ILNews

Second Cinergy trial starts in Indy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A second clean-air violation trial is underway in Indianapolis about whether coal-fired power plant modifications triggered a need for new pollution-control equipment at facilities in Indiana and Ohio.

Expected to last six to 10 days, this trial in the decade-old case began Monday in U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney's courtroom in the Southern District of Indiana. A total of 84 prospective jurors were vetted before 10 were seated for the trial. Each side's attorney made an hour-long opening argument before jurors were dismissed for the day.

U.S., et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al., No. 1:99-cv-1693, includes the states of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York as plaintiffs, as well as the Hoosier and Ohio Environmental councils. Dozens of attorneys are listed on the case, including local counsel from Taft Stettinius & Hollister in Indianapolis: Scott R. Alexander, Jayna Morse Cacioppo, Robert R. Clark, and John D. Pappageorge.

The suit dates to 1999, when the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clinton administration alleged that energy company Cinergy - bought by Duke Energy in 2006 - substantially upgraded six power plants in Indiana and Ohio without installing required modern pollution controls as required by law. The government alleged that Cinergy's work exceeded ordinary maintenance or repairs and required a permit at each plant, but the company disagreed.

In what was dubbed the nation's first case to go before a jury on this issue, the first two-week trial in May 2008 in Judge McKinney's courtroom resulted in jurors finding that Cinergy had violated the U.S. Clean Air Act at its Wabash plant in Terre Haute. But they cleared the company regarding modifications made at four other plants in Indiana and Ohio. On balance, it was a victory for Duke.

But after that verdict, attorneys discovered a previously undisclosed piece of discovery that raised questions about the verdict and resulted in Judge McKinney ordering a new liability trial.

Most of the previous orders and rules in place apply to this second trial, and both sides are focusing on testimony from experts and engineers about the power plant projects and what affect they see that having on overall emissions. The case boils down to how the company analyzed possible pollution effects prior to starting construction in the 1990s.

During opening statements, attorneys used color photos of the power plants and charts with emission information to describe what is being debated in this case. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Phillip Brooks said evidence would prove that in repairing faulty components in major energy-generating units that could have shut down completely or at a lower level, Cinergy increased emissions by more than a standard 40 tons as a result of improvements done at the plant and that required a permit and pollution controls.


"There's nothing wrong with fixing these things, but there are rules in doing that," he said. "That's what is at issue here: whether the company followed the rules."

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT