Connecticut v. American Electrical Power Company Inc.

In the present case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived two lawsuits, originally brought in 2004 by eight states, the City of New York, and various environmental groups, against various electric-power company defendants, alleging that the greenhouse gas emissions from the defendants’ fossil fuel-fired operations constituted a public nuisance. Plaintiffs seek an injunction permanently to enjoin each defendant to abate its ongoing contributions to global warming, including by capping carbon dioxide emissions and by reducing emissions by a specified percentage each year for at least ten years. The Second Circuit reversed a 2005 dismissal of the case by the district court, which had found that the complaints raised “non-justiciable” political questions reserved to the executive and legislative branches of government. The Second Circuit ruled that while “[i]t may happen that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance...until that comes to pass, federal courts will be empowered to appraise the equities of the suits alleging creation of a public nuisance” by greenhouse gases. The court reasoned that “[n]owhere in their complaints do Plaintiffs ask the court to fashion a comprehensive and far-reaching solution to global climate change, a task that arguably falls within the purview of the political branches. Instead, they seek to limit emissions from six domestic coal-fired electricity plants on the ground that such emissions constitute a public nuisance that they allege has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause them injury. A decision by a single federal court concerning a common law of nuisance cause of action, brought by domestic plaintiffs against domestic companies for domestic conduct, does not establish a national or international emissions policy (assuming that emissions caps are even in place).” The court found that plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants’ emissions “constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights in the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the right to public comfort and safety,” sufficiently alleged an “‘unreasonable interference’ with ‘public rights.’” The court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing, finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact (asserting not only current injuries (e.g., reduced snowpack in California and coastal erosion in Massachusetts) but also future injuries (e.g., risk of severe flooding due to rising sea levels)) alleged to be “fairly traceable” to the actions of the defendants, which injuries were “redressable” by the injunctive relief sought.