Breaking news of great interest to environmental economists. Why? Because the Exxon Valdez case is one of the first widely known cases where environmental economists were involved in determining the monetary value of damages. Now the Supreme Court will decide if the punitive damages awarded are excessive.
UPDATE: After posting the above this morning I decided to fact check with people who know more than me (aka anyone). I sent a message to Ted McConnell and Alan Randall, both of whom were involved in the original Exxon Valdez natural resource damage assessment for the federal government. Turns out that the NRDA estimates by the Feds and State of Alaska (lead by Richard Carson and Ray Kopp) were--at most--used in an initial out-of-court settlement. The punitive damages in question by the Supreme Court are separate from the NRDA estimates. Anyway, the Exxon Valdez oil spill is back in the news, and that's probably where I should've left it this morning...
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.
The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes in the spillage of 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the worst oil spill in U.S. in 1994.
The justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay any punitive damages at all. If the court decides some money is due, Exxon is arguing that $2.5 billion is excessive under laws governing shipping and prior high court decisions limiting punitive damages.
