American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a case filed by environmental groups and eight states against midwestern utility companies. Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin claimed the power companies’ contributions to climate change made them a public nuisance, and asked courts to cap their emissions.

The case was filed before the Environmental Protection Agency’s right to regulate greenhouse gases was established, and represents an attempt by citizens to control greenhouse gases in the absence of federal mandates. As described in an earlier Climate Desk story on American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the case is grounded in a century-long tradition of communities holding big polluters responsible for damaging public health.

Further lawsuits have been inspired by the case, including one by Gulf Coast residents against oil refineries they say contributed to Hurricane Katrina, and another by residents of an Alaskan island village about to be swamped by rising seas.

In 2005, a New York court ruled against the states, saying the suit raised a “political question” beyond courtly scope. An appeals court reversed that decision last year, noting that the link between greenhouse gas pollution and climate change is not a political question. As justification, they even cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., an obscure Supreme Court decision in which that court supported Georgia’s right to sue two copper companies responsible for crop-destroying pollution.

It’s this appeal that the Supreme Court will review.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court not to take the case, arguing that greenhouse gas controls should be decided executively or legislatively, not by states or judges. Though climate change legislation has been a failure, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases, a process scheduled to begin early next year.

More predictably, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a variety of energy industry groups filed petitions in favor of the companies. They say that court-ordered caps could raise energy costs. According to the energy companies, “the potential compensation for climate change impacts would make the tobacco payouts look like peanuts.”

The case will be heard in the early spring and decided in July.

Image: eutrophication&hypoxia/Flickr.

See Also:

• Supreme Court: National Security Trumps Whales, Environmental Law …
• Supreme Court Says Power Plants Can’t Rewrite Clean Air Act …
• Attractive Nuisance: Should Judges Help Tackle Climate Change …
• New Jersey Takes Lead in Fighting Greenhouse Gases
• California Sues EPA; Says State Law Greener, Cleaner Than Feds …

Brandon’s Twitter stream and reporter’s notebook; Wired Science on Twitter.

Authors: Brandon Keim

to know more click here