Obama Admin Urges Supreme Court to Vacate Greenhouse Gas ‘Nuisance’ Ruling
By GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire
The Obama administration has urged the Supreme Court to toss out an appeals court decision that would allow lawsuits against major emitters for their contributions to global warming, stunning environmentalists who see the case as a powerful prod on climate change.
In the case, AEP v. Connecticut, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a coalition of states, environmental groups and New York City. The decision, handed down last year, said they could proceed with a lawsuit that seeks to force several of the nation’s largest coal-fired utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The defendants — American Electric Power Co. Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co. and Xcel Energy Inc. — filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court earlier this month, asking the court to reject the argument that greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed through “public nuisance” lawsuits (Greenwire, Aug. 4).
In a brief (pdf) filed yesterday on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal agreed with the defendants, saying that U.S. EPA’s newly finalized regulations on greenhouse gases have displaced that type of common-law claim.
Katyal urged the court to vacate the decision and remand the case to the 2nd Circuit for further proceedings, this time taking into account the administration’s push to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
The 2nd Circuit’s decision rested on the assertion that “EPA does not currently regulate carbon dioxide,” but that has since changed. The Obama administration has finalized several regulations in response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which told the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
…
Matt Pawa, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the case, said he and his colleagues expected the White House to stay out of the matter. During a meeting with more than 30 administration lawyers at the solicitor general’s office on June 24, it seemed they had “a lot of friends in the room,” he said.
“We feel stabbed in the back,” Pawa said. “This was really a dastardly move by an administration that said it was a friend of the environment. With friends like this, who needs enemies?”
Top attorneys at environmental advocacy groups are buzzing about the brief, sources say. Some feel betrayed by a White House that has generally been more amenable to environmental regulation than its predecessor.
“This reads as if it were cut and pasted from the Bush administration’s briefing in Massachusetts,” said David Bookbinder, who served as the Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel until his resignation in May.
read the entire story here at the NYT
No big deal. The Obama Solicitor General is basically telling the greenies to chill — they’ve got industry on the ground and coming under their boot; don’t kick ’em while they’re down.
If they managed to push this lawsuit through, they could go after other big CO2 emitters – including the US military and other government branches with large vehicle fleets. Maybe someone in the administration realized the liability issues?
“The decision, handed down last year, said they could proceed with a lawsuit that seeks to force several of the nation’s largest coal-fired utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
I know how they can do it.
Shut down at the beginning of December and re-open at the beginning of March.
I believe Obama can feel the chill breath of the mid term elections spectre on the back of his hypocritical brass neck…
This is the key statement: “U.S. EPA’s newly finalized regulations on greenhouse gases have displaced that type of common-law claim.”
No sense muddying up the EPA’s waters with complicating legal claims. This is happening even faster than I had predicted.
Watch for the Clean Water Act to be an important element in this, as the EPA is presently gathering extensive data on ocean acidification from carbon dioxide….that is the “hazard” that they will be claiming, not temperature/warming by itself.
Oh please. It’ll be back after November’s elections. Americans will believe anything.
Getting too close to November.
They decided they might need those racist, bigoted, phobic votes after all…..
Won’t matter, older people vote, and older people don’t forget.
No one will forget what they tried to do, the reasons, and won’t doubt for one minute that they will try it again if they have the chance.
If they sue them into bankruptcy, then the administration can’t tax them into raising the cost of energy.
Not sure what to think of this . Anything that would stop these sorts of lawsuits is good , but where will it lead , especially in light of a number of states challenging the EPA’s co2 ruling . One set of legal thinkers claim (correctly , I believe) that the Epa can’t regulate greenhouse gasses under the current Clean Air Act , at least not without a congressional rewrite of the law . I see this whole business being tied up in Federal courts for years . It might even be that that’s what the administration wants – it allows them to wash their hands of an issue that is proving to be a political nightmare without actually having to drop it officially . Of course , this might be wishful thinking on my part .
Actually the EPA will avert facing court. If the EPA is sued, they will go into a corner and be forced under oath to prove CO2 is dangerous. Then they will Get crucified for taxing and fining unfairly. Can you imagine a judge watching Lisa jackson squirm when the topic of forced error in temp records is the reason we have modest warming. The EPA is sloppy and takes outside literature as if it is internal science. If they admit they get IPCC propoganda that is sloppy and flimsey, it will be a huge problem
My guess is that the administration does not want to risk a raft of court decisions in favour of the “polluters” based on the plaintiffs being unable to supply credible proof that CO2 emissions cause any harm whatsoever. Think carefully about who might find himself under subpoena if, say, Duke Energy were to mount a serious defence against a suit alleging that its CO2 emissions were a material cause of Hurricane Katrina or sea level rises in general or diminished fisheries due to ocean acidification or any of the other hypothetical “damages” from time to time ascribed to CO2 increases.
This is a move to preserve jobs. This is just more proof that money talks. It is good to see proof positive that Obama’s administration isn’t 100% idealistic.
Now all we have to worry about is a lame duck enviro-power grab.
Can’t tax the energy, cut it off. Can’t steal the profits, sue. These environmental cases are dangerous.
If there is a common law right to persue such suits,
and Joe Citizen (aka a “person”) has standing to bring
suits for alleged damages, then whatever EPA rules and regs
get issued may have less impact than they might have with no
defined common law rights recognized by the court system.
The Obama administration controls the activities of
the EPA. They don’t have a lot of control over the courts, especially
if a jury is involved in guilt, damage, and penalty decisions not made
under Clean Air Act limitations.
It is a slap in the face to environmental groups hoping for a big
stick to whack industry… the EPA, and it’s approach to greenhouse
gas emissions is subject to the political winds swirling around the
White House and Congress. The court system is less susceptible
to voter input.
The environmental organization lawyers don’t seem to like
being limited to on venue… the EPA.
Trying not to be too cynicial here, but it seems to me that a court case of this type could throw the cold hard light of reality on the “science” of warming. Not a good thing for the administration, I would imagine…
See you in court. This is like Obamascare in that now they are beginning to see costs and unintended consequences. If a court has a case, the EPA can be found to NOT have the authority to tax energy or legislate laws for industry. The IRS also still can’t levy taxes and write it’s own legislation.
The Sierra club is nearing a meltdown.
No surprise. The White House deleted his promise to Heal The Planet from its web site a couple of days ago.
My understanding of Tort law in the UK from my career in insurance says that you can only sue if you can prove that you have suffered damages. I don’t know about the US but I think their law has an English Law origin.
How can anybody prove that they have suffered damages because of something that hasn’t happened, something that indeed has the potential to provide benefits if it ever does happen?
Even even the most rabid of alarmists follow the Nostradamus line and generally talk about future threats, not about things that have already happened.
gcb says:
August 26, 2010 at 12:14 pm
If they managed to push this lawsuit through, they could go after other big CO2 emitters – including the US military and other government branches with large vehicle fleets. Maybe someone in the administration realized the liability issues?
Maybe the Government does not want any lawsuits over all the hot air expelled by the folks on Capitol Hill.
OK, thats about the 100th really good call BHO has made. He makes good calls now and then. About those other 900 though…
Just proves its a Scam, Stupid greenies are waking up.??
It’s odd that there’s nothing posted about this on Real Climate – matter of fact, there doesn’t seem to be many posts of late.
Allowing lawsuits to fly would be extremely injurious to public health:
If they do the temporary injunction route as they do to salvage logging, the result will be blackouts in the dead of winter.
Clear and present danger.