United States v. Alabama Power Company
773 F. Supp. 2d 1250
N.D. Ala.2011Background
- EPA sued Alabama Power for alleged NSR violations related to coal-fired units Barry 2, Gorgas Unit 10, and Greene County Unit 2.
- Court adopted Cinergy-based baseload framework; Koppe and Sahu provided a two-part analysis converting unit availability to emissions using output factors.
- Koppe assessed unit availability (outage hours) and potential increased generation; Sahu converted additional generation to emissions using standard factors.
- Cinergy held the Koppe-Sahu method valid only for baseload units operating virtually continuously at full capacity, excluding cycling units.
- Barry 2, Greene County 2, and Gorgas 10 were found not to be baseload units under Cinergy, undermining Koppe-Sahu projections.
- Court granted Alabama Power’s Daubert-based motion to exclude Koppe and Sahu testimony for those units.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koppe/Sahu methodology is admissible | Plaintiffs rely on Koppe-Sahu to predict emissions increases from project capacity. | Cinergy restricts methodology to baseload units; Koppe-Sahu not valid for non-baseload units. | Methodology excluded for non-baseload units. |
| Whether Barry Unit 2 is baseload | Barry 2 could be baseload given historical operation and availability. | Barry 2 not baseload; operated with substantial reserve shutdown. | Barry 2 not baseload; Koppe-Sahu projection excluded. |
| Whether Greene County Unit 2 and Gorgas Unit 10 are baseload | Greene County 2 and Gorgas 10 might be baseload given output factors. | Each unit did not operate at full capacity continuously; not baseload. | Greene County 2 and Gorgas 10 not baseload; Koppe-Sahu projections excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cinergy Corp., 623 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2010) (baseload requirement limits admissibility of certain emissions methodologies)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping for reliability of scientific evidence)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (S. Ct. 1997) (connections between data and opinion must be reliable, not ipse dixit)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 1999) (Daubert gates apply to all expert testimony using scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge)
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (examines reliability and gatekeeping under Rule 702)
- Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999) (Daubert reliability and proper foundation for expert testimony)