Opinion ID: 2346458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the DLN System Serves a Pollution Control Function

Text: [¶ 13] The Town next argues that the Board erred as a matter of law in determining that the DLN System serves a pollution control function because, as a front-end pollution control measure, the DLN System's sole function is combustion, and reduction of NOx is merely an attribute of that function. We have already established, however, that facilities involved in the production process can also serve a pollution control function. Int'l Paper, 1999 ME 135, ¶¶ 32-33, 737 A.2d at 1054-55 (affirming the Board's finding that low NOx burners serve both production and pollution control functions); see also Statler Indus., Inc. v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 333 A.2d 703, 707-08 (Me.1975) (recognizing that re-pulpers served a dual purpose and holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding what portion served a primary purpose of pollution control). [¶ 14] As in its finding in International Paper, the Board found in the present case that Androscoggin Energy's DLN System fulfills multiple functions: assisting with fuel and air delivery into the turbine combustion chamber, combusting fuel, and reducing NOx creation. Consequently, the Board did not err as a matter of law when it determined that the DLN System serves a pollution control function. Because a facility can serve both production and pollution control functions, the distinction between front-end and back-end pollution control measures is inconsequential for purposes of determining whether a facility qualifies for a section 656 tax exemption.