American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut
2011 U.S. LEXIS 4565, 180 L. Ed. 2d 435, 564 U.S. 410 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action it authorizes, displaces any federal common-law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired powerplants.
Facts:
- Several states, the city of New York, and three private land trusts were concerned about the injuries caused by global warming.
- The plaintiffs identified five major electric power companies, including American Electric Power Co. and the Tennessee Valley Authority, as the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States.
- These companies collectively emitted approximately 650 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, constituting 25 percent of the domestic electric power sector's emissions.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' emissions, by contributing to global warming, created a 'substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights,' constituting a public nuisance.
- The states and New York City alleged that climate change put public lands, infrastructure, and citizen health at risk.
- The land trusts alleged that climate change would destroy habitats for animals and rare species on lands they owned and conserved.
Procedural Posture:
- Two groups of plaintiffs, one including eight states and New York City, and the other including three land trusts, filed separate lawsuits against five major electric power companies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to cap and reduce the defendants' carbon dioxide emissions under federal common law of public nuisance.
- The District Court dismissed both lawsuits, holding that they presented nonjusticiable political questions.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the plaintiffs had standing, the case was justiciable, and that the plaintiffs had stated a valid claim under the federal common law of nuisance.
- The Second Circuit also held that the Clean Air Act did not displace the federal common law claims because the EPA had not yet promulgated final regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
- The defendant power companies (petitioners) petitioned for, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Clean Air Act, by granting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, displace federal common law public nuisance claims against greenhouse gas emitters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law public nuisance claims against greenhouse gas emitters. The test for displacement of federal common law is whether a federal statute 'speaks directly to the question' at issue, a less demanding standard than the preemption of state law. The Court's prior decision in Massachusetts v. EPA established that the Clean Air Act grants the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases as 'air pollutants.' Because the Act empowers the EPA to set emission standards for stationary sources like the defendants' power plants, it speaks directly to the issue of carbon-dioxide emissions. The displacement occurs because of the legislative delegation of authority itself, not because the EPA has already exercised that authority by promulgating specific rules. Congress has entrusted the complex balancing of environmental, economic, and energy interests to an expert agency, the EPA, leaving no room for a parallel track of federal common law remedies fashioned by individual judges.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes. Justice Alito agreed with the Court's displacement analysis but wrote separately to state that he did so on the assumption that the Court's prior decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the Clean Air Act authorizes federal regulation of greenhouse gases, was correctly decided.
Analysis:
This decision effectively closed the federal courts as a venue for climate change litigation based on a federal common law nuisance theory. It channels disputes over greenhouse gas emissions into the administrative framework established by the Clean Air Act, making the EPA the primary regulator and arbiter of emissions standards. The ruling reinforces the principle of separation of powers by deferring complex, policy-laden regulatory decisions to the expert agency designated by Congress, rather than allowing federal judges to create environmental policy through ad-hoc injunctions. Future legal challenges concerning carbon emissions under federal law must now be directed at the EPA's actions (or inaction) through the Act's statutory review provisions.
