Press Mention Birmingham Post-Herald August 10, 2003
SACE Quoted
Ohio ruling's effect disputed
In this mention
An Ohio court ruling against FirstEnergy for failing to install pollution controls during plant expansion has implications for Southern Co., which faces a similar lawsuit from the Southern Environmental Law Center regarding pollution controls on its coal-fired plants. SACE's Ulla-Britt Reeves characterizes the Ohio decision as precedent-setting, while utility lobbyists argue its scope is more limited and await EPA clarification on maintenance standards and emissions thresholds.
This is precedent-setting
Ulla Reeves
Original clipping
PDF didn't open? Open it in a new tab →
Full transcript
Ohio ruling's effect disputed
Southern Co. faces similar suit
By TAYLOR BRIGHT
BIRMINGHAM POST-HERALD
August 11, 2003
Environmentalists say an Ohio ruling against an Akron utility company Thursday may reach as far as Alabama.
Power company lobbyists say the ruling is more limited than environmentalists think.
"This is precedent-setting," said Ulla-Britt Reeves, clean-air program director with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville.
A judge in Columbus, Ohio, ruled Thursday that FirstEnergy, of Akron, violated federal law when it didn't install pollution controls in its plant as it expanded the plant's electricity output. The company argued the changes were routine maintenance and they didn't increase production.
Southern Co., the parent company of Alabama Power, faces a similar lawsuit by the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville, Va., to put more pollution controls on its older power plants. The plants burn coal to provide electricity to customers.
The Southern Environmental Law Center represents several environmental law groups in the Southeast.
A utility spokesman said the ruling was one step in an ongoing process.
"It's a battle in the war," said Frank Maisano, spokesman for a utility lobbying group comprising seven utility companies, including Southern Co.
Maisano said both sides, utility companies and environmentalists, are waiting for a clearer definition of what routine maintenance is and what the standards are for increased emissions to come from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The agency is caught between two administrations. The lawsuits against the utility companies were brought during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration is considering rolling back clean air rules.
"It is a bit surprising," Reeves said of the decision to continue with the Ohio suit under the Bush administration, which has gotten a reputation as being unfriendly to environmental interests.
"What the ruling shows is that the lawsuits brought against the power companies are valid," Reeves said.
Maisano said Southern Co. will take the ruling in stride and pointed to an 11th Circuit ruling in March that he said was a victory for the utility companies. An appeals court said the EPA had to prove the Tennessee Valley Authority was violating EPA rules in a district court before it could order them to add pollution controls.
The court had ruled the TVA could ignore the EPA rules. Southern Co. filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the TVA.
"Hopefully, (the Ohio ruling) will be taken for what it's worth," Maisano said.