|
contents | news | |||||||||
| Duke Energy criticizes changes in pollution-control rules  Energy giant Duke Energy Corp. released the statement after the company's hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "New Source Review" (NSR) program, which is part of the 1970s-era Clean Air Act and aims to control pollution generated by newly constructed power plants and expanded older sites. The U.S. District Court ruled in Duke Energy's favor and the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court's decision.EPA, which oversees the air rules, filed a civil case against Duke in 2000 charging the energy company with making 29 modifications to power generating units between 1988 and 2000 while failing to obtain necessary permits. Charlotte-based Duke said emissions from its coal plants are being reduced substantially as a result of increasingly stringent federal Clean Air Act requirements and North Carolina's 'Clean Smokestacks' legislation, which passed with the company's full support and goes beyond federal standards. These emissions reductions clearly demonstrate that the made-for-litigation interpretation of NSR is not the primary mechanism for reducing emissions from power plants or other emission sources. EPA's 2005 'Air Trends' data show that air quality is improving. EPA attempted through litigation to force the electric utility industry to retrofit new-source controls on all coal-fired power plants – at a cost of billions of dollars and under the threat of billions more in civil penalties. EPA re-interpreted the NSR rules to eliminate the well-established "modification" trigger. Instead, EPA contended that NSR could be triggered by commonplace projects that merely maintain a facility's operating capabilities and do not increase the facility's emissions rate. This case involves 29 such projects, which Duke undertook as long ago as 1988 at eight different power plants in North and South Carolina. The projects EPA deemed to violate NSR involved the replacement and repair of corroded boiler components – principally steel tubes that carry water or steam. None of the projects violated any condition of Duke's operating permits. None increased any unit's capacity to emit pollutants. Moreover, these projects were performed in full view and with the knowledge of EPA and the state authorities charged with enforcing the Act; but neither ever hinted that Duke's maintenance activities required "new source" permits. Nor, before the 1999 enforcement initiative, did any private party challenge any of these projects in any citizen suit. No one suggested that Duke's activities required NSR permits for a simple reason: EPA, the states, and the industry all understood and interpreted the rules to apply to existing emissions units only when those units underwent NSPS "modifications" – fundamentally changing the units' ability to emit pollutants. Duke Energy claims that this case -- Environmental Defense, et al. v. Duke Energy Corp. -- is based on a made-for-litigation theory that is inconsistent with the language and history of the rules, EPA's historical interpretation of those rules, and EPA's current policy position. write your comments about the article :: © 2006 Construction News :: home page |