Finally, I would like to also specifically express my gratitude to the hard working and dedicated EPA employees and our colleagues at the Department of Justice. It was their tireless efforts and their skilled representation of the United States that produced this result, and at this time Ron and I would be happy to take any questions.
QUESTION: AEP is saying that they had already planned or started spending or budgeted to $5 billion in some of the emission production controls. Why are you including that in the settlement?
MR. TENPAS: Well, a couple of observations on that. First, I think it's fair to say that those things were not in the plans in 1999 when this case was first brought. Second, as those of you who are familiar with business enterprises know, plans change. And so there is a big difference between a company saying it has plans to do something in the future and a company being bound by an order of the court, which is what this will be, to take those steps.
So this is an agreement that secures very concrete, very definite steps. In addition, it is an agreement that contains within the agreement itself a schedule of significant penalties if the company fails to comply with the reductions that the agreement sets out. So we think it's entirely fair and appropriate to say that it is this agreement and it is this litigation that has cumulatively produced the collection of steps that the company now is going to take.
QUESTION: Since 1999 what evidence or knowledge do you have that the company was knowingly sidestepping environmental laws?
MR. TENPAS: This is an agreement that relates to their conduct before
1999 at the time this complaint was filed. This is not an agreement and
|SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice|
Copyright©2007 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved