Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Dep't of Envtl. Quality

39 F. Supp. 2d 875, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3559
District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided March 12, 1999·No. 2:98-cv-74129·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

INTERIM REMEDIAL ORDER

FEIKENS, District Judge.

1. Introduction

The essential controversy of the above-styled consolidated cases is whether The Detroit Edison Company (“Edison”) violated the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”), as well as applicable state and county law, when it chose not to obtain environmental permitting before restarting and operating its coal-fired Connors Creek Power Plant (“the Plant”), which is located in Detroit, Michigan and had been unused for almost a decade. Edison temporarily operated the Plant in 1998 in order to meet the greatly increasing energy demand of its Detroit customers during the peak summer months. As the summer of 1999 quickly approaches, Edison now claims it must have the Plant’s power to again avoid electrical “brown-outs” in the Detroit metropolitan area. None of the parties have disputed this urgent need for power.

Rather than to continue to meet this need through coal fuel, Edison has proposed to convert the Plant to a natural gas-fired facility. In order to operate the Plant with natural gas by the summer of 1999, however, Edison must begin renovation and construction now. With the consent of the parties, I have sought to facilitate the conversion solution, which all parties desire, by supervising permit negotiations between the parties’ technical experts over the past month. On Monday, March 8, 1999, these experts agreed on permit conditions for a Plant using natural gas fuel. 1

Against this background, I make the following findings.

II. Findings

1. I have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, 1355, 1367(a), 1441(a), and 1441(b) and section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b). 2

*877 2. In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Detroit metropolitan area, the Plant must be operational by or before the early summer of 1999. Therefore, construction necessary to the operation of the Plant as a natural gas-fired facility must begin immediately.

3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has alleged in its complaint that Edison is in violation of the CAA, its regulations, and Michigan’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) because it commenced construction and operations at the Plant in 1998 without having first obtained a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7475, 40 C.F.R. § 52.21, and Mich.Rule 201, and also without having obtained a Nonattainment New Source Review Permit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7503, 40 C.F.R. § 51.165, and Mich.Rules 201 and 221.

4. Upon my review of the pleadings, motions, briefs, and evidence presently before me in the consolidated cases, it is apparent that Edison is in violation of the CAA, its regulations, and Michigan’s SIP because it renovated, restarted, and has since operated, the Plant without having first obtained the necessary permits mentioned above. Edison’s violation grants me the full remedial powers authorized by section 113(b) of the CAA and thus serves as the basis for this Interim Remedial Order.

5. The interim permit agreed to by the parties sets out the conditions under which the Plant can be lawfully operated as a natural gas-fired facility. That permit is in compliance with the CAA, its regulations, and state law. The matter of carbon monoxide emissions offsets has not been addressed in the interim permit.

III. Conclusion

Pursuant to my findings above, it is hereby ORDERED for remedial purposes:

1. may commence and operation activities upon issuance of this Interim Remedial Order.

2. The construction and operation of the Plant must comply with the interim permit.

3. Edison must comply with its obligations to obtain the required carbon monoxide emissions offsets. If and when EPA redesignates the region encompassing Wayne County as an attainment area under the CAA, Edison will not be required to obtain further offsets.

4. The parties will incorporate the terms of the interim permit and the necessary language regarding offsets in a consent agreement. Preparation of the consent agreement should commence immediately.

5. Edison must file a permit application that complies with this Interim Remedial Order no later than March 18, 1999. The parties will comply with any applicable permitting regulations that require notice and public comment on the proposed final permit.

ATTACHMENT

The Detroit Edison Company, Conners Creek Power Plant

PROPOSED SPECIAL CONDITIONS

(Not including the condition for providing offsets)

March 8, 1999

(The precise value of each number representing fuel and emission limits must still be checked for accuracy)

1. For the purposes of this permit, all requirements for notifications or sub-mittal of records to or approval by the District Supervisor, Air Quality Division should be submitted to the Director of Compliance and Enforcement, Air Quality Management Division, Wayne County Department of *878 Environment unless the applicant is otherwise notified in writing by the Air Quality Division. At no time shall notifications or submittals to or approvals by both agencies be required pursuant to this permit. This condition is necessary to ensure compliance with Act 451, 324.5523.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 39 F. Supp. 2d 875, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3559 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

39 F. Supp. 2d 875 (Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Dep't of Envtl. Quality) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Board
103 Wash. App. 587 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2000)
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.
13 P.3d 1076 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2000)