Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

New Source Review Case — With a Twist …

By Mack McGuffey on July 9, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

EPA filed a new type of NSR case yesterday against Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E).  Instead of claiming that emissions increased and that the utility conducted a “major modification” without a required permit, EPA is claiming that OG&E failed to prepare proper emission projections in the notifications that it provided to the state permitting authority for the following 8 projects, which OG&E conducted between 2003 and 2006:

  1. Muskogee 4: $3.73 million “overhaul” to replace economizer
  2. Sooner 2: $2.5 million “overhaul” to replace economizer
  3. Muskogee 5: $10.2 million “overhaul” to replace turbine blades with “advanced design steam path” blades and add surface area to the boiler
  4. Muskogee 6: $10.8 million “overhaul” to replace turbine blades with “advanced design steam path” blades and add surface area to the boiler
  5. Muskogee 4: $5.8 million “overhaul” to replace turbine blades with “advanced design steam path” blades and add surface area to the boiler
  6. Muskogee 5: $4.33 million “overhaul” to replace economizer and low pressure turbine blades
  7. Sooner 1: $12.4 million “overhaul” to replace economizer, turbine rotor, low pressure blades, and add surface area to the boiler
  8. Sooner 2: $11.1 million “overhaul” to replace turbine blades and turbine rotor with “advanced design steam path” blades and add surface area to the boiler

EPA claims that OG&E promised to “limit emissions” to avoid any “significant” increase, instead of preparing true “projected actual emissions” calculations.  As such, EPA is asking the court for a declaratory judgment that OG&E failed to properly calculate future emissions, and thus failed to comply with the CAA.  EPA is also asking the court to order OG&E to make proper emission projections “to be evaluated and permitted as necessary,” even though the projects happened years ago and OG&E is claiming no increase actually occurred.

In light of the Sixth Circuit’s statement in DTE that limiting emissions to avoid a significant increase is “entirely consistent with the statute and regulations,” this could be a very interesting case to watch.  The complaint is here: EPA Complaint for OG&E

  • Posted in:
    Environmental and Climate
  • Blog:
    Environmental Law & Policy Monitor
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo