ILNews

Cinergy trial ends with split verdict

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal jury returned a verdict that a major energy company violated clean-air rules at a coal-fired power plant along the Ohio River in southeast Indiana.

The Southern District of Indiana verdict Tuesday night came following six days of trial and eight hours of jury deliberation in U.S., et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al., No. 1:99-cv-1693. The decade-old case involves violations to parts of the Clean Air Act intended to make sure that older power plants that have major upgrades also meet more modern pollution limits with new permitting and emissions controls.

In a partial retrial of some claims after the original May 2008 verdict that went mostly in Duke's favor, jurors on Tuesday found that Duke - which bought Cinergy in 2006 - violated the law in two of its projects at three power plants and did not on four of those projects. Jurors found violations made in two repair projects at the Gallagher plant in Floyd County, while determining that four other projects at the Gibson plant in southwest Indiana and the Beckjord plant near Cincinnati, Ohio, did not violate federal clean air rules.

"I've got to say this about Indiana juries: They are really conscientious," said U.S. Department of Justice attorney Phillip Brooks, who was the lead plaintiffs attorney representing the government. "This was some really tough stuff, and they spent about eight hours going through it all. My brain is fried, but my hat's off to them."


A year ago, a jury found that Cinergy had violated the Clean Air Act at its Wabash plant in Terre Haute, but cleared the company on modifications made at four other plants throughout Indiana and Ohio.

This was the second time Duke has faced a liability on this issue, which dates to 1999. The Environmental Protection Agency alleged the energy company Cinergy had substantially upgraded some of its power plants in Indiana and Ohio without installing the proper modern pollution controls as required. The government alleged that Cinergy's work exceeded ordinary maintenance or repairs and required a permit at each of the plants before that construction began, but the company disagreed that the projects mandated any new pollution controls or permits.

U.S. Judge Larry McKinney late last year ordered a new liability trial after finding that Duke attorneys misled jurors about one of its witnesses, a former employee with knowledge of power plant improvements. The witness was paid a consulting fee, a point not revealed at trial; however, Duke attorneys at the same time portrayed government witnesses being experts paid for their testimony. That gave the government a second trial to prove its case, which started May 11 and ran through Tuesday morning when the jurors began deliberating about noon. A verdict announcement came about 8 p.m. from the court.

A Duke Energy spokeswoman could not be reached for comment about the verdict, but a spokeswoman for the Clean Air Task Force described this as an environmental victory despite the verdict falling mostly in Duke's favor.

"That simple math doesn't reflect the potential significance of this outcome for the people living near the plants and downwind of them," spokeswoman Ann Weeks said. " Those folks ... have had to breathe thousands of tons of additional air pollution that should not have been emitted since the company made the changes at the Gallagher plant that the jury has now found unlawful."

A remedy phase for these claims will be scheduled, and an order is expected soon on the previous remedy phase resulting from the rest of the verdict reached in May 2008 - that involved allegations at the Wabash plant in Terre Haute, where jurors found Cinergy had violated the law. Judge McKinney has not yet ruled on that remedy or scheduled the next remedy trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT