20,555
edits
Changes
==Environmental Record==
===In 1999 the [[U.S. October 2012 four environmental groups asked North Carolina’s Environmental Protection Agency]] commenced an enforcement action against Management Commission for a ruling to make Duke Energy for failure to comply with clean up groundwater contamination found near the company's [[Clean Air Actcoal ash]]ponds at 14 coal-fired power plants. Duke asserted that EPA regulations under the law were arbitrarily changed over The power plants include Duke’s Riverbend and Allen plants on the course Catawba River west of 25 yearsCharlotte, and its Marshall plant on Lake Norman. Environmental groups asserted State officials say contamination has been found at all 14 plants, and that Duke was using loopholes in the law they are working to increase emissionstrace its sources. Initially<ref>Bruce Henderson, Duke prevailed at the trial court level[http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/10/10/3589356/groups-sue-to-force-groundwater.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy "Environmental groups petition state over coal ash near plants, but in 2006 the case was argued before the U"] www.charlotteobserver.Scom, Oct. [[Supreme Court]] (''Environmental Defense v10, 2012. </ref> ===Power lines===In August 2010, Duke Energy Corphired a contractor to spray herbicide to protect its power lines along the the Shopton Road intersection out of Charlotte on N.'' (05-848))C. The Court unanimously ruled on April 249, 2007leading to stunted, against dead pine trees. Duke Energy and in favor spokesman Jason Walls said the company performs regular maintenance on all of its rights of way to ensure quality electrical service. The company used herbicides on the environmental groupsN.C. 49 pines: "Those trees have been maintained as part of our vegetation maintenance - this is part of routine maintenance," he said.<ref>Katie Oliver, [http://www.pbscharlotteobserver.orgcom/2010/newshour08/bb12/law1616463/jannc-49-pines-dead-under-june07/scotus_04power-02lines.html Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases#ixzz0wp8Vq6qP "N.C. 49 pines dead under power lines"]charlotteobserver.com, August 12, 2010.</ref>
===Duke ordered to shut down three coal-fired units in Indiana===
On May 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney ordered Duke to shut down three units of the [[Wabash River Generating Station]] in Indiana for violations of the federal Clean Air Act. In 2008, a jury found that Duke-owned Cinergy had modified the facilities without installing best-available pollution control technology. In his ruling, Judge McKinney cited increased [[Sulfur dioxide and coal|sulfur dioxide emissions]] from the units and gave a deadline of September 30, 2009 for closing them. Duke's Chief Legal Officer Marc Manly said the company was disappointed with the court's decision to "accelerate the shutdown." The units, which supply 39 percent of the station's power, were slated to be taken off line in 2012.<ref>Andrew M. Harris, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=awcG5uWwJwOA&refer=us "Duke Energy Ordered to Shut Indiana Coal-Fired Units,"] Bloomberg, May 29, 2009.</ref>
===Duke Fined for Violating the Clean Air Act[[Gallagher Generating Station]]===
On December 22, 2009, the [[EPA]] announced the agency had reached a settlement with [[Duke Energy]] for [[New Source Review]] (NSR) violations of the [[Clean Air Act]] at Duke’s [[Gallagher Generating Station]]. A jury had found Duke liable for NSR violations at the plant, and the settlement obviated the need for a remedy trial, which had been scheduled for early 2010.
The settlement requires Duke Energy to repower Units 1 and 3 at Gallagher with natural gas or shut them down, and to install [[scrubbers]] at Units 2 and 4, reducing [[Sulfur dioxide and coal|sulfur dioxide]] emissions 86 percent when compared to 2008 emissions. Duke will also pay a $1.75 million penalty and spend $6.25 million on various environmental mitigation projects.<ref>[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/2520F12F7372FE1D85257694005AB7A7 "Duke Energy to Spend $93 Million to Resolve Clean Air Act Violations"] EPA Press Release, December 22, 2009.</ref>
===Killing trees for power linesClean Air Act===In August 2010, 1999 the [[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]] commenced an enforcement action against Duke Energy hired a contractor for failure to spray herbicide to protect its power lines along comply with the [[Clean Air Act]]. Duke asserted that EPA regulations under the law were arbitrarily changed over the Shopton Road intersection out course of Charlotte on N.C. 49, leading to stunted, dead pine trees25 years. Environmental groups asserted that Duke Energy spokesman Jason Walls said was using loopholes in the company performs regular maintenance on all of its rights of way law to ensure quality electrical serviceincrease emissions. Routine maintenance includes trimming back tree limbs and treating trees and vegetation with herbicidesInitially, he said. Walls said Duke prevailed at the methods used for controlling tree growth trial court level, but in 2006 the right of way depend on case was argued before the area the company is working in and the denseness of vegetationU.S. The company used herbicides on the N[[Supreme Court]] (''Environmental Defense v.CDuke Energy Corp. 49 pines: "Those trees have been maintained as part of our vegetation maintenance '' (05- this is part 848)). The Court unanimously ruled on April 2, 2007, against Duke Energy and in favor of routine maintenance," he saidthe environmental groups.<ref>Katie Oliver, [http://www.charlotteobserverpbs.comorg/2010newshour/08bb/12law/1616463jan-june07/nc-49-pines-dead-underscotus_04-power-lines02.html#ixzz0wp8Vq6qP "N.C. 49 pines dead under power lines"Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases] charlotteobserver.com, August 12, 2010.</ref>
==Duke's nuclear empire==