USA v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., No. 1:00-cv-01262 (M.D.N.C.)

USA v. DUKE ENERGY CORP., No. 1:00-cv-01262 (M.D.N.C.)
Case Title
USA v. DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Case Type
Civil Case
Court
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Index Number(s)
1:2000cv1262, 1:00-cv-01262, 1:00-cv-01262-WO-JEP
Nature of Suit
Environmental Matters
Judge
WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR.
Magistrate Judge
JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE
Case Opened
December 22, 2000
Case Closed
October 20, 2015
Get instant access to this case, with automated alerts whenever there is new activity.
Learn More
Docket Entries
Date Filed Dkt # Entry Text
Jul 28, 2010 404 MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 7/28/10, that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 341 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Duke Energy's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 354 ] is DENIED. More specif ically: 1. Section IV of the Duke I opinion is vacated and the actual-to-projected-actual test will be used to determine whether Duke Energy should reasonably have sought a pre-project permit for any of the projects at issue; 2. The portion of the Du ke I opinion (contained in Section III. A) stating that the PSD regulations incorporated the NSPS regulations is vacated, but to the extent the Duke I decision held that the determination of RMRR takes industry practice into account through the multi -factor WEPCO analysis, that part of the Duke I decision is incorporated here as described above and Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 341 ] is denied; 3. The portion of the Duke I opinion placing the burden of proof on the EPA and Plaintiff -Intervenors to show the RMRR exception does not apply is vacated and the burden is placed on Duke Energy to demonstrate that the RMRR exception does in fact apply to the projects at issue; 4. Duke Energy's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 354 ] is denied; 5. The April 14, 2004 Order and Judgment [Doc. # 313 ] is vacated. (Law, Trina)
Document
Apr 30, 2012 445 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 4/30/12, that Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay of enforcement of the Magistrate Judge's 2003 Orders be GRANTED. FURTHER that the Magistrate Judge's Orders from Ap ril 11, 2003, October 22, 2003, and November 3, 2003, be AFFIRMED. While affirming the Magistrate Judge's 2003 Orders compelling discovery, however, this court explicitly finds that these documents are discoverable for purposes of this order only. Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED that disclosure is limited solely to this litigation and any documents provided in this case may not be disclosed or used in any other litigation unless ordered by this court. (Law, Trina)
Document
Nov 6, 2013 462 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR., on 11/6/2013, that Duke's Motions in Limine (Docs. 421 , 422 , 423 , 424 ) are GRANTED IN PART with regards to Plaintiff's GADS expert witness testimony a nd with respect to Dr. Sahu's testimony as to an "actual-to-potential" test. The motions in limine are DENIED with regards to Plaintiff's PROMOD expert witness testimony. FURTHER, that Duke's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 432 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 434 ) remains under advisement and will be addressed in a forthcoming opinion. (Lloyd, Donna)
Document
Mar 17, 2014 468 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR., on 3/17/2014, that for the foregoing reasons, this court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 434 ). The motion is GRANTED to the extent that there is no genuine dispute that the restart of Duke's units resulted in a significant net emissions increase. The motion is DENIED to the extent that there are genuine disputes as to the question of whether Duke made a physical or operational change to its units, and whether such a change caused the subsequent significant net emissions increase. (Lloyd, Donna)
Document
Sep 17, 2014 473 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 09/17/2014; that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 457 ) is DENIED. (Coyne, Michelle)
Document