting air pollution, would affect up to 17,000 industrial plants and the unhealthy air breathed by 160 million Americans.

The facilities are major sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which contribute to smog, acid rain, soot and other fine particles that lodge in people’s lungs and cause asthma and other respiratory ailments.

The Cinergy case turned on whether its power plants could spew more pollutants into the air when they modernized to operate for longer hours. The Environmental Protection Agency said no, because Cinergy should have gone through a federal permit process, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed.

“Cinergy’s suggested interpretation, besides not conforming well to the language of the regulation … would elude the permit requirement,” Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote for a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court.

The Cinergy case is one of the lawsuits that the Clinton administration filed in 1999 against electric utilities in the Midwest and South.

The government contended that 51 aging, coal-burning power plants in 10 states, primarily in the Ohio Valley and the South, illegally polluted for two decades.

The cases were attempts to enforce a neglected and red-tape-laden 1977 provision of the Clean Air Act. It requires a company to get a federal permit and install costly pollution controls when modernizing a facility and significantly increasing emissions.

A month before President Clinton left office in 2001, Cinergy agreed to settle its case and spend $1.4 billion to reduce air pollution at 10 coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. But soon after President Bush took office and said his administration would review the Clinton-era enforcement cases, Cinergy backed out of the agreement.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of agreeing to an environmental group’s request that it take up a related case.

The court accepted Environmental Defense’s request that it hear a case involving Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., over the same issue as the Cinergy case. Duke Energy acquired Cinergy in April.

Duke Energy spokesman Pete Sheffield said the company was disappointed by the ruling but expects the Supreme Court to resolve the courts’ competing views on the Clean Air Act. Regardless of the ruling, he said, the company will spend $2.4 billion through 2008 to reduce air pollution from more than a dozen coal-burning plants in the Midwest and Southeast.

In the Duke case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond concluded the opposite of what Judge Posner wrote. Judge Posner took aim at that court Thursday.

“In so ruling, the Fourth Circuit stepped out of its bounds,” he wrote. “But in any event, the argument’s premise is incorrect.”

Vickie Patton, an Environmental Defense attorney, said the Cinergy ruling will be pivotal, because it comes from one of the most influential federal court of appeals.

She said the Chicago court’s decision sends “a powerful signal that it is time to address the serious human health and environmental impacts of coal-fired power plants.”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide