ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET , ET AL. VS. SIERRA CLUB , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORDERED PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 5, 2008; 2:00 P.M.
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2007-CA-001723-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC
PROTECTION CABINET
v.
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-00640
SIERRA CLUB; VALLEY WATCH, INC.;
LESLIE BARRAS; HILARY LAMBERT;
ROGER BRUCKER; AND THOROUGHBRED
GENERATING COMPANY, LLC.
AND
APPELLEES
NO. 2007-CA-001742-MR
THOROUGHBRED GENERATING
COMPANY, LLC.
v.
APPELLANT
CROSS-APPELLANT
CROSS-APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CI-00640
SIERRA CLUB; VALLEY WATCH, INC.;
LESLIE BARRAS; HILARY LAMBERT;
ROGER BRUCKER; AND COMMONWEALTH
OF KENTUCKY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND
PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET
CROSS-APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, MOORE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
CLAYTON, JUDGE: This action is an appeal from the remanding of an Air
Quality Permit (Permit) by the Franklin Circuit Court. The Environmental and
Public Protection Cabinet (Cabinet), through its Secretary, issued a Permit to
Thoroughbred Generating Company, LLC (Thoroughbred) to operate a coal steam
generating plant located in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The Franklin Circuit
Court remanded the Permit for further findings on several issues. The Cabinet and
Thoroughbred then brought this appeal.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Thoroughbred filed for a Permit with the Cabinet. After a seventyday hearing, the Hearing Officer recommended the Permit be remanded. The
Secretary of the Cabinet disagreed with this finding and issued a Final Order on
April 11, 2006, upholding the Permit. The issuance of the Permit was then
appealed to the Franklin Circuit Court by the current Appellees: Sierra Club;
Valley Watch, Inc.; Leslie Barras; Hilary Lambert; and Roger Brucker on May 10,
2006. The Franklin Circuit Court remanded the Secretary’s Order issuing the
Permit and this appeal followed.
The Hearing Officer conducted a lengthy administrative hearing and
issued a Report recommending that the Secretary remand the Permit to reconsider:
-2-
the ecological risk from toxic emissions from the facility; the impact to soils,
vegetation and visibility; the Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
determinations for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; the enforceability of certain
permit provisions; and to correct (or further research) certain “errors and
omissions” in the Permit.
The Secretary thereafter rejected the Hearing Officer’s
recommendation to remand the Permit for a consideration of the power plant’s
impact on soils, vegetation and visibility, disagreeing with the Hearing Officer’s
finding that the Cabinet’s BACT analysis had been flawed during the Permit
process. The Franklin Circuit Court found that the Secretary’s Final Order should
be remanded to the Cabinet because parts of the Order were not supported by
substantial evidence in the record while other aspects relied on misguided
interpretations of the law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing an agency’s decision, we must determine whether the
action taken by the agency was arbitrary. Kentucky Board of Nursing v. Ward, 890
S.W.2d 641, 642 (Ky. App. 1994). An action is arbitrary if it is not based on
substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as evidence that
“when taken alone or in the light of all the evidence, it has sufficient probative
value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Kentucky State
Racing Commission v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972). If we determine
that there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision, we must
-3-
determine whether the agency was correct in its application of the law to the facts.
Commonwealth Dept. of Education v. Commonwealth, 798 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Ky.
App. 1990).
With this standard in mind, we will review the four allegations of
error that are before us.
DISCUSSION
Protection of air quality is a mandate delegated to the Cabinet by the
legislature. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 224.10-100(26) requires the Cabinet
to “[p]reserve existing clean air resources while ensuring economic growth by
issuing regulations, which shall be no more stringent than federal requirements[.]”
The Sierra Club (Sierra) contends that, in issuing the Permit, the
Cabinet failed to abide by the three basic duties imposed by Kentucky air-quality
standards. Specifically, the Appellees asserted in the Franklin Circuit Court action
that the Secretary failed to issue a permit which conformed to the three basic
requirements of Kentucky’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program. We will review each of the allegations of error at the trial court level in
turn.
I. The Adequacy of the Analysis Regarding Impacts to Soils, Vegetation and
Visibility.
Under Kentucky’s BACT requirement, the Cabinet must set an
emissions limit on any pollutant that any proposed plant may emit in a significant
quantity. In this case, it is sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Any company within
-4-
this Commonwealth that is defined by 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations
(KAR) 51:001 Section 1(25)(a) as a “major stationary source” of air pollutants is
included in the requirements of the Preventive SD program and must receive a
PSD permit. Specifically, 401 KAR 51:017 Section 13(1)(a) requires that any
party seeking a permit under the regulations “provide an analysis of the
impairment to visibility, soils, and vegetation that will occur as a result of: [t]he
source[.]”
The Franklin Circuit Court held that the Secretary’s Final Order erred
both as a matter of law and in her application of the facts in determining whether
the ecosystem in the area of operation should take into account only the pollutants
that the plant would produce rather than those which already exist in the area. The
Appellees contend that the Secretary erred when she applied an analysis which
assumed a baseline of zero population in making a decision as to the impact of the
plant’s pollutant output on the vegetation and soils in the surrounding area. At the
trial court level, as here, the Cabinet argues that regulations do not require any type
of “cumulative” approach as reflected in the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidelines, but argue that there is support in the regulations for the
Secretary’s “isolate” approach.
Regulation 401 KAR 51:017 Section 13 provides that:
(1) The owner or operator shall provide an analysis of
the impairment to visibility, soils and vegetation that will
occur as a result of:
(a) The source or modification; and
-5-
(b) General commercial, residential, industrial and
other growth associated with the source or
modification.
(2) The owner or operator shall not be required to
provide an analysis of the impact on vegetation having no
significant commercial or recreational value.
(3) The owner or operator shall provide an analysis of
the air quality impact projected for the area as a result of
general commercial, residential, industrial and other
growth associated with the source or modification.
The Secretary adopted the Cabinet’s finding that the area at issue was
mainly post-mining use land and that any visibility changes in that environment
would be minimal as multiple control technologies would be utilized. Final Order
p. 22. Finding that the specific language of 401 KAR 51:017 Section 13 only
required Thoroughbred to provide an analysis of any impairment as a result of the
specific source or modification, the Secretary concluded that there was no
requirement in the regulations for a “cumulative” analysis.
While not citing to any specific regulations in its determination that
the Secretary erred in making this conclusion, the Franklin Circuit Court held that
one could not “accurately assess the impact of a singular act without first
determining the context within which that act occurs.” Order at p. 5. Appellees do
not contend that the regulation at issue should be read any differently. They do,
however, argue that the Secretary erred in not requiring the Cabinet to provide a
rational explanation of its position that the plant would not cause any harm. The
Cabinet, on the other hand, argues that the Secretary’s analysis was appropriate
-6-
and sound in that she applied the plain language of 401 KAR 51:017 Section 13,
discussed other environmental regulations which specifically require a
“cumulative” approach be used, and she considered the legislative mandates of
KRS Chapter 13A.
In Lindall v. Kentucky Retirement Systems, 112 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Ky.
App. 2003), the Court found that “[c]ourts are . . . required to give the words of a
statute their plain meaning, which prevents a court from adding language to the
statute which does not presently exist.” An agency is bound by the regulations it
promulgates and regulations adopted by an agency have the force and effect of
law. See Shearer v. Dailey, 312 Ky. 226, 226 S.W.2d 955 (1950), and Linkous v.
Darch, 323 S.W.2d 850 (Ky. 1959). An agency's interpretation of its regulations is
valid, however, only if it complies with the actual language of the regulation.
Fluor Constructors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,
861 F.2d 936 (6th Cir. 1988).
The Secretary found that Appellees did not establish a prima facie
case before the Hearing Officer that sulfur dioxide emissions would impact
vegetation species in the area which have a commercial or recreational
significance. The Appellees relied on an e-mail which the Secretary found was
inadmissible. The Hearing Officer admitted the e-mail from Dr. Julian Campbell,
a botanist and professor at Western Kentucky University, to Appellees’ expert
witness, Dr. Phyllis Fox. The Secretary correctly found that this evidence was
hearsay and inadmissible. As a result, the Appellees offered no compelling
-7-
evidence to the contrary and did not meet their burden of proof. Kentucky
Unemployment Insurance Commission v. King, 657 S.W.2d 250-51 (Ky. App.
1983).
In this case, the Secretary followed the plain language and meaning of
the statute in determining that a “cumulative” analysis was not the intent of the
legislature. KRS 13A.130 prohibits an administrative body from modifying an
administrative regulation by internal policy or another form of action.
Consequently, the Secretary applied the correct rule of law in making her
determination and the Franklin Circuit Court erred in finding that she did not.
II. The BACT Regarding Sulfur Dioxide And Nitrogen Oxide Emissions.
The Cabinet argues that the record supports the Secretary’s finding
that the Appellees had not met their burden of showing a 99 percent sulfur dioxide
reduction technology was available. It points to the testimony of Don Shepherd,
from the National Park Service Air Resources Division in Denver, Colorado. Mr.
Shepherd concluded that the emission limits in Thoroughbred’s Permit constitute
BACT for this source and that there was no other example of a power plant
equivalent to the design of Thoroughbred that could achieve as low a limit.
Thoroughbred had achieved a 98 percent reduction through the technology they
utilized. The Cabinet argues that the Appellees failed to provide any evidence that
technology for 99 percent reduction of sulfur dioxide was commercially available.
The Cabinet also contends that the Secretary weighed the evidence in
the record presented on Appellees’ claim that, to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions,
-8-
low sulfur coal should be blended with the Western Kentucky high sulfur
bituminous coal chosen by Thoroughbred. It argues that the technical
determination was made that coal blending to reduce sulfur dioxide would require
Thoroughbred to redesign its planned source. The Cabinet contends that this
conforms to the regulatory scheme and requirements, thus, the Secretary was
correct in her findings. The Appellees, on the other hand, argue that the Secretary
erred in her finding that Thoroughbred was in compliance with BACT regarding
each of the pollutants.
In reviewing the pertinent regulations, we note that 401 KAR 51:017
applies “to the construction of a new major stationary source or any project at an
existing major stationary source that commences construction after September 22,
1982, and locates in an area designated attainment or unclassifiable under 42
U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii).”
Regulation 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1(25)(a)(b)(c) provides:
“Best available control technology” or “BACT” means
an emissions limitation, including a visible emission
standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction for
each regulated NSR pollutant that will be emitted from a
proposed major stationary source or major modification
that:
(a) Is determined by the cabinet on a case-by-case
basis after taking into account energy,
environmental, and economic impacts and other
costs, to be achievable by the source or
modification through application of production
processes or available methods, systems, and
techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or
-9-
innovative fuel combustion techniques for control
of that pollutant;
(b) Does not result in emissions of a pollutant that
would exceed the emissions allowed by an
applicable standard of 40 C.F.R. Parts 60 and 61;
and
(c) Is satisfied by a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard or combination of
standards approved by the cabinet[.]
The Hearing Officer found that:
There are two types of alternative boiler designs that
TCG [Thoroughbred] and DAQ [Division for Air
Quality] did not consider in their BACT analyses: CFB
[Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler] and IGCC [Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle]. They were eliminated
based on differences in boiler type and/or differences in
fuel before they went through the top-down BACT
process. As stated, TGC’s BACT limits are based on the
use of PC boilers. In sum, TGC selected PC boilers
because it contends they are “the only reliable and proven
combustion technology available to meet the designed
1500 MW base load, site limitations and operational
requirements of the project.” (Citations omitted).
Hearing Officer’s Report at 158-59.
In determining whether the BACT standards for sulfur dioxide had
been met, the Secretary found that no other coal-fired plant within the United
States required a 99 percent removal of sulfur dioxide. As to nitrogen oxides, she
set forth more stringent requirements than the Hearing Officer had recommended.
The trial court found that this reasoning was flawed on both accounts. First, as to
sulfur dioxide, the trial court found that the Secretary relied on “an impermissible,
backwards-looking standard for determining what level of SO2 reduction was
-10-
achievable.” Franklin Circuit Court Order at p. 8. As to nitrogen oxides, the court
found that “the Secretary should have remanded the permit for a more complete
BACT analysis.” Id. The court did not, however, cite to any law supporting its
analysis.
Pursuant to 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1(25), a BACT analysis requires
a determination of the maximum degree of reduction achievable for the source.
We believe this language is clear that the sulfur dioxide emissions need to also be
the maximum achievable for the source rather than just the level required by other
permits. However, the record indicates that the maximum achievable level was
obtained by Thoroughbred. As set forth above, the Secretary relied upon the
testimony of experts in making her determination. That testimony, however,
indicated that there was no other power plant which was equivalent to
Thoroughbred’s which could achieve the limits required in the Permit.
BACT “must be solidly grounded on what is presently known about
the selected technology’s effectiveness[.]” In re Newmont Nevada Energy
Investment, LLC, TS Power Plant, 12 E.A.D. 429, 441 (EAB 2005). The Secretary
used present technology in determining that Thoroughbred met the level required
by the KAR in regards to BACT. While the Franklin Circuit Court disagreed,
there was no support for the court’s decision to remand the Permit. Thus, we will
reverse the decision of the Franklin Circuit Court remanding the Permit on this
ground as well.
-11-
III. Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Next, the Cabinet contends that the Secretary did not err when she
found that the Permit as issued would not cause nor contribute to air pollution
which would violate National or Local Air Quality Standards. The Franklin
Circuit Court found that the Secretary used an incorrect standard in making her
determination. It found that the Secretary shifted the burden onto the Petitioners to
prove that the proposed source will violate National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) when the correct standard would have been for the Petitioner
to “show that the applicant for the permit has not demonstrated with certitude the
new source’s compliance with NAAQS.” Franklin Circuit Court Order at p. 9.
The court also cited to the fact that no consideration was given to emissions from a
diesel-fired emergency generator which would be used during a significant portion
of Thoroughbred’s operation.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the emergency generator
emissions need not be included in the modeling as it was a mere assertion on the
part of the Appellees that such would render different results. The Cabinet asserts
that the Franklin Circuit Court was bound by the findings if they were supported
by substantial evidence which, they argue, they were. The Appellees contend that
the Secretary and Hearing Officer erred in this conclusion.
The burden of proof in administrative hearings is set out in 401 KAR
100:010 Section 13(9). It provides that “[t]he petitioner shall bear the burden of
-12-
going forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of persuasion
as to the requested relief.” The Cabinet contends that the trial court erred in
determining that there should be a certainty in the modeling, which would include
the inclusion of the generator. The Cabinet asserts that the nature of “modeling” is
merely a prediction and that certainty is not required.
While the purpose of a “model” is for prediction, any “model” should
be as complete as possible in order for the prediction to be accurate. In predicting
air quality based upon the operating procedures of a generating plant, anything that
plant uses routinely should be part of the “model” used to determine whether air
quality guidelines will be violated by its operation. In this action, the generator is
an alternate power source which should be used in emergency situations only.
There was no proof offered before the Hearing Officer that the sporadic use of the
generator would cause any additional impact on the air quality. Thus, the Franklin
Circuit Court erred in remanding the Permit to the Secretary for further findings on
this issue.
IV. Public Participation Requirements.
Finally, the Cabinet contends that the Franklin Circuit Court erred in
determining that the Cabinet’s notice of the Permit in Muhlenberg County and its
publication of the Class II increment without also publishing the Class I increment
were inadequate.
The Franklin Circuit Court held that Kentucky’s Clean Air Act
regulations require the Cabinet to provide public notice of any increment
-13-
consumption which was expected to occur as a result of a new source. Franklin
Circuit Court Order at p. 9. The circuit court found that the Cabinet’s
interpretation of 401 KAR 52:100 Section 5(10) as requiring notice only in the
county in which the new source will be constructed was incorrect and, instead, that
the regulation required more than just notice within the county in which the source
would be located. The court rationalized that Thoroughbred would, in effect,
consume all of the remaining sulfur dioxide increment in the region and foreclose
construction of any new sources of air pollution in that region for decades.
Consequently, the court held that notice given by the Cabinet regarding the Permit
was not sufficient under Kentucky’s regulations. As is found throughout the
court’s opinion, however, there is no legal analysis on this issue. Also, the court
does not indicate exactly what notice it believes to be necessary in order to fulfill
the requirements of the regulations.
The provisions of 401 KAR 52:100 Section 5(10) require that public
notice “[f]or permits subject to review under 401 KAR 51:017, [include] the
degree of increment consumption expected to occur[.]” The Cabinet argues there
is no specific requirement that Class I increment consumption be published.
Any area which would be affected by the emissions of a plant such as
the one currently proposed by Thoroughbred should be included in public notice
and hearing requirements. It is required that notice be substantially compliant and
that it achieve the purpose of the notice. See Conrad v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Government, 659 S.W.2d 190 (Ky. 1983). In this case, the notice achieved
-14-
the purpose as areas which would be affected were able to participate. Thus, the
Franklin Circuit Court erred in its remand of the Permit to the Secretary for further
findings on this issue.
CONCLUSION
We find that the decision of the Franklin Circuit Court remanding the
Permit to the Cabinet was in error and shall be reversed allowing the Secretary’s
decision to stand.
ALL CONCUR.
-15-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES, SIERRA
CLUB, VALLEY WATCH INC., LESLIE
BARRAS, HILLARY LAMBERT, AND
ROGER BRUCKER:
Robin B. Thomerson
Jacquelyn A. Quarles
Frankfort, Kentucky
W. Hank Graddy
Midway, Kentucky
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT:
Sanjay Narayan
San Francisco, California
Robin B. Thomerson
Frankfort, Kentucky
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEES,
SIERRA CLUB, VALLEY WATCH
INC., LESLIE BARRAS, HILLARY
LAMBERT, AND ROGER BRUCKER:
Sanjay Narayan
San Francisco, California
BRIEFS FOR APPELLEE/CROSSAPPELLANT, THOROUGHBRED
GENERATING CO., LLC:
Carolyn M. Brown
David A. Owen
Kelly D. Bartley
Lexington, Kentucky
Kevin J. Finto
Harry M. Johnson, III
Penny A. Shamblin
Richmond, Virginia
ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT,
THOROUGHBRED GENERATING CO.,
LLC:
Harry M. Johnson, III
Richmond, Virginia
-16-
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE,
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY,
LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, WESTERN KENTUCKY
ENERGY CORP.;
Robert J. Ehrler
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE, DUKE
ENERGY KENTUCKY, INC.:
John Finnigan, Jr.
Cincinnati, Ohio
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE,
KENTUCKY CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE:
Timothy J. Hagerty
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE, UTILITY
AIR REGULATORY GROUP:
Robert M. Watt, III
Lexington, Kentucky
NO BRIEF FILED AND ORAL
ARGUMENT FOR VALLEY WATCH,
INC.:
Trevor Wells
Lexington, Kentucky
-17-
-18-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.