The Court in AEP split 4-4 on certain preliminary issues that resulted in an affirmation of part of the lower court ruling, followed by an 8-0 decision reversing the rest of the Second Circuit's decision. The Court agreed with the utility defendants on one core point: That highly complex climate change environmental regulation is more suited to expert agencies set up by Congress than by federal judges issuing "case-by-case injunctions." Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court, also managed to raise one other constitutional issue not briefed by the parties -- potential federal preemption of state nuisance claims.
The lawyer who represented the defendant utility companies, Peter Keisler of Sidley & Austin, and the former senior climate change policy counsel to the EPA Administrator, Professor Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown University Law Center, will discuss the Court's holding and its implications.
On Thursday, July 7, 2011 the American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy and Resources will be hosting a teleconference to discuss the legal, environmental and regulatory implications of this decision. This is a FREE program and will not provide CLE credits.
The lawyer who represented the defendant utility companies, Peter Keisler of Sidley & Austin, and the former senior climate change policy counsel to the EPA Administrator, Professor Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown University Law Center, will discuss the Court's holding and its implications.
0 comments:
Post a Comment