Connecticut v. American Elec. Power Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 05-5119-cv.,Docket No. 05-5104-cv. |
| Citation | 582 F.3d 309 |
| Parties | State of CONNECTICUT, State of New York, People of the State of California ex rel. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, State of Iowa, State of New Jersey, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Wisconsin, and City of New York, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY INC., American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Cinergy Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy, Inc., Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Electric Power Company Inc., American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Cinergy Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Matthew F. Pawa, (Benjamin A. Krass, on the brief), Law Offices of Matthew F. Pawa, P.C., Newton Centre, MA, (Mitchell S. Bernard, Nancy S. Marks, Amelia E. Toledo, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, NY, on the brief) for Organizational Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Joseph R. Guerra, (Angus Macbeth, Thomas G. Echikson, on the briefs), Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., (Steven M. Bierman, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, Thomas E. Fennell, Michael L. Rice, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, Shawn Patrick Regan, Hunton & Williams LLP, New York, NY, F. William Brownell, Norman W. Fichthorn, Allison D. Wood, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington D.C., on the briefs) for Defendants-Appellees.
Edwin W. Small, Assistant General Counsel, (Maureen H. Dunn, General Counsel, Harriet A. Cooper, Assistant General Counsel, on the brief), Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN, for Defendant-Appellee TVA.
Before: McLAUGHLIN and HALL, Circuit Judges.*
In 2004, two groups of Plaintiffs, one consisting of eight States and New York City, and the other consisting of three land trusts (collectively "Plaintiffs"), separately sued the same six electric power corporations that own and operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants in twenty states (collectively "Defendants"), seeking abatement of Defendants' ongoing contributions to the public nuisance of global warming. Plaintiffs claim that global warming, to which Defendants contribute as the "five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States and . . . among the largest in the world," Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 406 F.Supp.2d 265, 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), by emitting 650 million tons per year of carbon dioxide, is causing and will continue to cause serious harms affecting human health and natural resources. They explain that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere, and that as a result of this trapped heat, the earth's temperature has risen over the years and will continue to rise in the future. Pointing to a "clear scientific consensus" that global warming has already begun to alter the natural world, Plaintiffs predict that it "will accelerate over the coming decades unless action is taken to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide."
Plaintiffs brought these actions under the federal common law of nuisance or, in the alternative, state nuisance law, to force Defendants to cap and then reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Defendants moved to dismiss on a number of grounds. The district court held that Plaintiffs' claims presented a non-justiciable political question and dismissed the complaints. See id.
On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the political question doctrine does not bar adjudication of their claims; that they have standing to assert their claims; that they have properly stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; and that their claims are not displaced by federal statutes. Defendants respond that the district court's judgment should be upheld, either because the complaints present non-justiciable political questions or on a number of alternate grounds: lack of standing failure to state a claim; and displacement of federal common law. In addition, Defendant Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") asserts that the complaints should be dismissed against it on the basis of the discretionary function exception.
We hold that the district court erred in dismissing the complaints on political question grounds; that all of Plaintiffs have standing; that the federal common law of nuisance governs their claims; that Plaintiffs have stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; that their claims are not displaced; and that TVA's alternate grounds for dismissal are without merit. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
Given the number of issues involved, we set out the following table of contents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Carolina v. United States
...in part and reversed in part on other grounds , Lozano v. City of Hazleton , 724 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2013) ; Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. , 582 F.3d 309, 349 (2d Cir. 2009) (agreeing with the plaintiffs that "[e]ven if emissions increase elsewhere, the magnitude of [the p]laintiff......
-
Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxonmobil Corp.
...by the long, prior history of air and water pollution cases. Pls.' Opp'n at 61-63. The Second Circuit in Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co. Inc., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir.2009) (AEP) agreed with this reasoning in holding that the political question doctrine did not bar a nuisance lawsuit brough......
-
Change v.
...but also to construe all reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations in plaintiffs' favor." Connecticut v. American Elec. Power Co., Inc., 582 F.3d 309, 333 (2d Cir. 2009), rev'd on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 ......
-
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 & 16-16783
... ... " of our jurisdiction; we cannot exercise judicial power without it. Raines v. Byrd , 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct ... as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts." Id. The fit between a new statute and a ... 2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) )); Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms , 561 U.S. 139, 153, 155, 130 ... made by this Court in the first instance."); Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co. , 582 F.3d 309, 347 (2d Cir. 2009) ... ...
-
'American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut': The Supreme Court Bars Tort Lawsuits Challenging Greenhouse Gas Emissions
...Corporation and the TVA. The TVA operates fossil-fuel fired power plants in several states. 5 Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 6 2011 WL 2437011, at *6. 7 2011 WL 2437011, at *4 (citing Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under......
-
Agricultural Management Committee Newsletter
...common law of public nuisance to compel companies to reduce their GHG emissions. In State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009), the plaintiffsa group consisting of several states and the city of New York alleged that GHG emissions from power plants ow......
-
Negligence In The Air: International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Litigation
...2009), came only a few weeks after the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009). In that case, eight states (including New York), the City of New York and three U.S. land trusts (the Open Space Institute,......
-
LOCATING LIABILITY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RECENT TRENDS IN CLIMATE JURISPRUDENCE.
...564 U.S. 410(2011). (25) Id. at 415, 418. (26) Id. at 415. (27) 406 U.S. 91 (1972) (Milwaukee I). (28) Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 315, 392-93 (2d Cir. 2009), rev'd, 564 U.S. 410 (29) Id. at 379. For context, a federal law displaces federal common law where a federal l......
-
State and Regional Control of Geological Carbon Sequestration (Part I)
...Baker, Global Warming: Attorneys General Declare Public Nuisance, 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 525 (2005). 315. Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 393, 39 ELR 20215 (2d Cir. 2009). Copyright © 2011 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http:......
-
Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
...in fact that is 9. he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted as much in Connecticut v. American Electric Power, Co. , 582 F.3d 309, 39 ELR 20215 (2d Cir. 2009), arguing that the traceability analysis in climate change cases could use “the standard by which a public nuisance a......
-
SUPREME STALEMATES: CHALICES, JACK-O'-LANTERNS, AND OTHER STATE HIGH COURT TIEBREAKERS.
...Sotomayor did not participate because she was originally on the panel at the Second Circuit in Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc., 582 F.3d 309, 313 n.* (2d Cir. 2009), though she was elevated to the Supreme Court before a decision was reached there); Sharp v. Murphy, 140 S. Ct. 2412 ......