- Tuesday's Heavy Dose of Data to Dictate 'Risk' Behavior
- Obama says Boosting US Jobs is Top Priority
- More Consumers Giving 'Black Friday' the Cold Shoulder
- Prepare For Large Decline In Stocks, Next Year?
- Appeals Court Denies Microsoft's Alcatel Petition
- HP Comes in As Expected; Is It Time to Buy?
- Cramer: What Monday’s Housing Number Really Means
- Why the Dollar Will Likely Stay Weak for Some Time
- US Officials Press Pay Czar to Ease AIG Curbs: Report
- Can Murdoch Help Bing Challenge Google and Shift the Content Equation?
- HP's Mark Hurd
- HP Comes in As Expected; Is It Time to Buy?
- 9 Stocks That Play Rising Water Costs: Strategists
- Weis' Deal Likely Won't Change Big Money Contracts
- Gold Prices Can Double in 3 Years: Portfolio Manager
- Nov. 23: Unusual Volume Leaders
- Help Wanted—Please Run $4 Billion University
- Apple Comes to AT&T's Rescue
- South Korea pledges to double aid to Africa
- SPIN METER: Legislation inflation grips GOP
- SKorean trade chief urges US to move on agreement
- Singapore tourism falls slightly in October
- China Eastern Airlines teams up with Alibaba
- China planning agency OKs Shanghai Disney project
- Poll: Americans conflicted over health overhaul
- Clothing sales down Nov., but online roars back
- Kinder Morgan expects to pay $4.40 annual dividend
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court ruled Monday that states trying to combat global warming can sue six electric utilities to force them to cut the greenhouse gases emitted by their power plants in 20 states.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reinstated the lawsuits after a lower court judge tossed out the actions brought in 2004 by eight states, New York City and three land trusts.
The lawsuits had accuse the companies of being among the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world and sought to force them to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
The appeals court said the lower court judge erred in ruling that the issue was a political one that was not meant to be decided by the courts.
The court said that not every case with political overtones has to be kept out of the courts.
"It is error to equate a political question with a political case," the court wrote. "Given the checks and balances among the three branches of our government, the judiciary can no more usurp executive and legislative prerogatives than it can decline to decide matters within its jurisdiction simply because such matters may have political ramifications."
The appeals court noted that the legislative branch was free to amend the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and the executive branch can regulate emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency.
It also rejected arguments by the companies that any pollutants must be "poisonous" or "noxious," local in nature and capable of producing immediate harm to be challenged in a lawsuit.
"The touchstone of a common law public nuisance action is that the harm is widespread, unreasonably interfering with a right common to the general public," the court wrote.
The ruling was made by two judges rather than the usual three because the third judge was supposed to be Sonia Sotomayor, who is now a Supreme Court justice.
The states bringing the lawsuit are California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. New York City and three nonprofit land trusts also are part of the litigation.
The states want the courts to order the companies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 3 percent annually for 10 years. They say the greenhouse gas is one of the chief causes of global warming. The gas is produced when coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels burn.
The lawsuits seek to force a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by American Electric Power Co. Inc., Cinergy Co., Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota, and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority.
A lawyer for the companies did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement that the ruling "breathes new life into our fight against greenhouse gas polluters and changes the legal landscape to impose responsibility where it belongs."
He added: "This ruling vindicates our tenacious and tireless battle on behalf of a powerful coalition of states and environmental advocates — a battle that will now have its day in court."
Blumenthal compared the effort with the fight against tobacco companies, saying the states were seeking to save lives and the planet from global warming.
- The show attracts a big TV audience every year, but this year it may take on even more importance.
- …you'll want to be prepared. Tips for getting the most out of the post-Thanksgiving shopping frenzy.
- Congressman Ron Paul explains to Squawk Box why he’s pushing legislation to audit the Federal Reserve.
- CNBC’s Phil LeBeau took a test drive of GM’s flagship electric car. Here’s what he thought of the Volt.
- The energy company Power Efficiency is building tools that regulate the power electric motors use.
- CNBC’s technology reporter Jim Goldman guides you through the best gadgets to buy this holiday season.








