States, NYC Sue Energy Companies Over 'Global Warming'

CNSNews.com ^ | July 23, 2004 | Nathan Burchfiel

[tomball]

(CNSNews.com) - Eight states and the city of New York this week sued five major energy companies, alleging that the companies contributed to "global warming." The energy companies collectively operate 21 plants in the United States, but only one of the states suing, Wisconsin, has a plant inside its borders.

The attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin are joined by the New York City Office of Corporation Counsel in targeting the energy firms.

The American Electric Power Company, the Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy Inc. and Cinergy Corporation are the defendants in the suit filed Wednesday.

The suit is being brought on the grounds of public nuisance under federal common law and does not accuse the companies of violating existing emissions standards.

Tom Dresslar, spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, told CNSNews.com that the suit was necessary "because global warming is a severe threat to our states and their people." He called the public nuisance argument "an ancient legal document," saying it is "well established, including in environmental cases." However, he acknowledged that "this is a first attempt to use public nuisance law to fight global warming."

Lockyer, in a statement on the matter, said the lawsuit "opens a new legal frontier in the fight against global warming."

Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency do not recognize carbon dioxide as a pollutant. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs up that view by pointing out that carbon dioxide is a "naturally occurring part of the atmosphere."

Furthermore, America's energy and environmental policies "should be made by elected officials, not lawyers and judges in a courtroom," Chamber President Thomas Donahue stated in a release.

Brian Elwood of Xcel Energy agreed. "We believe that any carbon dioxide policy should be developed by the U.S. Congress and should not be done through litigation." But, he said, Xcel is already committed to reducing emissions.

"In April 2004," Elwood told CNSNews.com , "we announced a voluntary carbon management plan which will result in a 7 percent reduction in our carbon dioxide intensity."

Melissa McHenry of American Electric Power said the lawsuit is not a constructive way of dealing with the controversy. "Climate change is a global issue that cannot effectively be addressed by any individual company, small group of companies or even a single country," she said.

Dresslar denied that the states are trying to legislate through litigation. "We have a federal government which says [carbon dioxide] is not a pollutant. We don't agree with that," he said. And in light of the federal government's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, he continued, "we've got to do something."

Dressler also said the fact that none of the states except for Wisconsin has the energy plants in question within their borders is irrelevant. "Global warming is exactly that, it's global," he said. "I don't know specifically which states we tried to contact. But we have Iowa in there. They're another Midwest state closer to [Wisconsin]."

[Pearls Before Swine]

If the companies had any cojones they would pull an "Atlas Shrugged" and simply shut down all the coal-burning plants.

This works best if you are located in one of the suing states, so it is their power that is cut. The article says that, with one exception, the plants are not located in the suing states (or NYC).

[hedgetrimmer]

Yes, they could relocate their companies out of country.

Then the US would not have any domestic energy producers.

We would get all our energy from the global energy grid controlled by UNEP.

We will no longer have national energy security.

You could say we will no longer have a nation.

[hedgetrimmer]

Like I said, you don't have to live in the same state as a power plant in order to sue. The whole legal determination of the right to sue was turned upside down by Clintons Environmental Justice EO. It allows groups, who are not harmed by the property owners, to sue them.

It is part of the new framework that Clinton discusses in his report from the Council on Sustainable development.

These suits are an end run around the Constitution based on a subersive executive order.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Like I said, you don't have to live in the same state as a power plant in order to sue.

Yeah, and that's why the "Atlas Shrugged" solution won't work. The people most directly affected by a power cut aren't the ones suing.

Could you tell me a little more about the Clinton EO? I just thought they sued on some vague theory of harm. How did Clinton's EO make it easier?

[boris]

"This works best if you are located in one of the suing states, so it is their power that is cut. The article says that, with one exception, the plants are not located in the suing states (or NYC)."

Think what it would do to the grid...

[Pearls Before Swine]

Think what it would do to the grid...

Mmmm, yes. It could be pre-announced. "As a unilateral offer of settlement in the multistate C02 suit, we will suspend power generation for xxx hours beginning at yy:zz in order to reduce our emissions to a lower level."

[tomball]

By any chance are the attorneys general from those states Clinton appointees? (Didn't Clinton fire +/- 60 attorneys general within his first 90 days in office and replace them with appointees?) If these guys are leftovers from the previous administration, this would explain the frivolous law suits. Clinton's main goal when entering office was to "redistribute wealth" via the courts.

[Fred Hayek]

These are the state AG's, not the DOJ AG's. In some states the AG is an elected office. Somehow this is starting to smell like the tobacco lawsuits - and whose hands are in the cookie jar this time? Remember Dan Morales, then AG of Texas? BTW Dan got four years.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks to alamo-girl

7/6/98 National Review David Mastio "Imagine a world where the Environmental Protection Agency can shut down a decades-old automobile plant because neighbors decide they don't like the way it looks. It's called "environmental justice" -- and thanks to an executive order signed by President Clinton in 1994, it's already here.in a textbook instance of legislation without benefit of Congress, the EPA has leveraged the 1994 executive order into a massive expansion of its power. This February, the EPA issued an eight-page document called a "guidance" that outlined the way the agency intended to investigate "environmental justice" complaints filed under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."


http://www.alamo-girl.com/0302.htm

[Condor51]

Uh... and if the plaintiffs 'win' they'll get exactly what?
Will the judge order the power companies to control the sun's output?

"You, yeah you - company 'X'. You have 30 days to install a meter on the Sun or it's off to the county jail."

Yep, makes perfect sense to me.

[BraveMan]

You are Hugh Akston. Who is Orren Boyle?

[BIGLOOK]

Sir, you are correct. Air pollution caused by petro-chemical emissions and coal burning create atmospheric conditions that trap heat. While the US has large areas of populations that contribute to this problem, there are other populations in the world who also contribute mightily. Only a handful of countries in the world have any environmental protection laws and regulations. The US is the front runner in these regs; countries that haven't committed to environmental controls are legion. Our problems such as acid rain, overall air quality and heat distribution cannot be assigned solely to the US' higher tech lifestyle. Poorer nations worldwide contribute tremendously to the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere and without local or national restrictions and accounting, are passed over as contributers. Los Angeles' notorious smog is not necessarily from its own hyperactive businesses and commuting, but enhanced by polluting emissions traversing the Pacific via prevailing winds from E. Asia. The sun's heat output is greater, the planets have come into alignment in the past couple years, a giant solar flare erupted in 10/03, volcanoes have been going off worldwide (where I live , for the past 25 yrs ), and recent reports suggest that the earth's magnetic poles may be in the process of shifting due to rotational changes in the Earth's core. What I hope to convey here is that we are dealing with a complex system , one we will have to live with and adapt to at the same time denying political entities (jerks) to make hay and money off an issue they'll never solve.

[Socratic]

"You are Hugh Akston. Who is Orren Boyle?"

Thanks for the compliment; and as we all know, "L is for Looter." (Don't you just love how Rand could give certain characters names which are evocative of inner qualities, but which are never juvenile inventions such as Tim Robbins' use of Rum-Rum, Gondola etc. in his failure of a play?) From "The Fountainhead" - Elsworth Toohey. Great.

[JerseyHighlander]

I think we can both agree to your post, and can state that the jerk is Lockyer, who is sueing enrgy companies in flyover states for industrial pollution originating in E. Asia. Good science is never an obstacle to an oratory gifted lawyer.

[BraveMan]

I'll admit to being unsettled by this article. The parallels between this suit "for the environmental good" and Rand's storyline in "Atlas Shrugged" are astounding.

Tom Dresslar and Brian Elwood should have named the legal team "Friends of Global Progress" . . .

[BraveMan]

Trolling the Dihydrogen Monoxide for monsters . . .

[Watery Tart]

Thanks for catching it! (Shamelessly stolen from Charlie Sykes, BTW.)

Mr. Tart wanted to know just why in the heck I kept yelling "WATER!" at the radio, LOL.