States Can Sue Utilities Over Emissions

[bemildred]

Source: NYT

A two-judge panel of a federal appeals court has ruled that big power companies can be sued by states and land trusts for emitting carbon dioxide. The decision, issued Monday, overturns a 2005 District Court decision that the question was political, not judicial.

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled that eight states — California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin — as well as New York City and three land trusts could proceed with a suit against American Electric Power, Southern Corporation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy and Cinergy Corporation, all large coal-burning utilities.

The case, brought in 2004, said the defendants were creating a “public nuisance” and sought reductions in emissions that scientists say are changing the climate. The states cited studies from the United Nations and the National Academy of Sciences that predicted damage and said in fact that their environments had already been damaged. The land trusts said that an increase in sea level would inundate their properties, among other problems.

The power companies said that the federal courts had never recognized an argument in common law that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, and that if action were to be taken, Congress would have to do it.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/earth/22carbon.html

[Frank Booth]

1. This will probably be reviewed by the Supreme Court,

and may actually be affirmed. Kennedy joined in the opinion allowing regulation of greenhouse gases a couple years ago.

[imdjh]

2. side bet says this goes nowhere. Not because it's political, because it's stupid.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that society must accept some undesirable byproducts of the very industries whose product society consumes and is enriched by.

In essence you can't punish JP Stevens for what it did to a town that wouldn't exist were it not for JP Stevens.

[Frank Booth]

3. It seems like a ruling both sides on the Supreme Court would be interested in,

because it will open the gates to similar suits.

It seems like a winnable injunction to me (which I assume the plaintiffs are seeking). Balancing equities, it's lost shoreline, residences and industry due to rising sea levels vs lost profits and higher energy charges.

[imdjh]

4. I hope it goes to the USSC and they nail these people down.

What rising sea levels? What lost shoreline? What lost residences and industry?

[Frank Booth]

5. That's the imminent harm.

Whether they can actually prove it is likely to happen is a different story.