WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion, or \1.74 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles, or 1,930 kilometers 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 Alaskas Prince William Sound, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The Exxon Valdez supertanker had run aground on a reef. A federal appeals court already had cut in half the $5 billion at the current exchange rate) in damages awarded by a jury 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.

The damages were, by far, the largest ever approved by federal appeals judges, the company said in its brief to the court.

The case probably will be heard in the spring. The courts last ruling on punitive damages, in February, set aside a nearly $80 million judgment against Altria Group Inc.s Philip Morris USA. The money was awarded to the widow of a smoker in Oregon.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.

Exxon said it already has paid $3.4 billion in clean-up costs and other penalties resulting from the oil spill, which killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

“This case has never been about compensating people for actual damages,” company spokesman Tony Cudmore said in a statement. “Rather it is about whether further punishment is warranted…We do not believe any punitive damages are warranted in this case.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom are deceased, said the damages award is “barely more than three weeks of Exxons net profits.” The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses.

The Irving, Texas-based oil company marshaled more than a dozen organizations ranging from groups of shippers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to support its bid for Supreme Court review.

The company argued it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ships captain, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who violated clear company rules when the Exxon Valdez ran aground with 53 million gallons of crude oil in its hold on March 23, 1989.

The plaintiffs said Exxon knew Hazelwood had sought treatment for drinking, but had begun drinking again. “Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters,” they said.

The company has been battling the judgment for over a decade. The company has managed to get the award cut in half from the original $5 billion awarded in 1994 by an Anchorage jury in the class-action suit.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damages because, in part, the company tried to clean up the spill and didnt spill oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez deliberately.

The disaster prompted Congress in 1990 to pass a law banning single-hulled tankers like the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.

Exxon Mobil shares were up $1.61, or about 2 percent, to $93.82 in morning trading.

WASHINGTON: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, hoping to reduce the spiraling costs of cable television, is preparing to strike down thousands of contracts this week that shut out competitors by giving individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service to an apartment building, the agencys chairman says.

The new rule could open markets across the United States to competition.

It would be a huge victory for Verizon Communications and ATT, which have challenged the cable industry by offering their own video services. The two phone companies have lobbied aggressively for the provision. They have been supported in their fight by consumer groups, satellite television companies and small rivals to the big cable providers.

Commission officials and consumer groups said the new rule could significantly lower cable prices for millions of subscribers who live in apartment buildings and have had no choice in selecting a company for paid television. Government and private studies show that when a second cable company enters a market, prices can drop as much as 30 percent.

The change, which is set to be approved Wednesday, is expected to have a particular effect on prices for low-income and minority families. They have seen cable prices rise about three times the rate of inflation over the last decade. A quarter of American households live in apartment buildings housing 50 or more residents, but 40 percent of households headed by Hispanics and African-Americans live in such buildings.

“Exclusive contracts have been one of the most significant barriers to competition,” said Kevin Martin, chairman of the commission, in a recent interview. Cable prices have risen “about 93 percent in the last 10 years,” he said. “This is a way to introduce additional competition, which will result in lower prices and greater innovation.”

The decision is the latest in a series of actions by the commission under Martin to put pressure on cable companies to lower their rates and make their markets more competitive. In December, in a 3-2 decision, the commission approved a proposal by Martin to force municipalities to accelerate the local approval process for the telephone companies to enter new markets. The phone companies had asserted that many municipalities had been delaying approvals, often in the face of cable industry lobbying.

Last month, the commission approved a rule that requires the largest cable companies to provide programs produced by their affiliates to all of their rivals, including the phone companies and satellite television companies. The commission is also considering a proposal to make it less expensive for independent programmers to lease channels from cable companies.

Martin has also pressed the cable companies to offer so-called а la carte plans that would permit subscribers to buy individual channels, or groups of channels, at lower rates than they now pay.

The new rule would shift the bargaining power over cable and broadband services to apartment residents from landlords and tenant associations. It has been long sought by consumer groups as part of a broader effort to cut prices to the roughly 100 million households that pay for access to television.

The change would be an abrupt reversal for the commission, which only four years ago ruled that such exclusive agreements sometimes actually promoted competition by giving landlords the leverage to negotiate for the best terms.

Commission officials said they had prohibited other exclusive contracts involving telecommunications, including those in commercial buildings, but trade groups representing cable companies and building owners have indicated they may challenge the commissions move in court.

Commission officials said the rule aims to put an end to some common practices of landlords and tenant associations that have deprived tenants of choices. They said that in many communities, there has been only one cable provider, and while landlords and tenant associations could select a satellite television provider, the competition from those companies has not led to lower cable prices.

The cable companies have also managed to shut out competition by signing long-term exclusive deals. FCC officials said they hope opening the apartment doors to the telephone companies, which offer the same packages of television, broadband and phone services as the cable companies, will force the cable companies to cut their rates.

ONE of Britain’s biggest pub chains today claimed Edinburgh’s strict licensing laws had stopped it from running more than two pubs in the city centre.

JD Wetherspoon, famous for its cut-price deals, also said the Capital’s booming property market had made it difficult to buy up potential new sites.

Wetherspoon is currently looking to open “three or four” more bars in the Capital - including one planned for South Bridge.

The firm’s chief executive today said the council’s stringent licensing rules had previously forced it to look at other areas of Scotland. And he predicted the controversial new licensing proposals, forcing pubs to provide 50 per cent seating in a bid to cut down on drunken antisocial behaviour, will hit smaller landlords hard.

However, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) today backed the council in its “quality-led not price-led” approach.

John Hutson, chief executive of JD Wetherspoon, said: “We have eight pubs in central Glasgow and only two in central Edinburgh.

“The eight in Glasgow all perform extremely well and, while eight might be over the top in Edinburgh, we are constantly looking for opportunities to develop in the centre and nearby.

“But we don’t want to overpay for properties, and we have not been as successful as we would have liked in finding suitable properties in Edinburgh.

“But licensing is an added complexity. Pub licences are very difficult to achieve if residents are living above the pub, and in Edinburgh this is often the case.”

Although he remained tight-lipped about specific locations, Mr Hutson said that the chain had “three or four” possible sites earmarked in the Capital, including one close to Edinburgh University, another in George Street and the one on South Bridge.

Mr Hutson said he was “hopeful” that at least one or two would open within a year.

Wetherspoon’s currently operates the Standing Order on George Street and The Playfair on Leith Walk, as well as The Foot of the Walk in Leith and two Edinburgh Airport branches.

All have more than two-thirds of their capacity as seating, but Mr Hutson warned the proposed vertical drinking rules would have an impact on other operators.

But Paul Waterson, chairman of the SLTA, backed the city council’s strict licensing policy. He said: “Wetherspoon being able to open a circle around Glasgow’s centre caused a serious problem in encouraging cheap drinking among people and other pubs.

“The superpub phenomena is built on supermarket ethics of ‘get as many in as you can, give them as much drink as you can and get them out again’.

“Edinburgh should be congratulated - there are still too many licences but it is quality-led rather than price-led.”

Councillor Marjorie Thomas, convener of the licensing board, said the authority was open to working with proposals from responsible companies.

She added: “However, we must act in the interests of all those who work, live and relax in Edinburgh. We already have among the highest ratios of licensed premises per head of population in the whole country, if not the highest, so there is no shortage of drinking places.

“Our aim in applying licensing regulations, and our policies, will be to maintain the right balance for the benefit of everyone.”