Beam me to Planet Gore !
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.
Why we need someone to the right of Obama to serve as our next President.
If you knew what gun control was, there would never have been HELP said. One shot, one kill
Ruth Bader Ginsberg arguing for separation of powers?
Gimme a Break!!!
De-fund now!!
SCOTUS is right. It is the role of Congress, not SCOTUS to defund EPA, even abolish it for bad behavior.
Nice catch.
—Usage note 3. Enormity has been in frequent and continuous use in the sense “immensity” since the 18th century: The enormity of the task was overwhelming. Some hold that enormousness is the correct word in that sense and that enormity can only mean “outrageousness” or “atrociousness”: The enormity of his offenses appalled the public. Enormity occurs regularly in edited writing with the meanings both of great size and of outrageous or horrifying character, behavior, etc. Many people, however, continue to regard enormity in the sense of great size as nonstandard.
Looks like the US Supreme Court may soon be declaring itself an enemy of the people of the United States and a protector of big government.
I have no legal background, so concerning this case, I’m not sure which group of lawyers are the best at making engineering decisions.
I, however, know a hell of a lot more about producing electricity than any non-producer government bureaucrat since making power is my field.
Unfortunately, there aren’t enough people in this country who understand that along with water vapor, CO2 is the product of perfect combustion, neither of which are pollutants.
Nitrous Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, etc are true pollution, AND they can be reduced by proper control of the combustion process. It is actually beneficial to the power companies to reduce these emissions since it denotes incomplete combustion. You’ll have to burn more fuel to make the same amount of heat for the boilers; it’s less efficient for those plants to actually pollute the air.
Carbon Dioxide on the other hand, can not be reduced by tighter controls. It’s the result of complete combustion. The only way to reduce CO2 of a plant is to make less electricity.
What the populous doesn’t seem to grasp is that the power companies don’t make excess electricity and stockpile it in a warehouse somewhere. The power produced is consumed within a blink of an eye, and the amount the plants make is a direct result of what the people are consuming at that instant.
Since the US gets over 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels, reducing CO2 means either turning off your A/C, TV, computer, space heaters, subways, lightbulbs, ipod chargers, phone chargers, Nissan Leaf/Chevy Volt chargers, washers & dryers, refrigerators, hair dryers, etc., or building another 400 nuclear plants on top of the 104 we have.
What the bureaucrats propose is not as easy as checking the air pressure in your tires every week, bringing a tote bag to the grocery store, drinking tap water instead of bottled, or changing your company logo color to green on Earth Day. It’s a complete change of our lifestyle.
Since there is no such thing as human caused climate change, we are living through an Orwellian nightmare. From which we may not awaken.
Lock and load folks. They re are coming for your CO2.
Since there is no such thing as human caused climate change, we are living through an Orwellian nightmare. From which we may not awaken.
Lock and load folks. They are coming for your CO2.
Says the activist judge. What utter BS.
Judges routinely set aside laws and policy when they don't agree with them.
Now the fight is to keep the bullet box viable.
” Judges routinely set aside laws and policy when they don’t agree with them. “
Including, on occasion, the laws of physics, chemistry, economics, and common sense.....
IF they found they endanger....?
If we have a new GOP POTUS in 2013, one of the highest priorities should be to fire Lisa Jackson and other traitors. Of course that assumes that whoever that POTUS would be would not be a traitor.
It’s viable until I run out of bullets.
This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.
Acknowledging the EPA isn’t, but as a mechanism Congress has put in place to regulate interstate commerce such that State A cannot sue to halt energy production in State B, it seems to fit the bill.
That's the way I read it as well. I don't understand the responses on this thread either. As you said, striking down this case seems to be the correct course of action. Either people didn't read the article, or I am missing something.
We’re the Charlie Browns and the siren song of elections is our Lucy.
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.