The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that a public nuisance suit against five of the nation’s largest electric utility companies, alleging that they contribute to global warming with greenhouse gas emissions, can go forward.
The complaint seeks to force the utilities to reduce their emissions.
The district court held that the plaintiffs’ claim raised ‘political questions’ that could not be decided by federal courts because of a lack of standards for determining whether the defendants’ conduct was unreasonable, and the overarching national and international policy implications of regulating greenhouse gases.
The district court also said it was not equipped to determine the appropriate level of emissions, assess alternative energy resources, or consider the implications for US energy policy.
The ruling in State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. Inc. explicitly rejected the political question doctrine and found that the plaintiffs — eight states, three land trusts and the City of New York — have standing both to sue and to present common law nuisance claims. It also vacated the federal district court decision.
In reinstating the case, the Second Circuit observed: “It is error to equate a political question with a political case. Given the checks and balances among the three branches of our government, the judiciary can no more usurp executive and legislative prerogatives than it can decline to decide matters within its jurisdiction simply because such matters may have political ramifications.”
The Second Circuit court held that the political questions raised by the suit are justiciable in federal courts, that none of the claims are preempted by regulations or legislation, and that all of the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit.
The Second Circuit’s decision is extraordinarily broad and can be applied to all industries, not just the electric utilities. Any industry that generates greenhouse gas emissions is implicated, and that category includes virtually all businesses.
More interesting discussion on this case.
