Posted on 04/19/2011 12:31:08 PM PDT by library user
Key U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled Tuesday they are inclined to give deference to the Environmental Protection Agency rather than the courts on the issue of major power companies' greenhouse-gas emissions.
The justices' comments indicate a major climate-change case, American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, will be dismissed by the high court.
"Congress set up the EPA to promulgate standards for emissions, and the relief you're seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super EPA," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Tuesday.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case, which has pitted five major power companies and the federally operated Tennessee Valley Authority against six states, New York City and a handful of private land trusts. The states are suing the companies for emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases, arguing the emissions harm U.S. citizens.
The case has entangled the Obama administration, which, in defending its Tennessee Valley Authority, has also come to the defense of some of the country's major coal-burning power companies, including Xcel Energy and Duke Energy. But the administration is not arguing against limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, it is instead calling on the court to give deference to the EPA's pending climate regulations.
At issue is whether states can show sufficient harm to force major power companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; whether the states’ lawsuit is overtaken, or “displaced,” by EPA climate regulations; and whether the courts should weigh in on the issue at all, instead leaving it to the executive and legislative branches of government.
The case deals with a series of big-picture issues that have come to the forefront of U.S. politics as the EPA begins to implement climate rules and Republicans and some Democrats in Congress seek to block or limit the agency’s authority to do so.
The case comes after the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that greenhouse-gas emissions could be regulated under the Clean Air Act if EPA found they endanger public health and welfare. The high court's decision formed the underpinning for its authority to issue climate regulations.
During questioning Tuesday, many of the justices asked about whether EPA climate regulations have displaced the need for the courts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions on behalf of the states.
Ginsburg suggested the court would be stepping on the toes of the EPA by limiting power companies’ greenhouse-gas emissions.
“You want the court to start with the existing sources, to set limits that may be in conflict with what an existing agency is doing,” Ginsburg said. “Do we ignore the fact that the EPA is there and that it is regulating in this area?”
Other justices highlighted the difficulty of connecting greenhouse gases to any individual power company once they are emitted into the atmosphere.
“What percentage of worldwide emissions, every one of which I assume harms your clients, do these five power plants represent?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about the enormity of the case, arguing that the states are asking the court to weigh in on a major policy issue.
“[M]uch of your argument depends on this notion that this suit is really like any other pollution suit, but all those other pollution suits that you've been talking about are much more localized affairs — one factory emitting discharge into one stream,” Kagan said. “They don't involve these kinds of national/international policy issues of the kind that this case does”
And Justice Samuel Alito asked about the potential for the case to set a precedent that would lead to future lawsuits resulting in a series overlapping court-ordered emissions standards.
“Even if you won and the district court imposed some sort of limit, would there by any other obstacle to other plaintiffs bringing suits and another district court issuing a different standard?” Alito said.
The Obama administration has gotten ensnared in the case, as the government-operated Tennessee Valley Authority is also being sued by the states.
Gen. Neal Kumar Katyal, acting solicitor general at the Department of Justice, representing the Tennessee Valley Authority, argued Tuesday that the case should be dismissed because it is nearly impossible to directly link greenhouse-gas emissions back to the five power companies in question.
The case, Katyal argued, is one of the broadest that has ever come before the Supreme Court.
“In the 222 years that this court has been sitting, it has never heard a case with so many potential perpetrators and so many potential victims, and that quantitative difference with the past is eclipsed only by the qualitative differences presented today,” Katyal said.
Climate change is a global issue that must be addressed on a broad scale, Katyal argued.
“The very name of the alleged nuisance, global warming, itself tells you much of what you need to know. There are billions of emitters of greenhouse gasses on the planet and billions of potential victims as well.”
Paul Keisler, representing the petitioners Tuesday, argued that the case should be dismissed because the states are calling on the courts to make a policy determination about greenhouse-gas emissions.
“The states ask that the courts assess liability and design a new common law remedy for contributing to climate change, and to do so by applying a general standard of reasonableness to determine for each defendant, in this case and in future cases, what, if any, its share of global reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions ought to be,” Keisler said.
“That would require the courts not to interpret and enforce the policy choices placed into law by the other branches, but to make those policy choices themselves.”
But Barbara Underwood, solicitor general for the state of New York, representing the plaintiffs, argued that states should step in to work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while the EPA’s climate regulations are being developed.
“This case rests on the longstanding fundamental authority of the states to protect their land, their natural resources and their citizens from air pollution emitted in other States,” Underwood said.
There are things happening that are escaping the bounds of any human control.
I hoped to never live to this point.
Now here, I hope to live to see the hand of God act.
There will be no questions then.
All will be... displeased.
the puppets decide . . . at great cost to us all.
You have to look beyond whoever ‘wins’ or ‘loses’ in this particular case, and focus on the ‘precedent’ being set by the SCOTUS in deferring to the ‘experts’ of the EPA, saying that the courts do not have the necessary expertise in whatever the ‘science’ in question is being debated..................
What a pile of garbage.
Folks, take this as a positive: if the court is going to rule NO COURT can rule, then we have to change the legislative branch MASSIVELY, get them to REMOVE the EPA via law, then when the Marxists bring a lawsuit to reinstate the bureaucracy, use this case as precedent.
Mr. Restuccia should invest in a dictionary. That's not an adroit use of the word "enormity."
All of it - you're on a roll and you're right! Obama and the EPA, however, are green under the gills and insist on foisting their climate change tax scam upon us - doubtful they will cease the attempt anytime soon.
Sun isn't shining for Solar stocks
Are Solar companies starting to sour on China?
Italy to slash solar subsidies
I know that but that isn’t what this case is about.
Who do you think should win this one?
It’s a tough call.
States with their hands out on one side and power companies on the other.
Either way, the people lose.............
“The only solution is to now restrict the powers of the EPA via legislation.
With the current regime in place that is a long way off”
At least until the next election.
Roberts appears to question EPA's side, so I'll wait for the verdict.
They all have the same masters..
Huh?
The Court telling people that we have to hold Congress responsible for things they pass, and you complain about it?
In so many words they also proclaim that the only way to curtail the EPA is legislatively and the only way to stop the EPA is to do away with the EPA.
Congress must act.
The US Supreme Court is selected by the dumbass presidents, who are elected by dumbass voters, then they are affirmed by the dumbass congressmen, also selected by the dumbass voters.
No matter how you approach the mess, the buck stops with the voters of this nation.
Now these same justices say the EPA folks are “experts”? Well, which is it, boys? Are the EPA “experts” or are the SCOTUS justices “experts”? It cannot be both. To say both is like saying your wife is only half pregnant.
The time has come for states to tell SCOTUS and the EPA they have NO intention of obeying any kind of crap that flows down from either. For that matter, the states should tell FedGov to pound sand with all their rules, regulations, and garbage. Further, the states stop sending tax monies to DC or take any filthy money from DC.
“Now if ya can find 50 people willing you will be lucky.”
I know of two. Where are the other forty-eight?
Actually, no... in this case the Ginsberg is ruling against courts limiting greenhouse gasses, albeit merely to protect a bad reason. Ginsberg is saying, “Look, you already won having the EPA regulate green house gas. Now, you want every judge in America to ALSO have the right to regulate green house gas. Sorry, no dice. “
END THE EPA NOW.
They admitted they do not even consider jobs in their wrecking ball agneda.
Congress created this monster NOW they need to kill it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.