Description: Challenge to air permits for coal-fired power plant in Virginia.
-
Appalachian Voices v. State Air Pollution Control Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/25/2010 Opinion Download Decision of circuit court affirmed. A Virginia state appellate court affirmed a lower court’s decision to allow an energy company to receive an air permit for a coal-fired power plant in southwestern Virginia, rejecting claims that the permit was not valid because it did not regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The appellate court held that because no provision of the Clean Air Act or Virginia state law controlled or limited carbon dioxide emissions, it was not a pollutant subject to regulation and thus that the State Air Pollution Control Board was not under any obligation to do an analysis to establish permit limits for such emissions. 01/11/2010 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants. -
Appalachian Voices v. State Air Pollution Control Board
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/10/2009 Decision Download Decision issued granting requested relief as to MACT permit. In a proceeding challenging prevention of significant deterioration and maximum achievable control technology (MACT) permits issued for a coal-fired electric power generating facility, a Virginia Circuit Court found that as a matter of law there was no authority for the claim that a best available control technology analysis was required for carbon dioxide. The court said carbon dioxide was not "subject to regulation" at the time the permit was issued since there were no federal or state regulatory controls in place. The court granted relief, however, as to the MACT permit for the facility. The court rejected an "escape hatch" clause that provided that if federal limits on mercury emissions “are not achievable on a consistent basis under reasonably foreseeable conditions, then testing and evaluation shall be conducted to determine an appropriate adjusted maximum annual emissions limit.” The court held that the Clean Air Act did not allow for such an adjustment.