gdi+ +courts+cp

7/31/2019 Gdi+ +Courts+Cp

1/106

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1Scholars COURTS

COURTS CP INDEX 1/3

COURTS CP INDEX 1/3............................................................................................................................................1***Solvency***..............................................................................................................................................................3Courts 1NC.....................................................................................................................................................................4

Solvency Warming.......................................................................................................................................................5Solvency Cap and Trade .............................................................................................................................................6Solvency Mass vs. EPA ..............................................................................................................................................7Solvency Defo .............................................................................................................................................................8Solvency Wind.............................................................................................................................................................9Solvency - Wind............................................................................................................................................................10Solvency Wind...........................................................................................................................................................11Courts solve brownfields..............................................................................................................................................12Courts solve, not Congress............................................................................................................................................13Courts necessary to stop EPA.......................................................................................................................................14Courts must act now......................................................................................................................................................15Solvency Courts thorough .........................................................................................................................................16Solvency Courts Want Change Now ........................................................................................................................17

Courts Can Do...............................................................................................................................................................18Solvency - Policy-Making............................................................................................................................................19Solvency Policy-Making............................................................................................................................................20Solvency Judicial Review Good................................................................................................................................21Solvency General.......................................................................................................................................................22Solvency General ......................................................................................................................................................23Courts CP Solvency...................................................................................................................................................24Solvency Sets precedent (California decision) .........................................................................................................25Solvency Cap and trade (Mercury) ...........................................................................................................................26Solvency Environmentalists Agree............................................................................................................................27Solvency Courts key to Effective Policy ..................................................................................................................28Courts Enforce Clean Air Act ...................................................................................................................................29Courts Experienced.......................................................................................................................................................30

Court Solvency AT: Rollback....................................................................................................................................31Solvency A2: The Executive Will Not Enforce The Decision..................................................................................32Solvency A2: Court Isnt Qualified/Doesnt Have Information................................................................................33Solvency A2: Congressional Committees More Specialized.....................................................................................34Solvency A2: Court Action Is Piecemeal...................................................................................................................35Solvency A2: Courts Wont Protect Rights...............................................................................................................36Solvency A2: Courts Wont Protect Rights ..............................................................................................................37Solvency A2: Courts Wont Protect Rights ..............................................................................................................38Solvency A2: Courts Will Not Produce Social Change.............................................................................................39Solvency A2: Courts Will Not Produce Social Change.............................................................................................40Solvency A2: No Court Enforcement........................................................................................................................41Solvency A2: Lower Courts Wont Follow The Decision.........................................................................................42Decision Binding...........................................................................................................................................................43

***AT: Perm***...........................................................................................................................................................44Permutation Answers....................................................................................................................................................45Permutation Answers....................................................................................................................................................46Permutation Answers....................................................................................................................................................47Permutation Answers - Courts Are Not Perceived.......................................................................................................48Permutation Answers - Independent Court Action Good.............................................................................................49***Court Policy DA***................................................................................................................................................50Court Policy DA 1NC................................................................................................................................................51Court Policy DA 1NC................................................................................................................................................52Links No Executive/Congress Action........................................................................................................................54Congress Bad Inaction/Delay.....................................................................................................................................55Executive Bad Delay..................................................................................................................................................56


2/106


Executive Bad Science...............................................................................................................................................57***Net Benefits***.......................................................................................................................................................58Politics NB....................................................................................................................................................................59China NB Independence Down..................................................................................................................................60China NB Now Key Time..........................................................................................................................................61China NB China Models Courts................................................................................................................................62China Judicial Independence Good Stability.............................................................................................................63China Judicial Independence Good Econ..................................................................................................................64Judicial Independence Good Terrorism/Competitiveness.........................................................................................65***AT: Hollow Hope***..............................................................................................................................................66AT: Hollow Hope Movements In Courts...................................................................................................................67AT: Hollow Hope Courts Key 2 Environment Movement........................................................................................68AT: Hollow Hope Courts Solve Movements.............................................................................................................69AT: Hollow Hope Courts Better for Social Justice....................................................................................................70***Aff Answers***......................................................................................................................................................71Perm Solvency..............................................................................................................................................................72Perm Solves Hollow Hope.........................................................................................................................................73Courts CP No Solve...................................................................................................................................................74No Solvency Backlash...............................................................................................................................................75No Solvency..................................................................................................................................................................76

***AT: Court Policy DA***........................................................................................................................................77AT: Executive Bad Science.......................................................................................................................................78Courts Hurt Legislative Action ....................................................................................................................................79Courts Hurt Legislative Action.....................................................................................................................................80Courts Hurt Legislative Action ....................................................................................................................................81Courts Hurt Legislative Action.....................................................................................................................................82***Aff Hollow Hope D/A***....................................................................................................................................83Hollow Hope Shell........................................................................................................................................................84Uniqueness Scholarship.............................................................................................................................................85Internal Link Court Action Undermines Movements................................................................................................86Court Fails Without Public Support..............................................................................................................................87Decisions Ignored.........................................................................................................................................................88Doesnt Help Movements.............................................................................................................................................89

Fails Social Reform.......................................................................................................................................................90Destroys Movements.....................................................................................................................................................91Court Victory Hides Problems......................................................................................................................................92Courts = Fly Paper.....................................................................................................................................................93Courts Mobilize Opposition..........................................................................................................................................94Other Court Writings Flawed........................................................................................................................................95Courts Dont Help Movements.....................................................................................................................................96Hollow Hope Courts Disenfranchise.........................................................................................................................97Hollow Hope Courts DN Solve Social Justice...........................................................................................................98Hollow Hope Mobilization........................................................................................................................................99Hollow Hope Citizens.............................................................................................................................................100***AT: Net Benefits***.............................................................................................................................................101AT: Politics Courts Link..........................................................................................................................................102

AT: Politics NB...........................................................................................................................................................103AT: China NB Independence Up.............................................................................................................................104AT: China NB N/U & No I/L..................................................................................................................................105


3/106


***Solvency***


4/106


Courts 1NC

Text: The United States Supreme Court should ___________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________.

The Supreme Court can rule on environmental issues not normally under its control after the

Massachusetts decision.

The Bierings 8(Raymond: Counsel for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution District and Brian: Oregon School of Law,Massachusetts vs. EPA: Rescuing Icarus with Environmental Federalism, 23 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 35)

With regard to the issue of standing in Massachusetts, some scholars have viewed the Supreme Court's

approach to standing as "somewhat unusual."25Interestingly, the Supreme Court observed that "when a State enters theUnion, it surrenders certain sovereign prerogatives," but obtains "a concomitant procedural right to challenge the rejection of its rulemaking

petition as arbitrary and capricious."26 Moreover, the Court concluded, "given that procedural right and Massachusetts' stake in protectingits quasi-sovereign interests, the Commonwealth is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis."27

The implication of the Supreme Court's holding regarding Massachusetts' basis for standing and

"special solicitude," and by extension to other states and possible parties, is the potential for new state

and local efforts to compel the regulation of environmental programs and policies through the courts in

areas previously regarded as beyond judicial inquiry. 28 In that regard, it is particularly noteworthy thatthe Court recognized a fundamental distinction between an administrative agency's discretion to initiate

enforcement actions, as compared to its [*43] discretion to adopt - or not adopt - regulations. The Courtstated:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n25http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n25http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n25http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n26http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n26http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n28http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n25http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n26http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n28


5/106


Solvency Warming

Massachusetts V. EPA proves that Courts could halt emissions policies.

The Philadelphia Inquirer 6 (Oct. 5, Editorial | Supreme Court and Global Warming;Climate Control, Editorial Pg. A18)

The trend is in the right direction, but a wrong U.S. Supreme Court decision this term could put a chill onclimate policies nationwide. In one of the most important environmental cases ever to come before the court,justices will decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhousegases that contribute to global warming. Massachusetts v. EPA challenges the agency's refusal to enforce asection of the Clean Air Act on pollutants that affect weather and the climate and have an adverse effect onpublic welfare. The court's decision, expected several months after the scheduled Nov. 29 arguments,could hasten U.S. mitigation of greenhouse-gas emissions - or bring action to a disappointing halt. Under

the court's microscope are California's efforts to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions, adopted by 11 other

states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The ruling will reveal more about the ideological leanings

of Chief Justice John Roberts' court, as will pivotal cases on race and abortion this term. Depending on

how the decision goes, it could have enormous repercussions about standing in future environmental

cases. The case already has created unusual bedfellows. Entergy Corp., for example, a power companybased in New Orleans, is siding with climatologists and environmentalists, because it seeks regulatorycertainty. The patchwork of regulations emerging as California, Northeastern states and Europe all takeslightly different approaches to global warming makes planning 25-year capital investments difficult.Forward-looking utilities know science doesn't support the federal government's current aversion toregulating carbon emissions. Rules that come sooner will help companies build cleaner plants now that won'tneed expensive retrofits later. Congress could end this protracted and expensive legal debate over theapplicability of the Clean Air Act by passing legislation specific to global warming. Instead, key committeeleaders have wasted years villifying respected scientists, second-guessing peer-reviewed studies, and callingnovelists as expert witnesses. It's no wonder states set out on their own. The United States needs to catch upto the rest of the world and, as a nation, work to reduce the human contribution to global warming.

The Supreme Court can cause change within the legislative and executive branches to act

against climate change.

The Bierings 8(Raymond: Counsel for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution District and Brian: Oregon School of Law,Massachusetts vs. EPA: Rescuing Icarus with Environmental Federalism, 23 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 35)

Traditional regulatory measures have included aspects of both command/control and market-based incentives.62While there are many examples of existing federal laws that address climate change, proponents of economy-wide climate change policiesgenerally argue that carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, or some combination of the two are needed to effectively reduce the risks associated with climatechange.63

There are numerous climate change bills that have been proposed in the 110th Congress, many of which would

create a comprehensive, economy-wide scheme for regulating greenhouse gases.64At this point, a prediction of whereCongress will end up regulating climate change in the future is beyond the scope of this Article. However, it is at least apparent that Massachusetts isa call for a greater legislative concern about the problem of climate change. Whether that concern will ultimately translate into effective federal

programs is yet to be seen. To be sure, Congress has in the past acted quickly to exercise its legislative powers, particularly in times of national[*50] emergency.65Whether Congress can respond expeditiously and effectively enough to address the climate change problem on a truly national

level is another question altogether.Massachusetts has had impacts beyond the level of Congressional legislation. Indeed, shortly after the Supreme

Court's decision in April 2007, President Bush signed an Executive Order directing the EPA to develop

regulations to respond to the Supreme Court's decision, to use EPA's existing authority under the CAA to implement a so-called"twenty-in-ten" proposal as a framework for the regulations, and to work together with other agencies to develop the regulations.66 Consequently,section 202 of the CAA will likely obligate the EPA to make the requisite "endangerment finding" and set new-vehicle emission standards. Thefocus of the endangerment finding will be air pollutants that the EPA Administrator concludes cause or contribute to air pollution, specifically

CO and other greenhouse gases.67The President's Executive Order directing the EPA to develop regulations in

response to the Supreme Court's decision makes the ultimate result of regulating at least vehicular emissions a

foregone conclusion. As recognized by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n62http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n62http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n63http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n63http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n64http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n64http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n64http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n65http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n65http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n65http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n66http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n66http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n67http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n67http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n62http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n63http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n64http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n65http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n66http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=ef888cc459c43126781af587c929ed32&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=174ea584b44182289006d9d566e5df51#n67


6/106


Solvency Cap and Trade

( ) The court strikes down energy bills that are inefficient flawed cap and trade proves.

Czajkowski 8 (Steve, Writer for The Jurist, Legal News and Research, July 12,http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/federal-appeals-court-rejects-clean-air.phpA three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuitruled [opinion text, PDF] Friday that theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] does not have the authority to institute a "cap-and-trade" policy for controlling levels of soot and smog emissions. TheClean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) [PDF text,EPAbackgrounder] was intended to permanently cap emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides across 28eastern states and would have reduced the levels of those pollutants by 70 percent and 60 percent respectively. Theemission caps were expected to result in $85 to $100 billion in direct health benefits and almost $2 billion in

visibility benefits by 2015. The court's decision rejected the entire regulation, calling the EPA's approach to

emissions control caps "fundamentally flawed," and saying that the legislation would not "survive remand in

anything approaching recognizable form." AP hasmore. The Washington Post hasadditional coverage.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200807/05-1244-1127017.pdfhttp://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200807/05-1244-1127017.pdfhttp://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200807/05-1244-1127017.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/cair_final_reg.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/cair_final_reg.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/cair_final_reg.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/cair/http://www.epa.gov/cair/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbxOhRbC5B8oEFQBjaInpi27rS4wD91RPE480http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbxOhRbC5B8oEFQBjaInpi27rS4wD91RPE480http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071101476.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnewshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071101476.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnewshttp://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200807/05-1244-1127017.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/cair_final_reg.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/cair/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbxOhRbC5B8oEFQBjaInpi27rS4wD91RPE480http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071101476.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews


7/106


Solvency Mass vs. EPA

( ) The court has recognized the imminent threat of climate change and knows that domestic

action can play a role in reducing warming Mass vs. EPA prove.PC 8(Pew Center on Global Climate Change,http://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfm)On April 2, 2007 the Supreme Court released its ruling in the case of the state of Massachusetts vs. theEnvironmental Protection Agency. Massachusetts and eleven other states, along with several local governments andnon-governmental organizations (petitioners), sued the EPA for not regulating the emissions of four greenhousegases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), from the transportation sector. The petitioners claimed that human-influenced global climate change was causing adverse effects, such as sea-level rise, to the state of

Massachusetts. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Massachusetts et al, finding that EPA has the

authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The decision was written by Justice Stevens and wassigned by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Bader Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia,and Thomas dissented. The Courts findings are summarized below: Standing The EPA argued that Massachusettset al could not prove standing in this case. The Court ruled that Massachusetts et al do in fact have standing inchallenging EPAs decision not to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the transportation sector. Standingrequires injury, causation, and the existence for a remedy. The Court found that EPAs refusal to regulate CO2has led to actual and imminent harm to the state of Massachusetts, mainly in the form of rising sea-levelsalong the states coast. The ruling also noted that the harms associated with climate change are serious and well

recognized.The Court also found that given EPAs failure to dispute the existence of a causal connectionbetween man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a

minimum, contributes to Massachusetts injuries. Finally, while acknowledging that regulating greenhouse gasesfrom motor vehicles alone will not reverse global warming, the Court found that domestic action such as this canplay a role in slowing or reducing warming.
http://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfmhttp://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfmhttp://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfm


8/106


9/106


Solvency Wind

Massachusetts vs. EPA gives courts more opportunities to increase wind power.

Brown and Escobar 7(Brit A and Benjamin A, Energy Bar Association Energy Law Journal, Wind Power: Generating Electricity andLawsuits, 28 Energy L. J. 489)

Furthermore, the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental

Protection Agency will only spur further development of wind farms.15 In that case, the Court held that the

Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate tail pipe emissions from automobiles. 16Many expect that the decision

will now accelerate pending litigation in lower courts, where the plaintiffs are trying to compel

regulation of power plant greenhouse gas emissions. 17 As regulations increasingly limit greenhouse gas

emissions, logically, one can expect increased use of wind power.

Many test cases for Supreme Court to rule on wind power.


Kansas, similarly, has been the site of resistance to new wind projects. In Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie HeritageFoundation v. Scottish Power, PLC, a non-profit environmental group filed a class action lawsuit against various

electrical power companies and wind-energy producers in Kansas federal district court, attempting to blockconstruction of a proposed wind farm because of its potential environmental impact.27Flint Hills claimed that the defendants' industrial

wind turbines would cause permanent and irreparable damage to the region's environmental systems. Presumably to minimize

economic incentive to build the wind farm, Flint Hills also sought a judgment that federal tax incentives

and subsidies provided to wind developers are unconstitutional. The [*495] district court granted the defendants'12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and accordingly dismissed Flint Hills' complaint with prejudice, which was affirmed by the U. S. Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit.

A similar case litigated in California state court, Kerncrest Audubon Society v. Los Angeles Department

of Wind & Power, dealt with the potential environmental impact of the proposed Pine Tree Wind Project

(PTWP) on migratory bird patterns.28Two Audubon societies filed suit against the City of Los Angeles Department of Waterand Power (LADWP). The PTWP, which is being developed by Wind Turbine Prometheus, LLC, will use eighty of GE Energy's 1.5 MWwind turbines installed on approximately 8,000 acres of land located 12 miles north of Mojave, California. On April 15, 2005, the

LADWP's Board of Commissioners approved the results of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concerning the PTWP over strongobjections from the Audubon societies. The Audubon societies claimed the EIR failed to fulfill the minimum disclosure obligationsrequired by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Their primary objection was the lack of definitive studies concerning the

project's potential threat to specific kinds of birds, especially migratory songbirds, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Intellectual property rights allow for innovation on wind farms.


Protection of commercial rights to technological innovation has always been critical to promoting the

capital investment necessary to fund research and development. Having the ability to protect one's own

ideas and discoveries, thereby safeguarding the ability to financially benefit from those innovations, is

also key to expediting commercialization of new technologies by protecting the innovator when licensing hisinnovation. By increasing the size and number of markets in which innovators can safely compete, investors can, if they are competitive,

increase revenue and profits, thereby in turn funding more capital into new research and development to improve their technologies evenfurther.

The United States has long been the largest market for technology in the world. Its intellectual property

laws have allowed researchers and investors alike to work under a certain degree of predictability and

certainty. This predictability has created a business environment in which technological development has

excelled. With respect to wind energy technology, however, the United States has lagged largely because until relatively recently therehas been little demand, compared to other parts of the world. This is starting to change as domestic demand for wind energy increases.While domestic demand is growing, U.S. companies still need to secure foreign demand for their products and technology not only toexpand their market and profits, but also to hedge against reduced domestic demand in the future, e.g., in the event Production Tax Creditsare not renewed.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n15http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n15http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n16http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n16http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n16http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n17http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n17http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n28http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n28http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n28http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n15http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n16http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n17http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n27http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n28


10/106


Solvency - Wind

Battles in court over wind power will continue to occur.


While wind energy companies have thus far been spared the degree of contractual litigation that some

other industries face, their relief is relative and not complete. Take for instance the continued struggle to secure anadequate supply of wind turbines well in advance of final project design and approval. Insufficient wind turbine production and supply isan often-stated reason for project deferral. Wind energy developers routinely order wind turbines well in advance of final project approval.Admittedly, this is a somewhat risky procedure requiring the wind energy developer to commit substantial capital to equipment before it iseven certain that there is a project to absorb the capital investment. This is necessary, however, in order to minimize construction delaysonce the project has been fully approved. The high demand for existing wind turbine production, coupled with the developer's critical needfor timely supply, is certain to generate litigation. Consider, for instance, NEG Micon USA, Inc. v. Northern Alternative Energy, filed in anIllinois federal district court, in [*500] which a turbine supplier sued to determine the interpretation and enforceability of an exclusivewind turbine supplier agreement.53Suits over exclusive supply arrangements can be expected to increase as demand for turbines increase,especially as many wind energy companies must purchase their turbines years in advance in order to secure a steady supply to feed theirongoing projects.

As competition increases and rates become more competitive, litigation can be expected over

requirement and rate type agreements. Consider a suit filed by wind developer Energy Development in California state courtagainst the electric utility Southern California Edison Company (SCE), seeking declaratory relief and specific performance for alleged

breach of contract.54In 1984 and 1985, SCE entered into contracts with Energy Development to purchase electricity produced by windturbines owned and operated by Energy Development. Each contract was divided into two periods: the "first period" was ten years inlength, and the "second period" covered the remainder of the contract. Because the rate structure changed from period to period, it was nottoo surprising when a dispute arose regarding the date on which the "first period" began.55The trial court agreed with EnergyDevelopment's interpretation, but the appellate court disagreed, holding that the "first period" language in the contract was ambiguous.56

The ambiguity was exacerbated by the fact that the commercial circumstances and market had fundamentally changed since the date oforiginal contract.57

Despite a lack of earlier lawsuits, more lawsuits will come now.


However, like land-based wind development, litigation regarding the aesthetic and environmental impact

of offshore wind turbines is likely to increase. Offshore wind turbines are usually much larger than land-based turbines, andas wind turbine technology continues to improve, offshore wind turbines will likely continue to grow in size to further maximize the

energy-generating potential of offshore wind. Accordingly, for the next three to five years, aesthetic concerns will

likely continue to be one of the most commonly litigated issues regarding offshore wind development.New technology being developed in relation to offshore wind farms may also become the subject of

litigation. For example, technology is currently being developed that will eventually allow offshore wind farms to be constructed inwater depths ranging from thirty meters to 200 meters.151According to its website, Winergy Power, LLC (Winergy) is currentlydeveloping Plum Island Wind Park (PIWP), a research, development, and demonstration project, to test new technology that will make it

possible to locate wind farms up to twelve to twenty miles offshore.152The wind farms will be installed using a patented deepwater oceanplatform technology developed by Atlantis Power, LLC. 153Winergy is proposing to erect three wind turbines: two on traditional monopilebases, and one on a jack-up barge.154 The PIWP site is located just south of Plum Island, New York, beyond the northeastern tip of LongIsland. This site was selected because of its remoteness from population and marine traffic. The area has class six wind speeds, which areeconomically viable for wind development.155Importantly, transmission lines of a nearby substation are available within close proximityonshore.156 The site has the added benefits of having a completed Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and of being within anexclusive use zone set aside by the State of New York.157

More lawsuits coming.


In addition to those issues identified above, once an offshore wind farm begins operating, offshore wind

developers could also face increased products liability litigation. For instance, one or more offshore wind

turbines could be damaged by a passing boat or ship resulting in litigation concerning damages to the

turbines and the boat or ship. Alternatively, severe weather, faulty construction, defective design, or general wear and tear couldcause an offshore turbine to throw a blade or collapse, possibly causing property damage to a nearby boat or ship, or to underwatertransmission lines.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n53http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n53http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n53http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n54http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n54http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n54http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n55http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n55http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n55http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n56http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n56http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n57http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n57http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n151http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n151http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n151http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n152http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n152http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n152http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n153http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n153http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n154http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n154http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n155http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n155http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n155http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n156http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n156http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n157http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n157http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n53http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n54http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n55http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n56http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n57http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n151http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n152http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n153http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n154http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n155http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n156http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n157


11/106


Solvency Wind

Lawsuits against wind coming now: Opportunities for the courts to act.


As to environmental concerns, offshore wind developers may eventually face lawsuits filed by private,

non-profit environmental groups, and possibly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), if certain

offshore wind turbine locations adversely impact a particular endangered species of bird or fish, orgenerally cause an inordinate number of bird or fish deaths compared to other offshore wind turbine locations. It is difficult to assess this

potential litigation until offshore wind farms are constructed and begin operations in the U.S. Litigation relating to questions regarding theeffects of the noise and electromagnetic fields created by wind farms, as well as the structures themselves, on marine mammals, birds, andeven shellfish, are likely to surface.As offshore wind development in the United States continues to expand, and U.S. demand for wind-generated electricity increases, so too

will the research and development of new and improved offshore wind turbine technologies. Accordingly, offshore wind

developers will almost surely face intellectual property lawsuits and related legal issues. For instance, the

discovery of new, offshore wind technologies could result in patent infringement claims stemming from theunauthorized use of patented technology. As a practical matter, however, the pace of American offshore wind research and developmentwill largely depend on the success or failure of the four current offshore wind projects. European wind developers, particularly Danishcompanies, have led the world in offshore wind turbine development for years. In fact, U.S. offshore wind developers will likely rely onmuch of Europe's offshore wind technology and experience in constructing and operating the four proposed U.S. offshore wind farms. TheDepartment of Energy (DOE) recently announced plans to construct new turbine blade test facilities capable of testing blades up to 230 feetlong, but these facilities will probably take years to catch up to the state-of-the-art wind facilities currently operating in Europe.161

Consequently, while U.S. patent infringement lawsuits regarding offshore wind turbine technology are bound to increase, technologicaladvances are made.

The courts are critical to ensuring the expansion of wind power.

Brown and Escobar 7 (Brit A and Benjamin A, Energy Bar Association Energy Law Journal, Wind Power: Generating Electricity andLawsuits, 28 Energy L. J. 489)

With this expansion, objections to wind energy developments will continue to manifest themselves in

many ways, including litigation to block developments or the use of certain technology, and also

politically through efforts to limit or rescind tax credits which encourage much needed capital infusion

by enabling private investors to recover a competitive rate of return on their investment . There will alsocertainly be significant legal battles instigated by communities, investors, business partners, and land owners as these massivedevelopments begin to age and wear, especially when superior technology makes them increasingly obsolete and produces an inevitable

outcry to remove or upgrade what might then be perceived as a festering eyesore.176It is largely up to legal development in

the courts, regulatory agencies, and state and federal legislatures to facilitate growth by providing the

precedent and the regulatory controls that will enhance predictability for those who would pursue wind

power development. For now, we are still finding our way in largely uncharted waters, and we will make mistakes. Let us hope thatwe learn from these mistakes and that our society and way of life continue to prosper.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n161http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n161http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n176http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n176http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n176http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n161http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=d0b28b8be760ecbd9ffbb0cd54911739&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkVk&_md5=47da0ec88aa2ee3b4e90965277912ed8#n176


12/106


Courts solve brownfields

Courts solve for brownfields: Litigation is the one barrier to development.

Ferrey 7 (Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 417)

There are ways to bridge these chasms utilizing creative legal techniques. Before more of the tens of thousands ofexisting municipal landfills become too aged to support landfill gas-to-energy projects--and in the interest ofmethane containment and mitigation, renewable energy development goals, and energy efficiency--there should begreater effort redirected to providing the legal templates to insulate new energy project operators from preexistinglegal liability at brownfields/landfills. Temporarily, we can adopt more aggressive agreements embodying legalcovenants not to sue third party energy project operators. Longer term, state and federal statutes must distinguishbetween environmental negatives and energy positives in sculpting a more discerning division among liable andnon-liable parties. [*468] Creative legal reforms, not technical seminars, are the most urgently needed changes inthis market. This can be a win-win situation for municipalities, the public, and state and federal enforcementagencies across the United States.When covenants not to sue are in place, the critical joint and several liability risks associated with prior conditions

are mitigated. This is one essential change to accomplish in order to make development possible at brownfieldslandfills. For private sector developers, these legal risks subsume the development opportunities.

Courts solve for landfill issues.

Ferrey 7 (Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 417)

These covenants can be critical to energy project development. Otherwise, the liability uncertainties andimpediments, which notably are a creation solely of law and not of any technical impediments, can swamp theenergy revenue and environmental benefits perceived by third parties to develop energy projects at landfill sites. Thejoint and several liability risk of the Superfund statute often bludgeons the economic incentives and environmentalbenefits that many well-meaning parties and entrepreneurs would otherwise attempt to realize at these sites. It is the

legal issues which create the most profound disincentives to landfills' productive reuse and development. Thesesame issues have received by far the least attention, judging by the literature regarding landfills and EPA fundinginitiatives.


13/106


Courts solve, not Congress

Laws only cause agencies to serve their own political interests: Only courts avoid this.

Wood 7 (Professor of Law at Oregon,34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 577)

The heart of the problem is this: While the purpose of every local, state, and federal environmental law is to protectnatural resources, nearly every law also provides authority to the agencies to permit, in theirdiscretion, the verypollution or land damage that the statutes were designed to prevent. Of course, the permit systems were neverintended to subvert the goals of environmental statutes. But most agencies today spend nearly all of their resourcestopermit, rather than prohibit, environmental destruction. Essentially, our agencies have taken the discretion in thelaw and used it to destroy Nature, including its atmosphere.Why would public servants who draw their salaries from the taxpayers do such a thing? It is because the call ofprivate property rights is sounded in the halls of nearly every agency, nearly every day. Asphalt plant operators andchemical manufacturers, land developers and timber companies, automobile makers and coal-fired plant investors,and industrialists and individuals of all sorts call out to these agencies not to draw that regulatory line on theiractivity--because doing so would hurt their economic goals. This private property rights rhetoric has coweredofficials at every level of government. Most officials are good, dedicated individuals, but as a group, they dread

saying no to permits. So it is really no surprise that nearly every agency in America is still acting as if globalwarming did not exist.Moreover, agencies have created so much complexity in their regulations, with meaningless acronyms and techno-jargon, that citizens are not speaking in the clear and forceful terms they need to in order to pose a counterweight toprivate property rights in this vast realm of agency discretion.U.S. environmental law has created a thick veil of complexity behind which agencies serve private interests at theexpense of the public. Our third branch of government--the judiciary--has been indifferent towards the politicizationof agencies. Courts often defer to agency decisions on the false premise that agencies are neutral. 76 A compromisedjudicial check skews the Constitutional balance of power over the environment. [*593] Without that third branch ofgovernment fulfilling its function, our democracy becomes an administrative tyranny over Nature, with dangerousresults for our future.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=5005c9f6f8770eb0c40c68eb13b613d9&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVk&_md5=09bc1241151702b5c26c62bf01380afe#n76http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=5005c9f6f8770eb0c40c68eb13b613d9&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVk&_md5=09bc1241151702b5c26c62bf01380afe#n76


14/106


Courts necessary to stop EPA

Any policies working through the EPA without the courts only hurt environmental justice:

This card is after Massachusetts v. EPA.

ONeill 8(Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University, 38 Envtl. L. 495)

Given the antipathy of the second Bush Administration to environmental regulation in general it is perhapsunsurprising that the EPA's work on the CAMR is not a model for considering environmental justice in the tribalcontext. It is an understatement to say that the Bush EPA has been unsympathetic to calls forenvironmental justice,whether from tribes or other affected groups. Instead, the Bush EPA has flouted its obligations to protect human andenvironmental health at virtually every turn. Indeed, the Bush EPA has been particularly bold in its willingness todisregard its statutory and other legal commands, to the point that the courts - ordinarily deferential - have feltobligated to rein it in. 8 Thus, one can hope that we have witnessed a high water mark in terms of the agency'sdisdain for its mission and indifference to those harmed by its decisions. And, happily, the D.C. Circuit's result inNew Jersey v. EPA means that the EPA must go back to the drawing board and produce a rule that is consistent withits legal obligations.9As such, some of the most glaring deficiencies in the CAMR will need to be remedied, withsome of the dire impacts to tribes and their members ameliorated as a consequence. Still, it seems important toexamine [*499] EPA's analysis of the CAMR for the lessons it might provide for agencies' future efforts toconsider environmental justice in the tribal context.10
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n8http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n9http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n9http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n9http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n10http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n10http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n8http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n9http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=25d3efd3eeb212baa4a61dd839ed5bb4&_docnum=4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=f26b328ebd2282fd032bbeeeb5698583#n10


15/106


Courts must act now

The Supreme Court is at a crossroads: A ruling in favor of the environment is critical to

prevent a court shift to corporate interests.

Walsh July 14(2008, Bryan, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822528,00.html)

We've already seen the power the Court has over global warming legislation. In April of 2007, the Courtshocked the Bush Administration when it ruled against the federal government in the landmark case of

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The state was pushing the EPA to regulategreenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act; the agency denied it had that right. To the surprise ofmany, the White House not the least, the Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts, issuing a majority opinionthat the EPA did have the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that under the Clean Air Act, itneeded to do so. That decision helped push the Bush Administration, kicking and screaming, toward climatechange action, and provided momentum for individual states like California looking to pass their own carboncaps.That case might make the current Court appear hospitable to environmentalists. ButMassachusetts v. EPAwas another of the Court's many 5-4, bitterly divided rulings, with both Justice Scalia and Chief Justice JohnRoberts dissenting from the majority. Those two happen to be the Justices whom McCain says he would likehis possible future Court nominees to emulate. "One more conservative on the Court and [the Massachusetts]

case would have likely gone the other way," says Kendall. "You have to think about what's going to happento the composition of the Court over the next eight years."Conservative voters who oppose what they see as heavy-handed government regulation in the environmenthave every reason to push for McCain, because Obama's nominations would likely halt that rightward slide.But Kendall notes that while Republicans traditionally place a high value on the fate of the Court whenvoting for Presidents, Democratic voters are less likely to do the same. "I don't think progressives in generalunderstand how much is at stake in the Court," he says. "They're used to the Court coming out generally intheir favor, and they don't realize how big a deal it is if the Court starts radically limiting access to ensureenvironmental protections."The most complacent of environmentalists should have received a wake-up call last month, when theJustices, by a 5-3 decision, drastically reduced the punitive damages awarded to victims of the Exxon Valdezoil spill from $5 billion to $500 million. That decision could have a chilling effect on punitive damagesoverall. "It's potentially a very sweeping ruling against the effort to hold corporations accountable for

environmental damage and misconduct," says Kendall. "Already the court is favoring corporate interests, andit could clearly get worse."


16/106


Solvency Courts thorough

( ) Court best protects public health and security.

PC 8(Pew Center on Global Climate Change,http://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfm)The EPA argued that it was not given the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 or other greenhouse

gases. The Court challenged the EPAs refusal to regulate CO2 as an air pollutant under the statute. The Courtfound that CO2 fits within the statutes broad definition of an air pollutant. Further, the Court stated that EPAidentifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPAs power to treat greenhouse gases as air

pollutants. In its case, the EPA argued that regulating CO2 would require regulating fuel economy standards,which according to the EPA is under the purview of the Department of Transportation. The Court countered theEPA by recognizing that multi-agency efforts can indeed overlap when addressing an issue as important as globalclimate change: The fact that DOTs mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards mayoverlap with EPAs environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the publichealth and welfare. Protecting public health and welfare is a duty mandated by the Clean Air Act.


17/106


Solvency Courts Want Change Now

( ) Courts believe in any change even small dents in the climate battle will make a difference.

PC 8(Pew Center on Global Climate Change,http://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfm)Finally, EPA argued that even if it was granted authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, itwould be unwise to do so at this time, stating that it might conflict with the current administrations effort to

address climate change, particularly with regard to international climate negotiations. The Court found EPAsargument that regulating emissions from the transportation sector might hamper the Presidents ability to

persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions to be insufficient. Rather, according to the Court, Areduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens

elsewhere. Further, the Court ruled that under the Acts clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations onlyif it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonableexplanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. Finally, the Courtfound unreasonable EPAs argument that regulation of CO2 in the transportation sector would not make

significant reductions in emissions, noting that although enforcing regulations may not by itself reverse global

warming, it is the duty of EPA to take such a step in order to slow or reduce global warming.


18/106


19/106


Solvency - Policy-Making

The courts engaged in policy -making to institute reform

Freeley 2k[Malcolm, Political Scientist, Berkeley, 2000 (JUDICIAL POLICY MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE, p. 14)]This massive intervention into state corrections was an act of judicial policy making. Over the course of a single

decade, the federal courts fashioned a comprehensive set of judicially enforceable rules from existing

correctional literature, sociology, and their own perceptions of political morality. Such a new code of legal rules,inspired by general moral and empirical considerations and derived from a model that had been hovering nearbut had not yet appeared upon any accepted agenda, is a typical product of the policy-making process, not verydifferent from a stature or an administrative regulation. Indeed, it corresponds closely to John Kingdom'sanalysis of the way that ambient ideas e placed on the policy agenda.

The courts engaged in policy-making

Freeley 2k[Malcolm, Political Scientist, Berkeley, 2000 (JUDICIAL POLICY MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE, p. 8-19)]The final belief about interpretation that: conflates it with policy-making is the judges' own argument, the onethat the Senate hears from Supreme Court nominees: 'It would be wrong for judges to make policy and we don'tdo it. All we do is interpret the law. Of course, some judges misbehave, as is inevitable: with any group of people,but those judges, will be overruled. To describe policy making as a category of judicial thought is like describingfor correctional policy. during the course of the prison reform process, the federal courts developed, or made

up, those standards, right down the wattage in the light bulbs.

The courts can establish detailed rules and proceedings

Freeley 2k[Malcolm, Political Scientist, Berkeley, 2000 (JUDICIAL POLICY-MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE, p. 18-19)]The federal judiciary's enthusiasm for prison reform has subsided somewhat in recent years,perhaps because ofits own increasing conservatism, perhaps because of its sensitivity to the populaces increasing displeasure withcriminals, and perhaps because many or the worst conditions that previously seared its conscience has beenalleviated. As a result, prison reform may be regarded as an historical event, rather than an ongoing process. Buteven if it is historical, it is not without continuing impact. The decisions of the federal judiciary have established a

comprehensive code of detailed rules and regulations that govern every prison in America, a code that isreflected in state statutes, administrative regulations, and internal prison rules, that is understood by virtually everylawyer and corrections commissioner, and that is monitored by compliance officers in every state department ofcorrections. The fact that two of the Supreme Court's recent prison cases involved claims that a non-smokingprisoner should be protected from secondhand smoke and that a preoperative transsexual prisoner should be

protected from his or her fellow prisoners suggests how extensive the impact of the prison reform cases has

been. The fact that the present Court, which is widely regarded as conservative, sustained both claims, the

second unanimously, suggests the continued vitality of their resuIts, even if forward motion in this field has now

slowed or ceased.

Existence of the administrative state changes the rules-courts can make policy

Freeley 2k[Malcolm, Political Scientist, Berkeley, 2000 (JUDICIAL POLICY MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE, p. 8-19)]

Most significant of all, the modern administrative state embodies the concept of the government as a consciouspolicy maker, rather than a passive adjudicator. The state is held responsible for social problems and is

expected to combat them by developing new governmental programs. Law is a major instrumentality for these

proactive efforts; conversely, these efforts by Congress or by the administrative agencies generate the vastmajority of our laws. Clearly, Congress is not bound by any preexisting set of legal rules or principles, and the

agencies are equally free of anything that the Congressional authorization that empowers them. Thus, if the ruleof law is to survive our modern state, it cannot be defined as it has been defined in judicial context. We mustacknowledge the wholesale creation of new legal doctrine and abandon the notion that the rule of law involves

fidelity to any preexisting legal principles.


20/106


Solvency Policy-Making

5. The court makes policy when it interprets the law

Pacella 2 [Richard, Research Professor in Political Science, 2002 (THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN POLITICS:THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH, p. 1152-3)]

The Court makes policy when it interprets statutory provisions more broadly or narrowly than the legislature

intended. It is truism that all laws need interpretation. The political process, with its multiple veto points,

ensures that laws have vague provisions. Who should be charged with the interpretation of those laws? As manyhave argued, he who interprets the law is tile true lawmaker. Traditionally, that responsibility and power hasfallen to the courts; in effects, that passes important policy-making authority to the courts, even if that is not theintention.

6. The court is less bureaucratic

Pacella 2 [Richard, Research Professor in Political Science, 2002 (THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN POLITICS:THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH, pp. 124-5)]

Finally, judges must respond to the issues that are properly placed on their docket. Through the trial courts and

courts of appeals, judges have mandatory jurisdiction and tackle the controversial and complex issues thatdivide society. They do not have the prerogative that administrators and legislators have in avoiding some

issues. For decades, Congress has been accused of avoiding difficult redistributive issues concentrating on issuesthat spread benefits to their constituents and help them get elected. Chayes believes the judiciary is a lessbureaucratic decision-making process. Judges hear the complete arguments and are the real decision-makers. In thelegislative and executive branches, policy formulation and legitimation are filtered through levels of personal

and committee staff, who are unelected and often do no require confirmation.

7. Judicial policy-making is neutral and unbiased

Pacella 2 [Richard, Research Professor in Political Science, 2002 (THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN POLITICS:THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH, p. 124)]

Some analysts, like Abram Chayes, maintain that thejudiciary has a number of advantages in making public

policy. Judges are arguably more neutral and less affected by partisan influence:, than their legislativecounterparts. Courts can be a favorable forum because judges and justices are more insulated from interest

groups. Judges can be more flexible in responding To the particular factors present in a given case. Remedies canbe constructed to address specific problems in particular cases. Legislation, on the other hand, cant be tailored inthe same way. Statutes tend to paint in broad strokes and require the work of bureaucrats to make them fit particularcircumstances.


21/106


Solvency Judicial Review Good

Judical review prevents the concentration of tyrannical power

CATO Institute 4[HANDBOOK FOR CONGRESS, 2004, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-12.pdf]

The doctrine of separation of powers has been a traditional buffer against such abuse. Requiring advance judicialauthorization of executive actions, followed by judicial review to ensure that those actions have been properlyperformed, shields our liberties from excessive concentrations of power in a single branch of government.

The judiciary must act if an agency promulgates regulations that are in excess of its

authority

Review of Law & Social Change 1 [2000/1, pp. 398-9]Because the judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject [*399]administrative constructions that are contrary to clear congressional intent, n5judicial intervention is necessarywhere an agency promulgates regulations that plainly exceed the scope of the enabling statute. The amended

regulation is at odds both with the plain meaning of the statutory language and with Congress's purposes in

enacting the statute. In addition, the amended regulation violates the very constitutional principles thatCongress intended to be embodied in the statute. Judicial intervention is therefore necessary here.


22/106


Solvency General

The courts have authority to review acts of congress, the executive, and the states.

Biskupic and Witt 97 [Joan and Elder, CQ Supreme Court Writers, 1997 (THE SUPREME COURT AND AMERICANGOVERNMENT, p. 13)]

Federal judicial power includes the power of judicial review -the power to measure the acts of Congress, the actionsof the executive, and the laws and practices of the states against the Constitution and to invalidate those that conflictwith the requirement of that basic national charter.

The court has learned from past mistakes and is as good at policy -making as other actors

Paris 98 [Michael, Government Professor, 1998 (LEVERAGING THE LAW: USING THE COURTS TO BRING ABOUT SOCIALCHANGE, p. 8)]

Overall, case studies from 1970s and 1980s suggest the Court has learned much from earlier failures and that,compared to Congress and other policy bodies, the Court appears to be no more better or worse in its ability to

recognize diverse policy environments, formulate policies, and eventually oversee their implementation.

Courts have made laws for centuries

Pacella 2 [Richard, Research Professor in Political Science, 2002 (THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN POLITICS:THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH, p. 15)]

It is truism that American courts make law; they always have made law, andpresumably they always will. Judgesin medieval England Made law through common law practices. American judges did the same thing. Common lawrefers to laws made by judges that occurred in the absence of any statutory provisions. As legislatures wrote

more laws, there was less common law for judges to make. Lawmaking or policy-making also occurs when

judges fill gaps in existing statures and when they interpret statues, administrative rules and regulations, executiveorders, and previous judicial decisions. Courts make policy when they interpret constitutional provisions ordecide whether an action is conditional. To paraphrase Bishop Hoadley, the person with the authority to interpretthe law is truly the lawgiver. In some senses, interpretation: equals the power to govern.

The court can interpret legislation, treaties, administrative rulings, and the decisions of othercourts

Campbell 1 [Colton, Government Professor, 200I (CONGRESS CONFRONTS THE COURTS, p. 3)]The Court affects Congress whenever justices construe the meaning of the Constitutions, treaties, federal statures,administrative agencies, anti the decisions of federal and state courts.

The courts can interpret existing law

Baum 98 [Lawrence, Law Professor, 1998 (THE SUPREME COURT, p. 3)]Perhaps most important, the Supreme Court makes decisions within a legal framework. While Congress simplywrites new law, the policy choices that the Court faces are framed as interpretations of existing law. In this

respect the Court operates within a constraint from which legislators are free.


23/106


Solvency General

Courts can interpret legislation

Easterling 98 [Kevin, State Justice Institute, 1998 (JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN COURTS, p.3)]For their part, courts affect Congress whenever they construe the meaning of statures. The task is a formidableone in the twentieth century, an age that has produced an "orgy of statue making,"" as Grant Gilmore aptly putit. The New Deal reinforced the importance of legislation, as statues changed from their generally more limitedcharacter to major programmatic law widely affecting public policy in virtually every sector of dailv life.

Court decisions protect key values

Cherminsky 2k[Erwin, Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science, University of Southern California, 2000(MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, May p. 1429)]

Finally, and most importantly, court decisions upholding the Constitution cm protect key values even if no socialchange can be linked to the rulings. For instance, court decisions safeguarding freedom of speech protect therights of individuals to express themselv

gdi+ +courts+cp

Documents