News-Record.com

Those following the ongoing battle over whether to relicense Alcoa will remember that Gov. Bev Perdue moved to intervene in the federal regulatory case.

Alcoa filed this response this morning and says Gov. Perdue should not be able to weigh in. The company argues the N.C. Department of Environment of Natural Resources is already a party to the case. And, they say, the time for the state to take a real interest in the relicensing is over. From the filing:

The Motion cites as “good cause” for failing to file within the Rule 210(b) period the fact that “the opportunity to intervene through the normal channels predated the election of the current gubernatorial administration.”5 What the Motion overlooks, however, is the fact that the issues and positions in this proceeding are not new, and the State therefore has long been on notice as to the issues of this proceeding, regardless of the individual serving as governor. In her letter to the Commission of June 3, 2008, then-Lieutenant Governor (now current Governor) Perdue referred to the different circumstances that exist presently as compared to those present at the time the initial license was granted.6 Yet these circumstances to which the Governor referred (i.e., the closing of the Alcoa Inc. (“Alcoa”) smelting operations in Badin, North Carolina) did not develop after the Rule 210(b) deadline in February 2007. Rather, Alcoa curtailed its smelting operations in 2002.

Furthermore, the previous gubernatorial administration, of which the current Governor was an integral and senior member, was responsible for the successful intervention in this proceeding of two of its instrumentalities—NCDENR and NCWRC. If those two State entities had the opportunity to intervene in this proceeding on a timely basis, then so too did the Governor’s office, assuming arguendo that the Governor’s office has separate standing to appear as a party. The fact that the individual serving as Governor changed is irrelevant. The present Governor is of the same political party as her predecessor, but even if that were not the case, the fact that the occupant of the office changes would not of itself indicate a change in State policy.