Global Warming Lawsuit Questioned by Supreme Court

However, neither liberal nor conservative high courts justices seemed to be convinced that a single judge could take on that particular responsibility. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsgberg pointed out that a judge cannot function as ''a super EPA.'' Several justices agreed, saying that the Environmental Protection Agency would be better able to handle the complexities of such environmental issues. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the very idea of asking a district-court judge to ascertain exactly how much of a reduction in carbon emissions would be necessary and reasonable to reduce global warming.

The case, American Electric Power Co. V. Connecticut, 10-174, is the biggest case of its kind to be brought before the Supreme Court since the Clean Air Act in 2007, which provided the Environmental Protection Agency with the power to govern greenhouse emissions that could bring harm to humans. According to Barbara Underwood, the attorney for the states, the five utilities are responsible for 10% of US carbon dioxide emissions. However, despite existing proof that greenhouse emissions do in fact present health dangers, the EPA still has not ordered the enforcement of emissions control. Furthermore, the Republican lawmakers have pursued ways to restrict the agency's ability to impose such regulations.

The power companies involved in the lawsuit include American Electric Power Co Inc., Southern Co, Xcel Energy and Cinergy Group, which Duke Energy Group acquired in 2006, along with TVA. Attorneys for these companies claim that the massive lawsuit involves both national and international issues that extend beyond the scope of the court. ''In the 222 years that this court has been sitting, there has never been a case with so many potential perpetrators and so many potential victims,'' said acting US Solicitor General, Neal Katyal.

A ruling from the high court is anticipated by the end of June.