Difference between revisions of "North Carolina v. TVA"
Bill Kovarik (talk | contribs) (SW: →Settlement terms: adds notes) |
Bill Kovarik (talk | contribs) (SW: →Settlement terms: clean up) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
'''Notes:''' | '''Notes:''' | ||
B - Renewable biomass conversion is an option for some plants.* | B - Renewable biomass conversion is an option for some plants.* | ||
| + | |||
FGD - Flue gas desulphurization (controls sulfur dioxide - SO2 ) | FGD - Flue gas desulphurization (controls sulfur dioxide - SO2 ) | ||
| + | |||
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction (controls nitrogen oxides - NOx ) | SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction (controls nitrogen oxides - NOx ) | ||
| + | |||
R - Retire or remove from service | R - Retire or remove from service | ||
| + | |||
WFDG - Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (controls sulfur dioxide - SO2 ) | WFDG - Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (controls sulfur dioxide - SO2 ) | ||
| Line 47: | Line 51: | ||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Unit''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Unit''' | ||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''MW''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''MW''' | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Required | + | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Required''' |
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Date''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Allen||Memphis||1||330||FGD or R|| | + | | Allen||Memphis||1||330||FGD or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||2||330||FGD or R|| | + | | ||||2||330||FGD or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||3||330||FGD or R|| | + | | ||||3||330||FGD or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Bull Run||Oak Ridge||1||950||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | Bull Run||Oak Ridge||1||950||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| Colbert||Tuscumbia AL||1||200||FGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30 2016 | | Colbert||Tuscumbia AL||1||200||FGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30 2016 | ||
| Line 66: | Line 70: | ||
| ||||4||200||FGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30 2018 | | ||||4||200||FGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30 2018 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||5||550||FGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||5||550||FGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Cumberland||Cumberland City||1||1300||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | Cumberland||Cumberland City||1||1300||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||2||1300||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||2||1300||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| Gallatin||Gallatin TN||1||300||FGD/SCR, B, or R||Dec. 31, 2017 | | Gallatin||Gallatin TN||1||300||FGD/SCR, B, or R||Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| Line 108: | Line 112: | ||
| ||||10||172.8||Retire||Dec. 31, 2017 | | ||||10||172.8||Retire||Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Kingston||Kingston TN||1||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | Kingston||Kingston TN||1||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||2||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||2||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||3||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||3||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||4||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||4||175||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||5||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||5||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||6||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||6||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||7||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||7||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||8||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||8||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||9||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||9||200||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| Pardise||Drakesboro KY||1||704||FGD upgrade||Dec. 31, 2012 | | Pardise||Drakesboro KY||1||704||FGD upgrade||Dec. 31, 2012 | ||
| Line 130: | Line 134: | ||
| ||||2||704||FGD upgrade||Dec. 31, 2012 | | ||||2||704||FGD upgrade||Dec. 31, 2012 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||3||1150||WFGD|| | + | | ||||3||1150||WFGD||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| Shawnee||Paducah KY||1||175||PM,FGD/SCR, B, or R||Dec. 31, 2017 | | Shawnee||Paducah KY||1||175||PM,FGD/SCR, B, or R||Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||2||175||PM|| | + | | ||||2||175||PM|| June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||3||175||PM|| | + | | ||||3||175||PM|| June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| ||||4||175||PM,FGD/SCR, B, or R||Dec. 31, 2017 | | ||||4||175||PM,FGD/SCR, B, or R||Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||5||175||PM|| | + | | ||||5||175||PM||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||6||175|| || | + | | ||||6||175||N/A|| |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||7||175|| || | + | | ||||7||175||N/A || |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||8||175|||| | + | | ||||8||175||N/A|| |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||9||175|||| | + | | ||||9||175||N/A|| |
|- | |- | ||
| Widows Creek||Stevenson AL||1||140.6||Retire||July 31 2013 | | Widows Creek||Stevenson AL||1||140.6||Retire||July 31 2013 | ||
| Line 162: | Line 166: | ||
| ||||6||140.6||Retire||July 31 2015 | | ||||6||140.6||Retire||July 31 2015 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||7||575||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||7||575||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | ||||8||550||WFGD/SCR, B, or R|| | + | | ||||8||550||WFGD/SCR, B, or R||June 30, 2011 |
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * Biomass -- The consent decree is very specific about the kinds of renewable biomass that can be used and the use of coal in a converted biomass plant. For example, creosote-treated railroad ties are not to be used, and the biomass cannot be used in combination with coal except in very small amounts in order to maintain temperatures for varying amounts of moisture in biomass. | ||
==Resources and articles== | ==Resources and articles== | ||
Revision as of 16:14, 22 July 2011
{{#badges:CoalSwarm}} On January 13, 2009, in North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority (W.D. N.C. Jan. 13, 2009), North Carolina District Judge Lacy Thornburg declared that air emissions from three coal-fired plants located in eastern Tennessee and one plant located in Alabama, all operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, are a public nuisance under state law.[1] On July 26th, 2010, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, setting aside an injunction that would have required the installation of more than a billion dollars worth of emissions control technologies at four TVA plants in Alabama and Tennessee.[2]
Contents
District Court ruling
A public nuisance is an "unreasonable interference" with the public's right to property, health, safety, peace, or convenience.[3] The court said the plants contribute to ‘‘significant hurt, inconvenience, [and] damage’’ in North Carolina.[1]
The State of North Carolina brought the lawsuit to force TVA to employ tighter pollution controls and reduce harmful air emissions from its coal-fired power plants. The plants are in states other than North Carolina. The State of North Carolina contended that airborne particles from TVA’s plants entered North Carolina in unreasonable amounts, constituting a public nuisance and threatening the health of millions of people, the financial viability of the region, the functioning of natural ecosystems, and costing the state government and its citizens billions of dollars every year in health care expenses, sick days, and lost tourism revenue.[1]
The court found against TVA despite its compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations. As a remedy, the court ordered that the TVA proceed with plans to install enhanced pollution controls at the plants and reduce emissions of certain pollutants by specific time limits, at an estimated cost of approximately $1 billion.[1]
Appeal
In January 2009 TVA filed to appeal the district court’s decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.[4]
In June 2009, the State of Alabama filed a Motion to Intervene, asking to be added as a party to the lawsuit with equal rights to TVA and the State of North Carolina, with full briefing and oral argument privileges. This was opposed by the State of North Carolina because the State of Alabama was not a party in the underlying action, and did not seek to intervene at the trial court level. Regardless, the Fourth Circuit granted the State of Alabama’s motion.[5]
Reversal
On July 26th, 2010, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, setting aside an injunction that would have required the installation of more than a billion dollars worth of emissions control technologies at four TVA plants in Alabama and Tennessee.[2]
The Fourth Circuit rejected the use of “vague public nuisance standards” to address activities that are "expressly permitted and extensively regulated under the Clean Air Act." The Court argued the claim had the "potential for chaos" among states from a "patchwork of nuisance injunctions" and for "disruption of expectations and reliance interests" of utilities that have complied with the Act’s requirements. However, the Court refrained from completely preempting the field of air emissions regulation, noting that the Clean Air Act’s savings clause may allow for certain common law nuisance claims.[2]
Citing principles of federalism, the Fourth Circuit also criticized the district court’s decision for its application of North Carolina law extraterritorially to TVA plants located in Alabama and Tennessee by crafting an injunction that relied on the emissions standards of a North Carolina state law. The three-judge panel highlighted the "remedies" that remain available to North Carolina under statutory law, including the Clean Air Act’s Section 126 petition process, the comment period for State Implementation Plans, judicial review of EPA actions, as well as citizen suit remedies under the Clean Air Act.[2]
Attorney generals of sixteen other states, including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, filed an amicus brief supporting the authority of states to bring public nuisance actions to abate interstate pollution. Although the Fourth Circuit’s decision did not involve claims relating to greenhouse gas emissions, a recent petition filed in Connecticut v. AEP challenging the Second Circuit’s common law nuisance findings with respect to greenhouse gas emissions cited North Carolina v. TVA as evidence that "comprehensive regulation" under the Clean Air Act can displace federal common law nuisance claims.[2]
April 2011: TVA to phase out 18 coal units, install pollution controls
On April 14, 2011, TVA and North Carolina settled the 5-year-old lawsuit - North Carolina v. TVA - over TVA emissions from its coal-fired plants. The deal was part of a larger settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over TVA violations of the clean air act at 11 of its coal-fired plants in Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee.[6]
As part of the North Carolina agreement, TVA agreed to phase out 18 units of its coal plants, adding up to 2,700 MW, and to install modern pollution controls on three dozen additional units.[7] The phase out includes two units at the John Sevier Fossil Plant, all 10 units at the Johnsonville Fossil Plant, both in Tennessee, and six units at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in north Alabama.[8]
As part of the EPA agreement, TVA will invest an estimated $3 to $5 billion on pollution controls, invest $350 million on clean energy projects, and pay a civil penalty of $10 million.[9]
Settlement terms
A consent decree entered June 30 by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennesse required TVA to invest an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in pollution controls at 11 coal-fired plants. TVA will also close two units at its John Sevier plant, six units at the Widows Creek plant, and the 10 units at its Johnsonville plant by 2017. Remaining coal-fired units will require pollution control upgrades by 2020. [10] TVA is also required to invest $290 million for its own clean energy and efficiency projects and to pay $60 million to the states of North Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee for similar projects.
Notes: B - Renewable biomass conversion is an option for some plants.*
FGD - Flue gas desulphurization (controls sulfur dioxide - SO2 )
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction (controls nitrogen oxides - NOx )
R - Retire or remove from service
WFDG - Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (controls sulfur dioxide - SO2 )
| Name | Location | Unit | MW | Required | Date |
| Allen | Memphis | 1 | 330 | FGD or R | June 30, 2011 |
| 2 | 330 | FGD or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 3 | 330 | FGD or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| Bull Run | Oak Ridge | 1 | 950 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 |
| Colbert | Tuscumbia AL | 1 | 200 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30 2016 |
| 2 | 200 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30 2016 | ||
| 3 | 200 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30 2017 | ||
| 4 | 200 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30 2018 | ||
| 5 | 550 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| Cumberland | Cumberland City | 1 | 1300 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 |
| 2 | 1300 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| Gallatin | Gallatin TN | 1 | 300 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2017 |
| 2 | 300 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| 3 | 327.6 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| 4 | 327.6 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| John Sevier | Rogersville TN | 1 | 200 | Retire | Dec.31, 2012 |
| 2 | 200 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2012 | ||
| 3 | 200 | Remove | Dec. 31, 2012 | ||
| 4 | 200 | FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2015 | ||
| Johnsonville | Waverly, TN | 1 | 125 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2015 |
| 2 | 125 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2015 | ||
| 3 | 125 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2015 | ||
| 4 | 125 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2015 | ||
| 5 | 147 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2015 | ||
| 6 | 147 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2015 | ||
| 7 | 172.8 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| 8 | 172.8 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| 9 | 172.8 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| 10 | 172.8 | Retire | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| Kingston | Kingston TN | 1 | 175 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 |
| 2 | 175 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 3 | 175 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 4 | 175 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 5 | 200 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 6 | 200 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 7 | 200 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 8 | 200 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 9 | 200 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| Pardise | Drakesboro KY | 1 | 704 | FGD upgrade | Dec. 31, 2012 |
| 2 | 704 | FGD upgrade | Dec. 31, 2012 | ||
| 3 | 1150 | WFGD | June 30, 2011 | ||
| Shawnee | Paducah KY | 1 | 175 | PM,FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2017 |
| 2 | 175 | PM | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 3 | 175 | PM | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 4 | 175 | PM,FGD/SCR, B, or R | Dec. 31, 2017 | ||
| 5 | 175 | PM | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 6 | 175 | N/A | |||
| 7 | 175 | N/A | |||
| 8 | 175 | N/A | |||
| 9 | 175 | N/A | |||
| Widows Creek | Stevenson AL | 1 | 140.6 | Retire | July 31 2013 |
| 2 | 140.6 | Retire | July 31 2013 | ||
| 3 | 140.6 | Retire | July 31 2014 | ||
| 4 | 140.6 | Retire | July 31 2014 | ||
| 5 | 140.6 | Retire | July 31 2015 | ||
| 6 | 140.6 | Retire | July 31 2015 | ||
| 7 | 575 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 | ||
| 8 | 550 | WFGD/SCR, B, or R | June 30, 2011 |
- Biomass -- The consent decree is very specific about the kinds of renewable biomass that can be used and the use of coal in a converted biomass plant. For example, creosote-treated railroad ties are not to be used, and the biomass cannot be used in combination with coal except in very small amounts in order to maintain temperatures for varying amounts of moisture in biomass.
Resources and articles
External Resources
An anaylsis of the lawsuit can be found here: http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/item.asp?item=3802
Related Sourcewatch resources
- Alabama and coal
- Clean Air Act
- Coal plant litigation
- Connecticut v. AEP
- EPA Deseret ruling
- Existing Coal Plant Litigation and Controversy
- Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
- North Carolina and coal
- Tennessee Valley Authority
References
- ↑ Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Trent Taylor, "State of North Carolina v. TVA - A New Era in Public Nusiance Law?" Toxics Law Reporter: A Bureau of National Affairs Report. March 2009.
- ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Bridget Lee, "Fourth Circuit Dismisses Public Nuisance Air Pollution Lawsuit, Sets Aside District Court Injunction Requiring Installation of Emissions Controls" Sive, Paget, & Risel, August 10, 2010.
- ↑ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B
- ↑ "TVA Appeals North Carolina Public Nuisance Suit" POWERnews, June 3, 2009
- ↑ "NC vs. TVA air pollution lawsuit turning into 'legal thriller'" PublicNuisanceWire.com, July 30, 2009
- ↑ "TVA settles with N.C. over coal plant emissions" News Observer.com, April 14, 2011.
- ↑ "Blockbuster Agreement Takes 18 Dirty TVA Coal-Fired Power Plant Units Offline" Sierra Club, April 14, 2011.
- ↑ "TVA Phasing out Hundreds of Jobs at Coal Plants" ABC, April 14, 2011.
- ↑ "EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments / State-of-the-art pollution controls and clean energy technology to provide up to $27 billion in annual health benefits" EPA, April 14, 2011.
- ↑ Sue Sturgis "Landmark TVA pollution settlement will help the South breathe easier"Facing South, July 14, 2011.
