Term: 2010
Docket: 10-174
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Et Al., Petitioners v. Connecticut Et Al
- Pro
10-174 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. CONNECTICUT DECISION BELOW: 582 F.3d 309 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 12/6/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: The court of appeals held that States and private plaintiffs may maintain actions under federal common law alleging that defendants - in this case, five electric utilities - have created a "public nuisance" by contributing to global warming, and may seek injunctive relief capping defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at judicially-determined levels. The questions presented are: 1. Whether States and private parties have standing to seek judicially- fashioned emissions caps on five utilities for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources. 2. Whether a cause of action to cap carbon dioxide emissions can be implied under federal common law where no statute creates such a cause of action, and the Clean Air Act speaks directly to the same subject matter and assigns federal responsibility for regulating such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency. 3. Whether claims seeking to cap defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at "reasonable" levels, based on a court's weighing of the potential risks of climate change against the socioeconomic utility of defendants' conduct, would be governed by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" or could be resolved without "initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-5104, 05-5119
In the 2010 case American Electric Power Company, Inc., et al. v. Connecticut et al., several states, New York City and three land trusts sued five major electric power companies for their greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law of nuisance, arguing that these emissions contributed to global warming. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the power companies, stating that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is already empowered by Congress through the Clean Air Act to regulate such issues. This decision effectively displaced any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. Therefore, it was concluded that any further regulation or litigation should be left up to EPA's judgment as directed by legislation rather than being handled through lawsuits brought on by individual states or private parties.
In the dissenting opinion for American Electric Power Company, Inc., et al. v. Connecticut et al., Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, agreed with the majority that federal common law suits cannot be used to address global warming but disagreed on standing grounds. They argued that plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury directly caused by defendants' conduct or redressable through court action. The justices contended that any potential harm from climate change was too generalized and speculative to meet constitutional requirements for a lawsuit in federal court; it would affect everyone globally rather than specifically harming these plaintiffs. Furthermore, they doubted whether courts had authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions given their lack of scientific expertise and policy-making power compared to legislative bodies like Congress or administrative agencies such as EPA.
