United States v. Ameren Mo., 4:11 CV 77 RWS
Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 4:11 CV 77 RWS,4:11 CV 77 RWS |
Citation | 421 F.Supp.3d 729 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Sierra Club, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. AMEREN MISSOURI, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
James W. Beers, Jr., Justin A. Savage, Thomas Andrew Benson, Anna E. Cross, Elias Leake Quinn, Jason Anthony Dunn, Nigel B. Cooney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Andrew J. Lay, Suzanne J. Moore, Office of U.S. Attorney, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
David Clark Scott, Joshua R. More, Michael Neil Lloyd, Daniel James Schufreider, Jr., Mir Y. Ali, Molly L. Wiltshire, Renee Cipriano, Schiff Hardin LLP, Ronald S. Safer, Riley and Safer LLP, Stephen J. Bonebrake, Chicago, IL, John F. Cowling, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, Matthew B. Mock, Schiff Hardin LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
Benjamin J. Blustein, Pro Hac Vice, David P. Baltmanis, Pro Hac Vice, Miner and Barnhill, P.C., Chicago, IL, Sunil Bector, Pro Hac Vice, Sierra Club, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Intervenor.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In 1970, Congress enacted the modern Clean Air Act to protect the nation's air resources and "promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity" of the people. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). Not satisfied with the results achieved under the 1970 statute, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to add protections for areas meeting existing federal air quality standards. The 1977 amendments require newly-constructed power plants to install pollution controls. These pollution controls decreased the pollution coming from new plants. Acknowledging the cost of retrofitting old facilities, the 1977 amendments allowed existing plants to continue operating for their natural lifespan without pollution controls. Existing plants retained this "grandfathered" status until they were modified in any way beyond routine maintenance that increased emissions.
Ameren Missouri's (Ameren) Rush Island Energy Center (Rush Island) started operating in 1976, one year before the Clean Air Act Amendments. In the mid-2000's, as Rush Island was reaching the end of its natural lifespan, Ameren decided to conduct the most...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sierra Club v. Entergy Ark. LLC
...coming into compliance with relevant requirements (Dkt. No. 75, at 11-12). 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a) ; see also United States v. Ameren Missouri , 421 F. Supp. 3d 729, 824 (E.D. Mo. 2019) (CAA case); see also Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo , 456 U.S. 305, 320, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982) ......
-
United States v. Ameren Mo.
...excess [sulfur dioxide] that Rush Island emitted after Ameren failed to obtain a PSD permit there." United States v. Ameren Mo. (Ameren V) , 421 F. Supp. 3d 729, 802 (E.D. Mo. 2019).As to compliance, the district court concluded that "Ameren must make Rush Island compliant by obtaining a PS......
-
In re Issuance of Air Emissions Permit No. 13700345-101 for Polymet Mining, Inc., A19-0115
...control measures, the facility may not be required to install the more stringent measures. See, e.g. , United States v. Ameren Mo. , 421 F. Supp. 3d 729, 808–09 (E.D. Mo. 2019).This scenario raises the potential problem of a source improperly seeking and receiving a synthetic minor source p......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dado's Café, Inc.
... ... 4:18-CV-1095 RLWUnited States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.Signed October 23, 2019421 F.Supp.3d 722 Daniel ... Louis, MO, for Defendants.MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEThis matter is before the court on State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's ... ...