American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 2011 Decided June 20, 2011
Full case name	American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut
Docket no.	10-174
Case history
Prior	Complaints dismissed, 406 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); vacated and remanded on appeal, 582 F.3d 309 (2nd Cir 2009); certiorari granted, 2010 WL 4922905.
Holding
Reversed and Remanded (unanimous ruling, 8-0)
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan
Concurrence	Alito, joined by Thomas
Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 131 S. CT. 2527 (2011) is a United States Supreme Court case decided 8-0, that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law. The primary reason being the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Case Overview

Eight states, New York City and three land trusts, separately sued the same electric power corporations that owned and operated fossil-fuel-fired power plants in twenty states. The plaintiffs sought to cap-and-abate the defendants' GHG emissions and ongoing contributions to global warming under the federal common law of public nuisance. They alleged that the utilities are the five largest emitters of GHGs in the United States, collectively emitting 650 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed both groups of plaintiffs' federal common law nuisance claims as non-justiciable under the political question doctrine, and the plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded. The Circuit held that the lawsuits were not barred by the political questions doctrine and the plaintiffs had adequately alleged Article III standing. Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court.

Parties

Plaintiffs

One group of plaintiffs was composed of eight states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and New York City. However, New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew from the case. The other group of plaintiffs included three nonprofit land trusts: The Open Space Institute, the Open Space Conservancy, and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire.

Defendants

The defendants were four private electric power companies (American Electric Power Co., Cinergy Co., Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, and Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota) and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority .

Issues

1. Whether States, cities, and private parties have standing to seek emissions caps on utilities for their alleged contribution to climate change.
2. Whether a cause of action to regulate carbon dioxide emissions can be inferred under federal common law; even though the Clean Air Act designates authority for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA.

Noted Cases

Two Supreme Court cases played significant roles in the decisions made by the courts.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - Political Questions Doctrine

In Baker v. Carr the main issue was deciding if redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) presents justiciable questions, which would allow federal courts to hear the case. Any case that is deemed a "political question" cannot be resolved by federal courts. In the decision, Justice Brennan identified six factors to help determine which questions are political in nature. This ruling is significant in the American Electric Power v. Connecticut case because using the precedence set in Baker v. Carr, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit as presenting a non-justiciable political question. The most relevant question presented was, "impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial desecration". The six factors are:

• Is there a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (i.e. foreign affairs or executive war powers)?

• Is there a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue?

• The impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.

• The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.

• Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made?

• Would attempting to resolve the matter create the possibility of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question?

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency the court held that the CAA gives the EPA the task of regulating carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions. This is significant in the American Electrical Power v. Connecticut case because it establishes that carbon dioxide and GHG emissions regulations set by the EPA overrule federal common law. Based on Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, which permitted states to challenge EPA's refusal to regulate GHGs and effectively gave states a lower standing threshold than private parties, the Supreme Court held that at least some of the plaintiffs had Article III standing in this case.

Procedural History

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

The plaintiffs claimed that GHG emissions from the defendants' power plants have significantly contributed to global warming. By contributing to global warming, the defendants are violating the federal common law of interstate nuisance. According to the states and New York City, climate change poses risks to public lands, infrastructure, and human health. Private land trusts claimed climate change may cause destruction of habit of rare species, trees and plants inhabiting land owned by the trusts.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants claimed federal common law cause of action to abate GHG emissions does not exist, making the political questions raised by the plaintiffs unfit for adjudication by the courts. Congress displaced federal common law cause of action seeking regulations of GHG emissions, and the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue for global warming. The District Court dismissed both suits stating they were non-justiciable matters.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

The Second Circuit reversed the judgement of the district court holding that the political question doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs case from adjudication. The Second Circuit Court held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged Article III standing under the federal common law of nuisance and maintained that States may bring suit to abate air and water pollution produce by other States or by out-of-state industry as stated in Illinois v. Milwaukee. The Second Circuit Court also held that the CAA did not displace federal common law of nuisance because there is federal common law when dealing with ambient or interstate air and water as stated in Milwaukee I. In a ruling in September 2009, the Second Circuit determined the EPA failed to publicize any regulations pertaining to GHG emissions and could not speculate whether the hypothetical regulation of GHGs under the CAA would pertain to the issues raised by the plaintiffs. Based on that fact, the Second Circuit denied defendants' request for a rehearing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 6, 2010.

Supreme Court Ruling

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Kegan, joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement, which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

In Massachusetts v. EPA the court held that the CAA authorizes federal regulation of emissions of GHGs and that the EPA is responsible for setting GHG emission standards. The EPA started phasing in requirements that new or modified GHG emitting facilities use the best available control technology and started a rulemaking to set limits on GHG emissions from new, modified, and existing fossil-fuel fired power plants. The case of American Electric Power v. Connecticut started in 2004, well before the EPA began to regulate GHGs.

With the ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA setting precedence the court held that the CAA and the EPA actions displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. Massachusetts v. EPA established that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to under the CAA and that this "speaks directly" to the emissions of emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendant's power plants.

The court does leave a course of legal action open in the event the EPA does not enforce emissions limits against regulated sources by allowing "any person" to bring civil enforcement action in federal court. Also, if the EPA does not set emissions limits for certain pollutants or pollution sources, States and private parties can petition for a rulemaking in federal court .

External links

• The Second Circuit Appeals Court's opinion in the case
• Coverage of the case by SCOTUSblog
• Onthedocket.org's coverage of the case