USA v. DUKE ENERGY CORP.
|Filed:||December 22, 2000|
|Court:||North Carolina Middle District Court|
|Presiding Judge:||FRANK W. BULLOCK|
|Nature of Suit:||Environmental Matters|
|Cause of Action:||42:7413 Air Quality Standards|
|Jury Demanded By:||None|
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|July 28, 2010||404||MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/28/10, that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 341 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Duke Energy's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 354 ] is DENIED. More specif ically: 1. Section IV of the Duke I opinion is vacated and the actual-to-projected-actual test will be used to determine whether Duke Energy should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue; 2. The portion of the Du ke I opinion (contained in Section III. A) stating that the PSD regulations incorporated the NSPS regulations is vacated, but to the extent the Duke I decision held that the determination of RMRR takes industry practice into account through the multi -factor WEPCO analysis, that part of the Duke I decision is incorporated here as described above and Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 341 ] is denied; 3. The portion of the Duke I opinion placing the burden of proof on the EPA and Plaintiff -Intervenors to show the RMRR exception does not apply is vacated and the burden is placed on Duke Energy to demonstrate that the RMRR exception does in fact apply to the projects at issue; 4. Duke Energy's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 354 ] is denied; 5. The April 14, 2004 Order and Judgment [Doc. # 313 ] is vacated. (Law, Trina)|
|April 30, 2012||445||MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 4/30/12, that Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay of enforcement of the Magistrate Judge's 2003 Orders be GRANTED. FURTHER that the Magistrate Judge's Orders from Ap ril 11, 2003, October 22, 2003, and November 3, 2003, be AFFIRMED. While affirming the Magistrate Judge's 2003 Orders compelling discovery, however, this court explicitly finds that these documents are discoverable for purposes of this order only. Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED that disclosure is limited solely to this litigation and any documents provided in this case may not be disclosed or used in any other litigation unless ordered by this court. (Law, Trina)|
|November 6, 2013||462||MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR., on 11/6/2013, that Duke's Motions in Limine (Docs. 421 , 422 , 423 , 424 ) are GRANTED IN PART with regards to Plaintiff's GADS expert witness testimony a nd with respect to Dr. Sahu's testimony as to an "actual-to-potential" test. The motions in limine are DENIED with regards to Plaintiff's PROMOD expert witness testimony. FURTHER, that Duke's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 432 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 434 ) remains under advisement and will be addressed in a forthcoming opinion. (Lloyd, Donna)|
|March 17, 2014||468||MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR., on 3/17/2014, that for the foregoing reasons, this court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 434 ). The motion is GRANTED to the extent that there is no genuine dispute that the restart of Duke's units resulted in a significant net emissions increase. The motion is DENIED to the extent that there are genuine disputes as to the question of whether Duke made a physical or operational change to its units, and whether such a change caused the subsequent significant net emissions increase. (Lloyd, Donna)|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.