Opinion
ELLEN M. MAHAN, Deputy Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice.
ANDREW W. INGERSOLL, Trial Attorney, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.
DAVID H. KIM, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, California, ANNETTE BALLATORE-WILLIAMSON, District Counsel, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California, Attorney for Plaintiff San Joaquin Valley, Unified Air Pollution Control District.
FOR DEFENDANT MERCED POWER, LLC, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP JODI SMITH, Esq., Paul Hastings, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
JOINT STIPULATION TO TERMINATE CONSENT DECREE AND REQUEST FOR COURT APPROVAL; ORDER THEREON
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs the United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (collectively, Plaintiffs), and Defendant Merced Power, LLC respectfully move the Court to terminate the Consent Decree entered as a final judgment in this matter on April 25, 2011 (DN 8).
In support of this motion, the Plaintiffs and Defendant hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Consent Decree was negotiated by the Plaintiffs and Defendant to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. and state implementing regulations.
2. On April 25, 2011, the Court entered the Consent Decree as a final judgment in this matter. DN 8.
3. Pursuant to Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Consent Decree, Defendant completed the compliance requirements of the Consent Decree and satisfied all claims for stipulated penalties available pursuant to Section VII of the Consent Decree.
4. In accordance with Paragraph 74 of the Consent Decree, Defendant requested termination of the Consent Decree, on the basis that it has satisfied the requirements for termination.
5. Pursuant to Paragraph 75 of the Consent Decree, after receiving Defendant's Request for Termination, Plaintiffs agree that Defendant has satisfied the requirements for terminating the Consent Decree, except for the Consent Decree's information retention requirements which survive for three years after termination. See Consent Decree ¶ 54.
6. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate that:
THE CONSENT DECREE IS TERMINATED.
ORDER
Pursuant to the Stipulation of all parties, the Consent Decree in this case is TERMINATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.