Description: Appeal of Arkansas Public Service Commission's grant of a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for construction, maintenance, and operation of an ultra-supercritical coal-fired baseload electric generation facility.
-
Hempstead County Hunting Club, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/13/2010 Opinion Download Opinion issued reversing and remanding the Commission and affirming the Court of Appeals as modified. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the Arkansas Public Service Commission’s decision to allow a coal-fired power plant to be built, holding that the Commission had incorrectly determined the need for the power plant. Specifically, the court found that the Commission assessed the need for a plant in a proceeding that was separate from the main proceeding in violation of state law. Two justices concurred. The concurring justices concluded that the Commission had not met its burden of demonstrating that the power plant's adverse impacts would be acceptable. The concurring opinion noted that carbon dioxide emissions from the plant would exceed five million tons annually. The concurring opinion also noted that the Commission consideration of the economics of the project and of alternatives, both of which were pertinent factors to the determination of whether the adverse impact was acceptable, did not appear to factor in costs of carbon dioxide regulation. -
Hempstead County Hunting Club, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/24/2009 Opinion Download Opinion issued reversing the grant of the CECPN application. An Arkansas appellate court struck down a state authorization allowing an electric company to build a $1.6 billion coal-fired power plant near the state’s southwest border with Texas. The court held that the Arkansas Public Service Commission failed to require the company to address alternative locations in its permit application and that it failed to make a finding regarding the basis of the need for a new plant. In addition, the court held that the Commission failed to resolve all matters concerning the plant and associated transmission lines in a single proceeding.