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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT