United States of America v. Ameren Missouri
| United States of America |
| Ameren Missouri |
| 4:2011cv00077 |
| January 12, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Rodney W. Sippel |
| Environmental Matters |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 7413 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
1122
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Ameren shall apply for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for the Rush Island Energy Center within ninety days of the date of this Order. Ameren must propose wet flue-gas desulfurization as the technology-basis for its Best Available Control Technology proposal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Ameren shall operate Rush Island Units 1 and 2 in compliance with an emissions limit that is no less stringent than 0.0 5 lb SO2/mmBTU on a thirty-day rolling average within four and one half years of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Ameren shall install a pollution control technology at least as effective as dry sorbent injection at the La badie Energy Center within three years from the date of this Order. That technology shall remain in use at Labadie until Ameren has achieved emissions reductions totaling the same amount as the excess emissions from Rush Island, as defined in this Or der, through the time Ameren installs BACT at Rush Island. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT I will retain jurisdiction over this case until Ameren has fully implemented the remedies set forth in this Order. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/30/19. (ARL)
|
|
Filing
1058
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ameren Missouri's motion to exclude Dr. Philippe Grandjean's expert opinion, 963 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/27/19. (KEK)
|
|
Filing
1045
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Amerens motions for summary judgment, [Nos. 944 , 946 , 955 ] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EPAs motion for summary judgment, [No. 954 ], is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/27/2019. (NEP)
|
|
Filing
852
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ameren Missouri is found liable under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference to address remedies is set for Wednesday, Februa ry 15, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 16-South. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States' Motion in Limine to Curtail Ameren's Re-Litigation of the Law of the Case # 757 is DENIED per my rulings above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amere n's Motion to Treat Certain KDHE Produced Documents as Highly Confidential During Trial # 778 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren's Motion to Bar Robert Koppe's New Causation Opinions # 787 is DENIED as moot. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that Ameren's Motion to Bar Dr. Ranajit Sahu's New Opinions # 793 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren's Motion to Strike EPAs New Expert Opinion Evidence and Related Trial Exhibits # 832 is DENIED per my rulings above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties Joint Motion to Correct Clerks Exhibit List # 829 is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/23/17. (ARL)
|
|
Filing
727
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ameren's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) # 714 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/29/16. (ARL)
|
|
Filing
724
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ameren's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 6: On the Correct Legal Standard for Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement # 557 and EPA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Am eren's Routine Maintenance Defense # 504 are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Ameren's Demand Growth Defense # 511 and Ameren Missouri's Motion fo r Partial Summary Judgment No. 5: Correct Standard for Determining Causation # 552 are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren Missouri's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 2: Concerning NSR Applicabili ty # 543 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren Missouri's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 3: No Evidence Concerning a "Reasonable Power Plant Operator" # 546 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPA's Motion fo r Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Violations of the Clean Air Act at Rush Island Unit 2 (Emissions) # 536 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren Missouri's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 4: On EPA's "Incr eased Capacity Claim" # 549 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren Missouri's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 7: Regarding Title V # 561 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameren Missouri's Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions and Testimony of David Lloyd # 508 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPA's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Sandra Ringelstetter Ennis # 520 is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/24/16. (LGK)
|
|
Filing
719
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 702 MOTION to Strike Jury Demand filed by Plaintiff United States of America motion is GRANTED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/8/16. (LGK)
|
|
Filing
711
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ameren's Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1: On the Missouri SIPs Construction Permitting Rule # 539 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/21/16. (ARL)
|
|
Filing
118
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ameren's motion to compel the 24 emissions forecast documents identified in EPAs Privilege Log is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/15/13. (LAH)
|
|
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike # 81 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as indicated above. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 7/10/2012. (RAK)
|
|
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate [#67] is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 2/15/12. (LAH)
|
|
Filing
73
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ameren Missouri's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss 39 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The civil penalty claims asserted in Counts I and II for failure to comply with the Missouri SIP and CAA's PSD requirements and failure to undergo a BACT determination or operate in compliance with BACT are DISMISSED. The civil penalties asserted in Counts V and VI for failure to comply with the Title V Permit's PSD requirements a nd requirement to certify compliance with the Title V Permit for the 2001 and 2003 Projects are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ameren Missouri's Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss 42 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to SubmitSupplemental Authority 63 is GRANTED.. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 1/27/12. (LGK)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike # 31 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint # 33 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motions to Dismiss # 12 and # 22 are DENIED as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the hearing set for Monday, July 11, 2011 at 10:00a.m. is VACATED. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 6/28/11. (ARL)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
