Local Weather

by Happy HarperValley Rez

In the thread...
For those who voted NO
Main Street Monroe | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Political
 SunCoke
 SunCoke Approval Error
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly



Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Monroe News
Administrator

1712 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  2:26:51 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled the Ohio Power Siting Board, which approves new power plant construction, erred in limiting its review of the $360 million Middletown Coke plant that's slated to begin operation late next year.

"As a result of its erroneous jurisdictional ruling, the siting board never engaged in the balancing of interests required in this case," the court majority said. It ordered the siting board to weigh additional factors "such as whether coke production has an adverse environmental impact."

Chris Walker, lawyer for the City of Monroe, called the ruling: "Welcome news. We felt all along we had a strong case."

Full Story: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101201/BIZ01/12020310/1076/BIZ/Ohio-agency-erred-in-coke-plant-case-top-court-rules

Monroe, Ohio Breaking News

cmsquare
Advanced Member

USA
6325 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  2:35:14 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

well then
Go to Top of Page

blueblood
Senior Member

USA
5167 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  2:35:49 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Walker said Monroe's view is construction should be halted "because Middletown Coke no long has a valid site certificate."

A spokesman for AK Steel declined comment.

A spokesman for the parent of SunCoke Energy Inc., which is building the coke plant, said the company was reviewing the court's decision.



Things that make you go UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM




Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  3:31:44 PM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Monroe exercised its right to appeal the decision of the OPSB to the Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority in today’s decision, Justice Lanzinger said that in refusing to consider the environmental and other impacts of the coke plant or steam generator portions of the project, and declining even to consider whether there was another feasible location posing less environmental impact, the OPSB disregarded the statute that should have guided its review of the MCC application.

She wrote: “R.C. 4906.01(B)(1) controls the jurisdictional analysis and grants the siting board jurisdiction over ‘[e]lectric generating plant and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operation at a capacity of fifty megawatts or more.’ ‘Plant’ means ‘the land, buildings, machinery, apparatus, and fixtures employed in carrying on ... a mechanical or other industrial business.’ ... In context, then, the siting board’s jurisdiction extends to land, buildings, and equipment employed in carrying on the business of generating electricity. ... The siting board, as far as its orders show, never asked whether the contested land and equipment constituted ‘electric generating plant.’ It characterized as ‘the coke plant’ anything used to make coke and then disclaimed jurisdiction, regardless of whether it was also used to generate electricity. The statute, however, grants jurisdiction over ‘electric generating plant’ and does not deny jurisdiction over ‘coke plant.’ The question, then, is whether the contested land and facilities constitute electric generating plant. Concluding that they are ‘part of [a] coke plant’ does not answer that question.

“The assumption that any given parcel of land or piece of equipment can fit into only one of two categories—coke plant or electric generating plant—is false. The siting board has not explained why, as a matter of logic, the same land or equipment cannot be both coke plant and electric generating plant. Nor has it cited any legal authority in support of its either-or analysis. Factually, this case demonstrates that the same land and equipment may be used in both processes and thus fit both categories. We reverse the siting board’s jurisdictional ruling. The siting board committed the jurisdictional error early in the proceedings. In addition to affecting the scope of its substantive investigation and analysis, the siting board also limited the scope of discovery, cross-examination, and Monroe’s ability to introduce its own evidence into the record.”

While indicating that it would be inappropriate for the Court to dictate the specific analysis the siting board must undertake on remand regarding the impacts of the non-turbine portions of the facility, Justice Lanzinger suggested the OPSB should evaluate the extent to which the steam generators excluded from its earlier analysis contribute not only to the production of coke but also to the generation of electric power, and should conduct a balancing test between the environmental impacts of the coke ovens and steam generators and the economic and other impacts of alternative locations or technologies.

She concluded: “As a result of its erroneous jurisdictional ruling, the siting board never engaged in the balancing of interests required in this case. ... It may well be that the best place for this generation facility is less than a mile from Monroe’s homes and schools, but the city is entitled to test that proposition through an effective adversarial proceeding. With a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation, effective judicial review will be possible.”

Justice Lanzinger’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell and Robert R. Cupp.

Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton dissented, stating that in her view the language in R.C. 4906.01 including “associated facilities” within the definition of an electric generating plant is limited to facilities that are designed for or capable of producing electricity. “In the instant case, the proposed coke plant is not designed for, nor will it be capable of, producing electricity. It is intended to make coke.” wrote Justice Stratton. “The heat that is used to create steam as fuel for the power plant is merely a waste product of that process. Thus, I would hold that the proposed coke ovens plant is not an associated facility as defined in R.C. 4906.01(B)(1). ... I believe that the majority’s holding expands the board’s jurisdiction beyond what the General Assembly intended, and it encroaches upon the Ohio EPA’s jurisdiction to regulate coke ovens. Consequently, I would defer to the board’s decision that it has jurisdiction over the proposed power plant, but not the proposed coke plant. Thus, I would affirm the decision of the Power Siting Board.”

Chief Justice Eric Brown did not participate in the court’s deliberations or decision in this case.

Contacts
Jack A. Van Kley, 614.431.8900, for the city of Monroe.

Samuel Peterson, 614.466.8746, for the Ohio Power Siting Board.

M. Howard Petricoff, 614.464.6414, for Middletown Coke Company.

Full Supreme Court Statement: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summaries/2010/1201/090941.asp

"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  3:39:05 PM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

"With a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation, effective judicial review will be possible."

So the remedy is an effective judicial review after a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation. So while the facts are being gathered, the plant construction continues? How long will it take to gather all the facts they need? What constitutes a public danger enough to stop work or stop the plant? It doesn't say. The ruling is written so vaguely that it really doesn't spell out anything.

Am I reading this right?

"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  3:50:08 PM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Chris Walker has released this statement on behalf of the City of Monroe

http://www.mainstreetmonroe.com/view_news.asp?nId=5204

"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

blueblood
Senior Member

USA
5167 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  3:52:12 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

The line before that is key to me which you omitted. This allows Monroe to make the case it was denied for alternate site review, which never occurred. How could anyone rule that the best place for this facility is is adjacent homes and schools?

She concluded: “As a result of its erroneous jurisdictional ruling, the siting board never engaged in the balancing of interests required in this case. ... It may well be that the best place for this generation facility is less than a mile from Monroe’s homes and schools, but the city is entitled to test that proposition through an effective adversarial proceeding. With a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation, effective judicial review will be possible.”


Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  4:06:31 PM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

so what is the remedy?

quote:
[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i]
[br]The line before that is key to me which you omitted. This allows Monroe to make the case it was denied for alternate site review, which never occurred. How could anyone rule that the best place for this facility is is adjacent homes and schools?

She concluded: “As a result of its erroneous jurisdictional ruling, the siting board never engaged in the balancing of interests required in this case. ... It may well be that the best place for this generation facility is less than a mile from Monroe’s homes and schools, but the city is entitled to test that proposition through an effective adversarial proceeding. With a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation, effective judicial review will be possible.”




"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  4:27:14 PM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Link to the Video from the Ohio Supreme Court
http://www.OhioChannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=125144


"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

blueblood
Senior Member

USA
5167 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  4:30:03 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

As this sinks in and not being an attorney, I can tell this from memory.

The Coke making end of the EPA decision did not recognize people places or institutions and was only concerned with the amount of tonnage coming from the stacks. therefore, the weaseling of credits and all the tomfoolery they got the permit.

What this is saying is they must consider for generating purposes the aforementioned people places and institutions and whether the location is the proper one for the first time as co-generation facility as they tried to circumvent the process by saying the coke plant was not a consideration and not under their jurisdiction. This ruling makes for the first time, the location of all the pollution and it's proximity to populations, which is very favorable in my view! This could be the best Christmas ever!!!!!

Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
Go to Top of Page

cmsquare
Advanced Member

USA
6325 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  4:37:50 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

For the mean time halt construction.

when they lose tear it down.



quote:
[i]Originally posted by John Beagle[/i]
[br]so what is the remedy?

quote:
[i]Originally posted by blueblood[/i]
[br]The line before that is key to me which you omitted. This allows Monroe to make the case it was denied for alternate site review, which never occurred. How could anyone rule that the best place for this facility is is adjacent homes and schools?

She concluded: “As a result of its erroneous jurisdictional ruling, the siting board never engaged in the balancing of interests required in this case. ... It may well be that the best place for this generation facility is less than a mile from Monroe’s homes and schools, but the city is entitled to test that proposition through an effective adversarial proceeding. With a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation, effective judicial review will be possible.”





Go to Top of Page

bengalsfan94
Average Member

USA
1204 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  4:40:17 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

So what are the chances that this plant won't happen now. TEAR IT DOWN BABY!
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  4:45:10 PM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Full Decision:
http://www.mainstreetmonroe.com/pdf//Decision%202010-Ohio-5725.pdf

"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

tomaguero
New Member

USA
32 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  5:20:01 PM  Show Profile  Visit tomaguero's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Can someone help clarify what all this means?

The jist I'm getting is this Ohio power board messed up and that it's going to be "reviewed" but nothing is actually going to stop? Is that right?

Keep it Funky!
Go to Top of Page

T-Bone Marshall
Junior Member

360 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  8:08:48 PM  Show Profile  Visit T-Bone Marshall's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Tear it down and get it out of here. Let middletown ruin the health of its own citizens!
Great job Mayor
Go to Top of Page

yogabba
Junior Member

137 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  8:16:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by T-Bone Marshall[/i]
[br]Tear it down and get it out of here. Let middletown ruin the health of its own citizens!
Great job Mayor



Do you honestly think moving the facility down the road 6 blocks would make a difference?
Go to Top of Page

tressell
New Member

49 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  8:27:24 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

It means nothing in my opinion. The plant will be built. If Monroe decides to keep fighting, Monroe will continue to lose money.

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
A depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his!
Go to Top of Page

yogabba
Junior Member

137 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  8:33:47 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by tressell[/i]
[br]The plant will be built. If Monroe decides to keep fighting, Monroe will continue to lose money.



Yes, the plant will be built and it is not going anywhere. There are over 700 people working on site right now. The City of Monroe will continue to throw money away.
Go to Top of Page

cmsquare
Advanced Member

USA
6325 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  9:36:55 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by tressell[/i]
[br]It means nothing in my opinion. The plant will be built. If Monroe decides to keep fighting, Monroe will continue to lose money.



Are you a judge?
Go to Top of Page

jimmc_69
Junior Member

USA
130 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/01/2010 :  10:53:47 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Just close down the plant, layoff all the workers and contractors and move it all to China. China has no care for the environment and nobody in Ohio cares about jobs anyway. Hmmm that does sound familiar :)

"One day in retrospect the years of struggle will strike you as the most beautiful."

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
Go to Top of Page

tressell
New Member

49 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  12:14:44 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by cmsquare[/i]
[br]
quote:
[i]Originally posted by tressell[/i]
[br]It means nothing in my opinion. The plant will be built. If Monroe decides to keep fighting, Monroe will continue to lose money.



Are you a judge?



Nope, it's an opinion. I'm not cocky enough to act like a know it all.

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
A depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Obama loses his!
Go to Top of Page

blueblood
Senior Member

USA
5167 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  06:58:43 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Monroe wins battle in war over Middletown coke plant

http://middletown.fox19.com/content/monroe-wins-battle-war-over-middletown-coke-plant

Submitted by Richard Todd, Reporter
Wednesday, December 1st, 4:20 pmShare:
MIDDLETOWN (FOX19) - The City of Monroe has won the latest round in the legal fight over the new SunCoke plant being built next to the AK Steel plant on the south end of Middletown near the Monroe border.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Monroe, which had asked that the Ohio Power Siting Board be required to look at the environmental impact of coke production before agreeing to allow an included power plant to be built.

The Siting Board has to approve all new power plants built in Ohio. The board said its authority extended only to the energy production part of the plant, with the remainder left to be regulated by the Ohio EPA. The court disagreed.

This means the board must reconsider its decision.

The plant, being built for SunCoke under the name Middletown Coke, would supply both power and coke to the AK steel plant. Coke is a heat-treated form of coal that is used as a chemical in the steel-making progress. The production of coke takes lots of power, as do other aspects of steelmaking. That power comes from the coal itself. The heat produced by the coal will also be used to heat steam which will then rotate turbines for power, assuming the plant is allowed to be built. This is the way most coal-fired power plants work.

The city of Monroe has been pursuing court and regulatory avenues to prevent the plant from being built as planned, due to concerns about the environmental effects of the plant.

Monroe's Attorney Chris Walker says the ruling is meaningful in affecting the course of action of the OPSB.

In a release, Monroe Mayor Robert Routson said, "Monroe is very pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the Power Siting Board must consider all impacts relating to energy generation at Middletown Coke. The flaws in the OPSB certificate are just another example of Middletown Coke’s consistent pattern of illegally dodging the laws intended to protect the public from the coke plant’s pollution."

AK Steel had not responded to the ruling by the time this story was written.


Court Orders Power Siting Board to Review, Rule On Environmental Impact of Butler County Coke Ovens
Board Erred in Denying Jurisdiction Over Ovens as Part of Power Plant
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
2009-0941. In re Application of Middletown Coke Co., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5725.
Power Siting Board, No. 08-0281-EL-BGN. Order of the Power Siting Board reversed, and cause remanded.
Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
Brown, C.J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-5725.pdf
View oral argument video of this case.
(Dec. 1, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) erred by denying that it has jurisdiction to review the environmental impact of coke ovens that are part of an electric power “cogeneration station” proposed to be constructed near the Butler County community of Monroe. In a 5-1 decision authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, the Court reversed a decision of the OPSB approving the siting of the proposed facility without considering the environmental impact of the coke ovens, and remanded the application of the Middletown Coke Company to the siting board for further proceedings to determine whether the proposed facility “represents the minimum adverse environmental impact.”
Under Chapter 4906 of the Ohio Revised Code a “major utility facility” (i.e. a plant designed to produce at least 50 megawatts of electricity) may not be built without the approval of the OPSB. In this case, Middletown Coke Company (MCC) filed an application with the OPSB in June 2008 seeking approval to build what it termed a “cogeneration station” on a 250-acre site near the city of Monroe in Butler County. The proposed facility was to consist of 1) ovens that bake coal in order to convert it to metallurgical coke, producing superheated gases in the process; 2) heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) that filter out pollutants and convert the superheated flue gases emitted by the coke ovens to usable steam; and 3) a steam-powered turbine capable of generating an average of 57 megawatts of electric power.
Before it approves construction of any major utility facility, the siting board must determine that the facility “represents the minimum adverse environmental impact.” In addition, the siting board’s rules require applicants to provide a detailed explanation of the process used to select the proposed site and a description of alternative sites. In its application, MCC defined the cogeneration station to include only the electricity-producing turbine and related apparatus, such as cooling towers and control equipment. The application, however, excluded the equipment that burned coal and produced steam -- that is, the coke ovens and heat recovery steam generators.
MCC sought and was granted a waiver from the requirement to develop an alternative-site analysis. The company reasoned, and the siting board agreed, that the location of the cogeneration station depended on “the location of the coke manufacturing facility, which is not required to undergo a formal site selection study.” In accordance with this waiver, the application’s description of the site-selection process consisted of one paragraph explaining that the location of the cogeneration station was “constrained by the need to be adjacent to the energy source, which is the coke facility.” The application did not explain whether the company had considered other sites for the entire project (that is, including the coke facility) or how it settled on the location chosen.
The site selected by MCC borders the city of Monroe and lies a half-mile from the city’s residential neighborhoods and about 1,200 feet from a school. In September 2008, Monroe filed a motion to intervene, opposing the application. It asserted that the source of steam for the project (the coke ovens and heat recovery steam generators) would annually emit over 2,700 tons of air pollutants and up to 160 pounds of mercury. It asked the siting board to review the environmental impact of the entire facility, including the land and facilities used to produce coke, and to consider alternative sites.
The siting board granted Monroe’s motion to intervene, but disclaimed “jurisdiction over any permits for construction of the coke plant.” Throughout subsequent proceedings, the OPSB consistently denied that it had jurisdiction to review the environmental impact or location of “the coke plant,” and on that basis disallowed repeated efforts by Monroe to obtain discovery, cross examine MCC’s witnesses or proffer any evidence relating to the coke ovens. After completing an investigation limited exclusively to the steam turbine portion of the project proposal, the siting board granted MCC’s application to construct the facility as proposed.
Monroe exercised its right to appeal the decision of the OPSB to the Supreme Court.
Writing for the majority in today’s decision, Justice Lanzinger said that in refusing to consider the environmental and other impacts of the coke plant or steam generator portions of the project, and declining even to consider whether there was another feasible location posing less environmental impact, the OPSB disregarded the statute that should have guided its review of the MCC application.
She wrote: “R.C. 4906.01(B)(1) controls the jurisdictional analysis and grants the siting board jurisdiction over ‘[e]lectric generating plant and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operation at a capacity of fifty megawatts or more.’ ‘Plant’ means ‘the land, buildings, machinery, apparatus, and fixtures employed in carrying on ... a mechanical or other industrial business.’ ... In context, then, the siting board’s jurisdiction extends to land, buildings, and equipment employed in carrying on the business of generating electricity. ... The siting board, as far as its orders show, never asked whether the contested land and equipment constituted ‘electric generating plant.’ It characterized as ‘the coke plant’ anything used to make coke and then disclaimed jurisdiction, regardless of whether it was also used to generate electricity. The statute, however, grants jurisdiction over ‘electric generating plant’ and does not deny jurisdiction over ‘coke plant.’ The question, then, is whether the contested land and facilities constitute electric generating plant. Concluding that they are ‘part of [a] coke plant’ does not answer that question.
“The assumption that any given parcel of land or piece of equipment can fit into only one of two categories—coke plant or electric generating plant—is false. The siting board has not explained why, as a matter of logic, the same land or equipment cannot be both coke plant and electric generating plant. Nor has it cited any legal authority in support of its either-or analysis. Factually, this case demonstrates that the same land and equipment may be used in both processes and thus fit both categories. We reverse the siting board’s jurisdictional ruling. The siting board committed the jurisdictional error early in the proceedings. In addition to affecting the scope of its substantive investigation and analysis, the siting board also limited the scope of discovery, cross-examination, and Monroe’s ability to introduce its own evidence into the record.”
While indicating that it would be inappropriate for the Court to dictate the specific analysis the siting board must undertake on remand regarding the impacts of the non-turbine portions of the facility, Justice Lanzinger suggested the OPSB should evaluate the extent to which the steam generators excluded from its earlier analysis contribute not only to the production of coke but also to the generation of electric power, and should conduct a balancing test between the environmental impacts of the coke ovens and steam generators and the economic and other impacts of alternative locations or technologies.
She concluded: “As a result of its erroneous jurisdictional ruling, the siting board never engaged in the balancing of interests required in this case. ... It may well be that the best place for this generation facility is less than a mile from Monroe’s homes and schools, but the city is entitled to test that proposition through an effective adversarial proceeding. With a fully developed record and fact-supported explanation, effective judicial review will be possible.”
Justice Lanzinger’s opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton dissented, stating that in her view the language in R.C. 4906.01 including “associated facilities” within the definition of an electric generating plant is limited to facilities that are designed for or capable of producing electricity. “In the instant case, the proposed coke plant is not designed for, nor will it be capable of, producing electricity. It is intended to make coke.” wrote Justice Stratton. “The heat that is used to create steam as fuel for the power plant is merely a waste product of that process. Thus, I would hold that the proposed coke ovens plant is not an associated facility as defined in R.C. 4906.01(B)(1). ... I believe that the majority’s holding expands the board’s jurisdiction beyond what the General Assembly intended, and it encroaches upon the Ohio EPA’s jurisdiction to regulate coke ovens. Consequently, I would defer to the board’s decision that it has jurisdiction over the proposed power plant, but not the proposed coke plant. Thus, I would affirm the decision of the Power Siting Board.”
Chief Justice Eric Brown did not participate in the court’s deliberations or decision in this case.



Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
Go to Top of Page

John Crist
Junior Member

317 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  09:51:09 AM  Show Profile  Send John Crist a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

So does all that above mean they have stopped building on the plant as of today?


Go to Top of Page

Houndog
Senior Member

USA
3689 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  09:53:13 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by John Crist[/i]
[br]So does all that above mean they have stopped building on the plant as of today?



No. I was stopped by the officer this morning to allow the workmen and women to cross. $350 million and they couldn't build a catwalk to allow the flow of traffic to continue?
Go to Top of Page

John Beagle
Advanced Member

USA
16025 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  10:10:47 AM  Show Profile  Visit John Beagle's Homepage  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SunCoke have to reduce power generation to 49 Megawats from 56 to avoid any further regulation?

"I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" #BillCosby
Go to Top of Page

bengalsfan94
Average Member

USA
1204 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  11:30:24 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by jimmc_69[/i]
[br]Just close down the plant, layoff all the workers and contractors and move it all to China. China has no care for the environment and nobody in Ohio cares about jobs anyway. Hmmm that does sound familiar :)



People's health is more important than a handful of jobs in the area. Sorry.
Go to Top of Page

Doc
Advanced Member

USA
10310 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  11:50:35 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Just like the rest of the short-sighted fools on the Middletownjournal.com site; you obviously haven't thought about how many jobs will disappear and/or won't come here because they don't want to be situated next to a giant pollution-belching behemoth.

The economic impact of something THIS environmentally destructive will have long reaching implications for generations to come.

Is THIS what you want our area to look like???



Go to Top of Page

buck35
Senior Member

5544 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  12:20:47 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Doc you're overlooking the 75 jobs it will create.
Go to Top of Page

ClarkWestern1
Average Member

USA
1276 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  12:21:12 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by John Beagle[/i]
[br]Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SunCoke have to reduce power generation to 49 Megawats from 56 to avoid any further regulation?


No, they have to produce 20 gigawatts and get the plant up to 88 mph..

"Just spittin out words to see where they splatter."
Go to Top of Page

TheDude
Junior Member

497 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  1:32:53 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by ClarkWestern1[/i]
[br]
quote:
[i]Originally posted by John Beagle[/i]
[br]Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SunCoke have to reduce power generation to 49 Megawats from 56 to avoid any further regulation?


No, they have to produce 20 gigawatts and get the plant up to 88 mph..




That may be a bit overkill - only 1.21 gigwatts are needed
Go to Top of Page

Houndog
Senior Member

USA
3689 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  1:35:35 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

RUN MARTY!!!! IT'S THE LYBIANS!!!
Go to Top of Page

yogabba
Junior Member

137 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  6:27:02 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by John Beagle[/i]
[br]Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SunCoke have to reduce power generation to 49 Megawats from 56 to avoid any further regulation?



That is an option. From what I understand if SunCoke decides to go this route then they won't even need a permit from the OPSB and the City Monroe is out yet more money for nothing. Again, the plant is being built and the City of Monroe cannot stop it.
Go to Top of Page

yogabba
Junior Member

137 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  6:31:40 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by bengalsfan94[/i]
[br]People's health is more important than a handful of jobs in the area. Sorry.


The 700 people currently working on site (with more to come) and the 75 permanet jobs once it complete is hardly a handfull. Sorry.
Go to Top of Page

cmsquare
Advanced Member

USA
6325 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  6:38:15 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

quote:
[i]Originally posted by Houndog[/i]
[br]RUN MARTY!!!! IT'S THE LYBIANS!!!



Fire up the delorean

Go to Top of Page

James Little
Advanced Member

11497 Posts

Likes
0
Thumbs Up This Post
Posted - 12/02/2010 :  7:29:44 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote Report Abuse

Marty... you Butthead!!!
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly



Jump To:
The Voice
Counterfeits at the Flea Market Again
NEW VOICE FORUM
Voter fraud may not actually happen...
A Night of Praise
Police Briefs 10/24
 
City
Todhunter Construction to use "No General Funds"
Monroe May Decommission Water Treatment Facility
"Hickman the Only Dissenting Vote"
City Building Drop Off
 
School
Election Results
School Levy Debate Goes Down to the Wire
Give with target - Monroe elementary
School Audit is Complete
 
Political Voice
Democrats want America to fail
Clint Eastwood’s Critical Speech to the RNC
 
For Sale
Miami vs Providence hockey $15 tickets!
#4 Miami Redhawks vs Providence Tickets
 
Real Estate
3 bedroom house for rent - 825
3 bed/2bath townhouse for RENT - $800
 
Wanted
Debts to Collect on Contingency Basis
Drivers Disk for Dell Dimension 3000
 
For Free
Free male neutered cat
free furniture alert
 
Jobs
Earn Money Writing Articles for Local Events
Guy & Eva Style Advisor
 
Charter Review
Charter Review Commission 2011 Recommendations
Section 7.13 Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance or
 
Veterans
Veterans Memorial Dedication May 22@6
Monroe Veterans Memorial Video
 
Memorial
Geneva Wells of Monroe, Ohio
In Remembrance of Alice Rose Salzman
 
Prayer Requests
Prayers for Kenny Ellis & Family
Prayers Needed
 
MainStreetMonroe.com Terms of Use © MainStreetMonroe.com Go To Top Of Page

Advertising Information

Main Street Monroe was started by Monroe, Ohio resident John Beagle in 1998