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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT