U.S. Supreme Court Blocks States' Action in Carbon Emissions Regulation Case

The Supreme Court has ruled against against a lawsuit (Connecticut v. American Electric Power [pdf]) which would have given a handful of states the ability to sue private utilities for the greenhouse gas emissions they produce.

The justices voted unanimously (8-0) to block an attempt by a coalition of six states to sue five power companies -- American Electric Power, Southern Co., Xcel Energy, Inc., Cinergy Corporation (now owned by Duke Energy), and the Tennessee Valley Authority -- which they claim emit 650 million tonnes of carbon per year, roughly ten percent of the country's annual output.  The case was originally filed back in 2004 when the Bush administration refused to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The Bush administration stated carbon emission were not air pollutants and therefore, they could not be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

In 2007, multiple states filed a new lawsuit (Massachusetts v. EPA) which alleged the Bush administration had misinterpreted the law, and it was the EPA's duty under the Clean Air Act to protect American citizens against dangerous carbon pollution.  In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide does meet the definition of an air pollutant and could be regulated by the EPA.

When the Obama administration entered in 2009, it agreed to take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  In its ruling against the six state coalition, the Supreme Court cited the efforts taken by the administration and EPA to curb emissions.  It noted that the the EPA has set standards to cut automobile emissions by 30% within the next five years, and that it is also working toward producing a final set of carbon pollution standards for power companies in May 2012.

The justices were split 4-4 on related legal questions in the Connecticut v. American Electric Power case.  These questions would have had far-reaching effects on the ability for states to enforce carbon pollution regulations.  Analysts view this decision as one which leaves the possibility for states to rekindle their attempts if the EPA fails to issue final emissions rules by May 2012.

Pat Hemlapp, a spokesperson for American Electric Power Co., said, "States and private parties should look to Congress and not the courts to set policies on climate change and greenhouse gas regulation."

Energy companies and major businesses are more inclined to have emission regulations determined by the legislative and executive branches of government rather than the judicial branch.  In Congress and the White House, the opinions of these companions go much farther through their lobbying efforts. 

From 1998 to 2011, electric utilities spent $1.45 billion lobbying politicians.  This makes them the third largest lobbying industry in the country.  Business associations and oil and gas companies ranked fourth and sixth on the list.

With the recent flip of power in Congress after the mid-term elections, several bills were proposed by Republican representatives calling for government to rescind the EPA's right to regulate emissions.  The bills, however, have relatively zero chance of passing, as the Democrats still control in the Senate and the Obama administration has stated it will veto any bill which tries to hamstring the EPA's ability to govern emissions.

This tenuous situation has left the environmental groups and states which filed the Connecticut v. American Electric Power lawsuit worried about regulatory action.  Nevertheless, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, for now, regulation is in the hands of the federal government: 

"We have before us, to put it plainly, a 'who decides' question. The EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking to decide whether the agency should set limits on emissions from domestic power plants.  The Clean Air Act, in our judgment, leaves no room for a parallel track [for judges to set a binding regulatory course of action]."