United States: "American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut": The Supreme Court Bars Tort Lawsuits Challenging Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Last Updated: September 18 2011
Article by David F. Williams, Joseph B. Williams and Kenneth W. Irvin

Most Read Contributor in United States, December 2018

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the Clean Air Act, and the authority it confers on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, "displaces" any federal common law right of state, municipal and private plaintiffs to assert tort claims in the federal courts seeking injunctive relief for alleged harm from greenhouse gas emissions. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, No. 10-174 (2011). Justice Ginsburg authored the Court's 8-0 opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor did not participate.

This short memorandum discusses the Court's decision, the policy and political backdrop leading up to the decision, and the impact that the decision may have on the electric power industry and other stakeholders.


The seeds of the Supreme Court's decision in American Electric Power were sown early in the first term of President George W. Bush's presidency. In 2001, when President Bush withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol discussions, his administration made clear that regulation of greenhouse gases would not be at the forefront of the American energy agenda.1 A year later, in 2002, the U.S. sent a climate report to the United Nations that, while acknowledging the harmful effects of global warming, reaffirmed the administration's policy not to regulate greenhouse gases.2 The Bush Administration's stance led several groups of plaintiffs concerned about the impact of climate change – including the American Electric Power respondents – to turn to the federal courts and the federal common law of nuisance. In July 2004, eight states, New York City and three nonprofit

land trusts3 joined together to file complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which (according to plaintiffs) were "the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the United States."4 2011 WL 2437011, at *5. The plaintiffs alleged that the power companies' carbon dioxide emissions contribute significantly to global warming, thereby endangering lands, habitat, infrastructure and health in violation of the federal common law of interstate nuisance (or, alternatively, of state tort law). The plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring each defendant to cap its greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them by a particular percentage each year for the next ten years.

The District Court dismissed the lawsuits as presenting non-justiciable political questions, and the plaintiffs appealed. In its decision issued in 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.5 On the threshold issues of justiciability and standing, the Second Circuit held that the suits were not barred by the political question doctrine and that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged standing under Article III. On the merits, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under the federal common law of nuisance, and that the Clean Air Act did not displace federal common law. The court based its decision in large part on its interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (Milwaukee II), which held that a federal common law right to sue to abate discharge of sewage into Lake Michigan had been displaced by Congress' adoption of amendments to the federal Clean Water Act creating a regulatory and permitting program for discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. To the Second Circuit, the critical factor was not whether the regulatory agency (EPA) had the authority to act, but whether it had in fact acted to address the issue forming the basis of the plaintiffs' claims. In the words of Justice Ginsburg, in contrast to the situation in Milwaukee II, at the time of the Second Circuit's decision "EPA had not yet promulgated any rule regulating greenhouse gases, a fact the court thought dispositive."6 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded the case.

Justice Ginsburg began the Court's analysis with a summary of the Supreme Court's previous pronouncement on the law of climate change – its closely divided 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). There, a bare majority (5-4) held that the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Justice Stevens' opinion for the majority in Massachusetts describes, instructively and at some length, the policy and regulatory backdrop for the Court's decision. It is worth summarizing that backdrop briefly to put the Court's decision in American Electric Power in context.

After reviewing the history and scientific understanding of the climate change issue, Justice Stevens noted that in October 1999, during the latter part of the Clinton Administration's second term, a large group of private organizations filed a rulemaking petition asking EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The previous year, EPA's General Counsel had issued a legal opinion that EPA had the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, although it had not yet exercised that authority. EPA requested public comment on the petition, but did not take any further action until after the Bush Administration assumed office. In September 2003, EPA denied the rulemaking petition, stating (contrary to the opinion of the Clinton EPA) that it lacked statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and, further, that it would be unwise for EPA to exercise any such authority assuming it existed. 549 U.S. at 511. The private organizations that had initiated the original 1999 rulemaking petition, joined by the State of Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which denied review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Massachusetts Court held that EPA's denial of the rulemaking petition rested on a misreading of the Clean Air Act. According to the Court, greenhouse gases qualify as "air pollutants" within the meaning of the Act, and are therefore subject to EPA's regulatory reach. The Court went on to hold that EPA had not offered any "reasoned explanation" for its refusal to set greenhouse gas emission standards, and "must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute." Id. at 535. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case.

After reviewing the Court's decision in Massachusetts, Justice Ginsburg's opinion turned to a discussion of the regulatory response. In short, EPA (with President Obama now in the White House) undertook to regulate greenhouse gases. In December 2009, EPA concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and other "anthropogenic emissions" were contributing to global warming and consequent dangers associated with rising sea levels, extreme weather events, drought and destruction of ecosystems.7 EPA and the Department of Transportation subsequently issued rules regulating emissions from motor vehicles, and EPA began phasing in "best available control technology" regulations for facilities emitting greenhouse gases. Finally – and of particular relevance to the Court's decision in American Electric Power – EPA initiated a rulemaking under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, to impose regulatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified, and existing fossil-fuel fired power plants. Pursuant to a settlement reached between EPA and the Massachusetts plaintiffs in December 2010 (and modified in June 2011), EPA has agreed to issue its proposed rule by September 30, 2011, and a final rule by May 26, 2012.8

The Court then turned to the issues before it. On the issue of justiciability and standing, the Court split 4-4, which had the effect of affirming the Second Circuit's exercise of jurisdiction.9

On the merits, the Court opened its discussion with a brief review of the development of federal common law, both generally and as applied to actions to address interstate pollution.10 After summarizing the parties' dispute over whether a federal common law of nuisance theory could apply conceptually to the plaintiffs' novel claims11, the Court stated that the dispute was "academic" because "[a]ny such claim would be displaced by the federal legislation authorizing EPA to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions."12 Citing Milwaukee II and other of its decisions, the Court stressed that the test is whether the congressional statute at issue "speaks directly to the question at issue." Here, the Court reasoned, its decision in Massachusetts made plain that emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide "qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the [Clean Air] Act", and that statute therefore "speaks directly" to emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendants' plants.13 The Court went on to discuss the statutory scheme embodied in § 111 of the Act and the broad regulatory authority it grants to EPA, and noted again that EPA was currently engaged in a rulemaking to set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. The Court concluded: "The Act itself thus provides a means to seek limits on emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic power plants – the same relief the plaintiffs seek by invoking federal common law. We see no room for a parallel track."14

The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument (and the Second Circuit's holding) that federal common law is not displaced until EPA actually exercises its regulatory authority by setting final standards for power plant emissions. "The critical point," stated the Court, "is that Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law."15 The Court went on to note that if EPA were to decide, in the exercise of its expert discretion, not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at the conclusion of its current rulemaking, "the federal courts would have no warrant to employ the federal common law of nuisance to upset the agency's expert determination."16 The expert agency (here, EPA), the Court stressed, is in a much better position than a federal court to be the "first decider" of complex policy issues requiring informed expertise and the balancing of competing environmental, energy and economic interests, with the courts playing the secondary role of judicial review.17

In the concurring opinion filed by Justice Alito, and joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Alito stated that he concurred in the judgment and agreed with the Court's displacement analysis "on the assumption" that the interpretation of the Clean Air Act adopted by the majority in Massachusetts is correct.18 In the 5-4 Massachusetts decision, Justices Alito and Thomas were in the dissenting bloc, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.19

Looking Forward

The immediate impact of the Court's decision in American Electric Power is clear: it removes the threat to owners and operators of power plants posed by tort-based climate change litigation. Further clarity should arrive in the form of EPA's proposed rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, due by the end of September 2011, followed by an eight month public comment period and a final rule due near the end of May 2012.

The clarity and predictability furnished by the Court's decision and the EPA rulemaking could be scrambled in unpredictable ways, however, by the vagaries of politics. As the discussion above makes clear, it is no secret that the Democratic and Republican parties have divergent views about climate change and the appropriateness of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. In response to the decision by the Obama Administration EPA to proceed with its greenhouse gas rulemaking, in February 2011 the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.20 Not surprisingly, the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected the House bills restricting EPA's regulatory authority.21 It appears very unlikely that EPA's regulatory authority will be disturbed by any further legislative initiative in advance of the November 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections.

It also appears likely that EPA's final rulemaking anticipated in May 2012 will remain the law of the land if President Obama is re-elected. If, however, the Republicans not only retain control of the House but re-take the White House and the Senate, they would certainly be in a position – and could very well decide – to revive their legislative efforts to strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. If Congress were to pass such legislation and a Republican President signed it into law, the rationale for the Court's decision in American Electric Power would disappear, and industry could face a new wave of tort claims from plaintiffs asserting the federal common law of nuisance.22


1 Bush Firm over Kyoto Stance, CNN (Mar. 29, 2001), http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-29/us/schroeder.bush_1_kyotoagreement-carbon-dioxide-emissions-climate-meeting?_s=PM:US.

2 Andrew C. Revkin, U.S. Sees Problems in Climate Change, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Jun. 3, 2002), http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/us/us-sees-problems-in-climate-change.html.

3 The plaintiff states were California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The plaintiff land trusts were the Open Space Institute, the Open Space Conservancy and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire.

4 The defendants were American Electric Power Company (and a wholly owned subsidiary), Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Cinergy 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. 2009).

6 2011 WL 2437011, at *6.

7 2011 WL 2437011, at *4 (citing Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496-66,535 (Dec. 15, 2009)).

8 2011 WL 2437011, at *5; Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 75 Fed. Reg. 82392 (Dec. 30, 2010); Modification to Settlement Agreement in State of New York, et al. v. EPA, No. 06-1322 (executed June 14, 2011) (available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/pdfs/20110613ghgsettlementmod.pdf).

9 2011 WL 2437011, at *7, citing Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 44 (1941).

10 Id., citing Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241-243 (1901); New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 477, 481-483 (1931); Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 240 U.S. 650 (1916); and Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 107 (1972) (Milwaukee I).

11 As for the plaintiffs' claims, the Court noted that it had "not yet decided" whether private citizens or a political subdivision of a state (here, New York City) could invoke the federal common law of nuisance to abate out-of-state pollution, nor had the Court decided whether "a State may sue to abate any and all manner of pollution originating outside its borders." Id. at *8. The Court noted the defendants' argument that "considerations of scale and complexity distinguish global warming" from more traditional federal nuisance suits to address pollution, but also pointed out that "public nuisance law, like common law generally, adapts to changing scientific and factual circumstances." Id.

12 Id. at *8.

13 Id. at *9.

14 Id. at *9-10.

15 Id. at *10.

16 Id. The Court cautioned that this does not mean EPA decisionmaking is impervious to judicial review; a federal court would have the authority to review agency action to ensure compliance with the applicable federal statute, and could overturn that action if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. Id. at *11, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9).

17 Id. at *11. The Court did not address the plaintiffs' state law claims, instead leaving them open for consideration on remand. The Second Circuit had not reached the state law claims because it had held that federal common law governed. Id. at *12.

18 Id. at *13.

19 549 U.S. 497.

20 House Votes to Block EPA From Regulating Greenhouse Gases, THE HUFFINGTON POST ( Feb. 18, 2011 2:28 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/18/house-votes-to-block-epa-_n_825259.html?view=print; see, e.g,, H.R. 199 (Jan. 6, 2011).

21 John M. Broder, Senate Rejects Bills to Limit E.P.A.'s Emissions Programs, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Apr. 6, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07epa.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print.

22 In an article about American Electric Power appearing in its June 27, 2011 edition, The National Law Journal quoted Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, as follows: "If Congress takes away EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases but does not explicitly bar federal common-law nuisance claims, these cases will come back."


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions