Kristie Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station Ge
734 F.3d 188
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Bell and Luppe sue GenOn’s Cheswick Plant in PA for nuisance, negligence/recklessness, and trespass on a class of at least 1,500 nearby residents.
- Plant operates under Clean Air Act regulation with EPA SIPs and state/local permits; permits govern emissions and require best-available-control-technology where applicable.
- District Court dismissed, holding CAA preempts state common-law tort claims against a pollution source located in-state.
- Issue presented: whether CAA preempts private state-law tort claims against in-state pollution sources; this is a matter of first impression in the Third Circuit.
- Court relies on Clean Water Act preemption precedent (Ouellette) and savings clauses to assess similarity with CAA; holds no preemption of state tort claims; remands for further proceedings.
- Overall holding: CAA does not preempt the state-law nuisance, trespass, or negligence claims; decision reversed and case remanded against GenOn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Clean Air Act a preemption of state common-law tort claims? | Bell argues CAA preempts claims by private plaintiffs. | GenOn contends CAA’s comprehensive scheme bars state tort claims. | Not preempted. |
| Does Ouellette control the preemption analysis under the CAA like it did for the CWA? | Ouellette supports preserving source-state nuisance claims. | Ouellette does not clearly apply to CAA preemption. | Ouellette controls; state law claims survive. |
| Should the political question doctrine bar private nuisance claims given the CAA framework? | Rejected; claims not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1987) (CAA-like presumption of state-law nuisance claims not precluded by federal regulation; savings clauses support state-law remedies)
- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario v. Detroit, 874 F.2d 332 (6th Cir. 1989) (savings clauses indicate state control may supplement federal standards)
- North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. TVA, 615 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (state nuisance actions allowed where they do not frustrate permit regime; cooperation federalism)
- City of Milwaukee v. Illinois & Michigan, 451 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1981) (discusses balance of federal/state interests in multi-state regulatory schemes)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2011) (displacement of federal common law; notes question of state-law preemption remains open)