Receive Weekly Email and Text Message Updates:
Sign up for latest info on concerts, dining, promotions and more!
Go!

Most Popular

National Features >

  • City Pages

    Michele Bachmann, Unmuzzled

    You don't need to read Sarah Palin's book to hear the ravings of a mad woman.

    By Matt Snyders

  • Miami New Times

    Pimp Daddy

    The rise and fall of a chubby sex-cult leader.

    By Natalie O'Neill

  • Riverfront Times

    Babe 'n' Arms

    Tom was a hot-tempered cross-dresser with a garage full of guns--and then he became Rachel.

    By Nicholas Phillips

  • Dallas Observer

    The Fight for Texas

    Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison are locked in a battle over the soul of the GOP. They're also running for governor.

    By Sam Merten

Pitch Wins Court Battle

An appeals court ruling allows publication of a piece about the BPU's possible clean-air violations.

Share

  • rss

By Justin Kendall

Published on March 07, 2007 at 11:19am

An appeals court judge on Tuesday afternoon overturned a ruling that had barred the Pitch and The Kansas City Star from publishing stories about potential violations of federal pollution regulations by the Kansas City, Kansas, Board of Public Utilities.

Missouri Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Breckenridge ruled in favor of the papers Tuesday, ordering Judge Kelly Moorhouse to "vacate and set aside" the temporary restraining order against the papers. Breckenridge gave Moorhouse until March 16 to respond.

Last week, the Pitch broke news about a confidential letter that reveals the BPU may be liable for thousands of dollars in fines for failing to comply with federal anti-pollution regulations. The Star ran a similar article after the Pitch's story appeared on Pitch.com Friday afternoon.

Friday evening, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Kelly Moorhouse ruled in favor of the BPU and ordered the stories taken down, saying the BPU would be "irreparably harmed" if they remained on the papers' Web sites. She also barred the papers from distributing the confidential document.

The document was prepared November 16, 2004, by lawyer Stanley A. Reigel. It weighs the pros and cons of admitting to the Environmental Protection Agency that upgrades at BPU power plants did not comply with the federal Clean Air Act. According to Reigel's letter, his report was spurred by a November 14, 2003, analysis of BPU's coal-fired power plants by Burns & McDonnell Engineers, which determined that upgrades to the plants to make them comply with regulations would cost nearly $160 million.

It's unclear whether the BPU took any action after Reigel delivered his letter. The utility did not report Reigel's findings to the EPA, according to Becky Dolph, an attorney for the EPA.

Reigel's 15-page document identifies 73 repairs or upgrades made between January 1980 and November 2004 that may not have followed EPA rules. Reigel determined that 15 of them were "questionable" and another 15 were "probably not defensible" if the EPA conducted an audit.

Click these links to read:
The original article
BPU's argument for the restraining order
The restraining order
Reigel's letter