Polymet's Air Permits Receives Mixed Opinion by Minnesota Supreme Court On the one side, on Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the ruling of a lower court that would have sent the air permits from PolyMet back to state regulators for further review.
B
ut on the other hand, it ordered a lower court to investigate whether PolyMet, which is trying to open the first coppernickel mine in the state, misled the re-establishment.
the sum stated in permit applications by the company.
In Wednesday's Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Margaret Chutich, both opponents and supporters of PolyMet claimed victory.
The air permits issued in December 2018 by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency allow the company to release 250 tonnes of controlled pollutants per year, but opponents argue that if it were to recover more ore, the company would surpass that cap and call the permits an example of "sham permitting."
Central to the case is whether a PolyMet study published in March 2018, 10 days after the public comment period of the air permit ended, details the company's plans to recover 118,000 tonnes of ore per day instead of 32,000 tonnes per day,
In reversing the March 2020 decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Chutich wrote that the MPCA did not need to go back and consider the scope for sham authorization as ordered by the lower court. During the permitting process,
Chutich wrote that the MPCA "was under no federal obligation to investigate sham permitting" and that when it sent the permits back to the MPCA in March, the lower court had "relied on an erroneous interpretation of federal law". In separate statements, PolyMet President and CEO Jon Cherry said the reversal on Wednesday "is another big win and a major step forward in the defense of our air permit," while an MPCA spokesperson stated it "appreciates the court’s thorough review of the air permitting process for the PolyMet facility." Meanwhile, environmental groups celebrated the court sending some of their www.skillings.net | 11
