Electric Utility sues New York over CO2 regulation

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/bugs-bunny-debut-1.jpg

“Of course you realize, this means war!” – Bugs

War has been declared in the New York court system over global warming regulation.

Indeck Corinth L.P., which operates the Corinth Generating Station, an electric power plant in Corinth, NY, sued New York stateon January 29, 2009 claiming that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Northeast U.S. is illegal.

Corinth Generating Station -click for interactive view- Source: Microsoft Live Earth

Corinth Generating Station -click for interactive view- Source: Microsoft Live Earth

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Rhode Island have signed on to the RGGI agreement. You can read more about it here at:  http://www.rggi.org/home

This is the simple view of RGGI from their website:

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states will cap and then reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.

States will sell emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI will spur innovation in the clean energy economy and create green jobs in each state.

Indeck Corinth claims that New York’s involvement with RGGI does the following:

  • Is ultra vires and violates the state constitution;
  • Imposes an impermissible tax not authorized by the state legislature;
  • Is arbitrary and capricious as implemented by New York;
  • Is pre-epmted by state and federal regulations;
  • Violates the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and
  • Violates Indeck Corinth’s due process and equal protection rights

See Indeck Corinth’s legal complaint. (PDF)

Indeck Corinth and New York State are now arguing over the venue for the suit. Indeck Corinth wants the suit heard in Saratoga County where it is a major employer. New York wants the suit heard in Albany County where it has home field advantage.

This will be watched intensely by many on both sides of the energy -versus- environment issue.

h/t to Junkscience.com

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon dioxide, Energy. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Electric Utility sues New York over CO2 regulation

  1. FatBigot says:

    Oh what fun we have in store. The sweet stench of litigation. Nothing smells better to a crusty old lawyer.

    No doubt this will be overcome by over-arching Federal legislation imposing even greater charges on electricity generators and rendering otiose what New York and others seek to do. Whether a legal challenge could be mounted to any such Federal legislation is far beyond my knowledge, although it seems unlikely. Nonetheless I will enjoy the show while it lasts.

  2. Poptech says:

    All people need to know about Cap & Trade or any other Carbon Tax is that it will cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket.

    Obama: “Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates To Skyrocket”

    Lets hope they win this case.

  3. Dave Wendt says:

    It’s too bad that the complaint doesn’t seem to raise a factual challenge to the AGW nonsense underlying all these anti-carbon boondoggles. If it had the case might have finally brought Gore and Hansen et al to place where they had to stand up to a real cross examination.

  4. Adam Ruth says:

    “mandatory, market-based”

    I know what those two terms mean, but together they are meaningless.

  5. Smokey says:

    I’m in agreement with the posters here. FatBigot echos my feelings: “Oh what fun we have in store.”

    If by hook or by crook Messers Hansen, Gore, Mann, et al. could be lassoed into the inevitable depositions, it would be almost more fun than a mortal being could endure!

    But I would be willing to risk it.

  6. Gary says:

    We New England citizens have a bad habit of making our situations worse. Not everybody, just a significant majority are easily stampeded into these boondoggles. It’s already expensive to live here so what do we do as our economy gets bad? We make it worse. Bizarre.

  7. Mike Bryant says:

    Smokey,
    Hmmmm… “crook Messers Hansen, Gore, Mann”.
    An excellent title for that trio… they HAVE made a crooked mess of things, haven’t they?
    Mike

  8. savethesharks says:

    People like to bash attorneys. But…in the most important hour….they can turn out to be your best friend.

    But I want that big bully that everyone bashes….on my side…in the day of reckoning….if he is on the side of truth.

    So if the battle is not fought in the august halls of the university and the science labs….and if it takes LITIGATION to call on the carpet the likes of the Gore-Holdren-Hansen axis of evil…then so be it.

    Give em HELL!!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  9. Ric Werme says:

    Gary (18:48:46) :

    We New England citizens have a bad habit of making our situations worse. Not everybody, just a significant majority are easily stampeded into these boondoggles. It’s already expensive to live here so what do we do as our economy gets bad? We make it worse. Bizarre.

    Could be worse, we could be in California. :-)

    This just in:

    For Immediate Release
    Contact: Jim Rubens, Union of Concerned Scientists, 603-359-3300
    World Renowned Climate Scientist,
    Dr. James Hansen
    will speak to the public and state legislature

    This Thursday, April 2 11:00 – 12:00
    Representatives Hall, in the State House 107 N Main Street, Concord

    Free and open to all members of the public

    Don’t miss this tremendous opportunity!

    Dr. Hansen’s address will be followed by legislator and audience Q&A.

    Dr. Hansen will speak on very recent advances in climate science and the resulting increase in the urgency for action. The title of his address is: “Threat of Climate Disruptions: Implications for Energy Policy and Intergenerational Justice.” He will be speaking as a private citizen, not a government employee.

    Unfortunately, I can’t make it. Sigh. Apparently this is not an address to NH’s legislature, there is no mention of it in either the House or Senate calendars.

  10. Federal Regulations will win the day, the RGGI and WCI both were about to run into federal oversight via the EPA anyways.

    BC is a member of the WCI and US Federal regulation will save us from participating, thanks USA for electing a environmentalist while we defeated all three running in our Federal Election!

    That Said

    Here in BC we have the ICE (Innovative Clean Energy) levy on our CO2 free Hydro Electric power to combat climate change. How is that for a tax grab? A fee on clean renewable energy to fund clean renewable energy.

  11. savethesharks says:

    Rob Bateman…..Mr. Troublemaker…..you live out there [Cali is a small state LOL]…..you’d better be there.

    ;)

    Chris

  12. Mike Strong says:

    “World Renowned Climate Scientist, Dr. James Hansen” ???

    *ahem* Let me clear my …hmgmgmgmgm….throat: “What?!!!” Does that term “world renowed” mean famous or infamous?

    Enter P.T. Barnum…for those of us who are old enough to remember snake oil and showmen…

    Okay…snip me for being sarcastic.

    James. Please retire before another blizzard surrounds the Dakotas and you discover the global sea ice is just fine.

    Reply: ¿por qué? ~ carlos the moderator

  13. Robert Bateman says:

    I’m working on that day. Yeah, it’s a big state, and a 6 hour drive to Concord.
    Let Mr. Hansen show his face up here, and the music of a brutal cold wind.
    Cap & Trade is a disaster for the US economy, and a death sentence for Calif. in particular.
    After Sacramento’s latest rounds of gas taxes, income taxes and sales taxes, this is a back breaker.
    Our two Senators are hopelessly washed away with the hogwash of AGW.
    There is only 1 way to fight this thing, and that is take it to the Supreme Court.
    As for Mr. Geitners statement, he hasn’t scientific clue #1. You can hand all the incentives, penalties and edicts down you want to. It won’t make one bit of difference. All energy on Earth comes from 2 sources: Stellar Fusion and Gravitational.
    Even Fission comes from elements forged in a Nova, as normal fusion in stars stops at Iron. Winds shift. Biomass need photosyntehtis (and they wan’t to suck all the CO2 out of the atmostphere!), solar needs expensive investment and location, hyrdro needs rainfall from water evaporated by the Sun, and finally, fossil fuels are ancient biomass.
    No Exit. Use the reserves we have wisely.
    Energy Conservation is the only answer.
    No taxation without representation, and our represetatives are not listening.
    Start the recalls.
    It’s the Sun, stupid.
    AGW Cap & Trade is a speeding bus going the wrong way of the freeway.

  14. Leon Brozyna says:

    mandatory, market-based?

    Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

    Since when is something market-based if actions taken are done so at the point of a gun?

  15. John Trigge says:

    Maybe the power companies should close down their generators due to not being competitive with the subsidised green energy alternatives. Then let’s see how the public reacts and how many of these bureaucrats retain their jobs.

  16. savethesharks says:

    World Renowned Climate Scientist, Dr. James Hansen” ??? *ahem* Let me clear my …hmgmgmgmgm….throat: “What?!!!” Does that term “world renowed” mean famous or infamous?

    …More like world renowned “ASTRONOMER” at best. But that is a side issue. Or is it??

    How is the world’s leading “authority” on climate change….the person that effectively controls the IPCC data….an astronomer???

    Should give one pause…..BIG pause…..

  17. savethesharks says:

    Rob….love that troublemaker aspect. Keep it going….

  18. Robert Bateman says:

    They are not thinking any of this through.
    We all know what Hansen’s is after: He said it loud and clear.
    Shut down all the coal plants in the US.
    All of them.
    It could not have come at a worse time.
    The Sun, out to lunch, will throw it’s monkeywrench into alternative energy.
    It’s okay to dump industrial waste in New York, but don’t you dare breathe out any CO2.
    You might feed a tree or a tomato.

  19. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) says:

    John Trigge (20:45:53) : hey darn it what i want to say…..
    get some cahunies and shut it down for 3 days…. just enough to run out of gasoline, food, and get the riots started.
    They just have no clue as to what they are f–n with not one iota….
    God save us!

  20. Newsletter from my (coal-fired) power company: Costs are up because of 200 megawatts of wind generation added, which requires addition of more coal-fired capacity for back up, because “the wind doesn’t alway blow”. Not only will they have to deal with Cap and Trade taxes, but also have to maintain dual facilities even if they convert partially to renewables. The cost of energy is shortly going to be beyond what our economy or we consumers can bear. The Corinth litigation is probably going to take 10 years. I don’t think we have the time to wait.

  21. Mike Lorrey says:

    All you need to know about cap and trade is this: General Electric owns CBS and some movie studios and has been pimping AGW and C&T to the public, and lobbying congressmen, hoping to force electric rates up nationwide.

    GE is producing all the generators for T Boone Pickens’ giant windfarms.

    Neither GE nor Pickens wants to pay for the massive expansion in the Grid needed to handle a massive increase in electric capacity coming from windfarms in remote areas, so they are also lobbying congress to charter a “Green Bank”, funded with $70 billion tax dollars, that will finance the grid expansions that GE and Pickens will profit off of.

    Pickens of course is a Peak Oiler while GE is an AGW alarmist. Despite IPCC projections requiring we burn 10 times more oil over the 21st century than the peak oilers claim is in the ground, Pickens, GE, and the Club of Rome that created both mutually contradictory theories dont have any problem believing two impossible things at the same time, so long as they get us to pay for it.

  22. KimW says:

    Is it true that Obama intends to get 900 Billion in Cap and Trade taxes to offset his Super Budget ?. If so, there is no hope of any introduction of commonsense into the AGW hysteria. Indeed, it is even more likely that the politicans will stick with it and ride the scam all the way down – they think that they are committed – I wish they were and in a padded cell.

  23. Ray B says:

    Here in WI it is a common thing for the enviros to jack up the power companies on just about every little decision. The greenies have gained millions in slush funds for their efforts, and forced all kinds of silly and horribly expensive stuff on the power companies, all under the threat of litigating endlessly over every possible detail. They are quite successful at it.

    Personally I think that a RICO extortion suit would slow them down a little, and is quite fitting. What they are doing is nothing less than an organized extortion ring, and should be treated as such, feel-good cause or not. The suit would be a slam dunk, and damages would be monumental. We might even get an inch closer to a sane energy policy.

    Barring a positive outcome, I would like to see at least one power company give notice that,

    “We have come to the decision that the easiest way to comply with the government mandated 20% CO2 reductions was to disconnect known environmental/AGW groups and their supporters from power company service. Subsequently the CO2 targets will be met by the people that wanted them, and it will be done with no cost to the balance of our our customers.”

    Energy=Prosperity
    Tax=To Impede
    Tax energy=Impede prosperity

    RJB

  24. JimB says:

    “Mike Bryant (18:51:49) :

    Smokey,
    Hmmmm… “crook Messers Hansen, Gore, Mann”.
    An excellent title for that trio… they HAVE made a crooked mess of things, haven’t they?
    Mike”

    Axis of Evil?

    Hey…someone had to say it…it was just hanging there, like a chad.

    JimB

  25. JimB says:

    “KimW (23:00:41) :

    Is it true that Obama intends to get 900 Billion in Cap and Trade taxes to offset his Super Budget ?. If so, there is no hope of any introduction of commonsense into the AGW hysteria. Indeed, it is even more likely that the politicans will stick with it and ride the scam all the way down – they think that they are committed – I wish they were and in a padded cell.”

    Yes, that is true….discussion in the Pielke post on this.

    JimB

  26. Sean says:

    I live in Maryland, one of the states in the RGGI. There is a skitzophrenic (SP?)character to politicians when it comes to energy in states that embrace climate change solutions like this. On the one hand they want to do everything they can to mitigate greenhouse gases so they sign up for RGGI and other energy initiatives which work to encourage conservation and develop new energy alternatives by raising the cost of fossile fuel energy. At the same time, they are the protector of the little guy and want to make certain the changes they make won’t affect jobs or the cost of electricity. So far they get away with it by essentially saying its the power provider who is raising prices and blaming excessive profits and bonuses for peoples bills. Never mind that the rates charged cannot be changed until approved by the public service commision and the rates allowed are based on the cost to produce power. I think people will eventually catch on but California, which leads the way in this insanity, watched its main electricity provider go bankrupt because of poorly thought out semi-regulation which allowed costs to rise at market rates but forced power prices at the end users outlets to remain the same. If you really get into the lawsuit in NY, you’ll find that is the heart of the problem. They do not have a mechanism raise prices as costs increase.

  27. old construction worker says:

    Robert Bateman (20:38:22) :
    ‘I’m working on that day.’

    Maybe we could pool our money and hire ACORN to protest Hansen. LOL

  28. Tom in Florida says:

    Ray B (01:29:08) : “We have come to the decision that the easiest way to comply with the government mandated 20% CO2 reductions was to disconnect known environmental/AGW groups and their supporters from power company service. Subsequently the CO2 targets will be met by the people that wanted them, and it will be done with no cost to the balance of our our customers.”

    What a great idea!!!!

    BTW, Florida has no state income tax, lot’s of sunshine, great fishing, golf weather year round, three NFL teams, two MLB teams, two NHL teams and two NBA teams, some of the best college football in the Country, housing prices near rock bottom and Disneyworld. If you are remotely contemplating a move south, now is the time before the rush starts. You just have to get used to an occasional hurricane or two.

  29. Ric Werme says:

    Robert Bateman (20:38:22) :

    I’m working on that day. Yeah, it’s a big state, and a 6 hour drive to Concord.
    Let Mr. Hansen show his face up here, and the music of a brutal cold wind.

    Yikes! I hadn’t noticed that the reference to Concord wasn’t followed by New Hampshire! Sorry ’bout that.

    I fear there isn’t enough time for Robert to drive here and be on time, but if he were to show up, I’d be happy to take him out to dinner.

    There’s a State House in Concord, CA? I would’ve guessed Sacramento. :-)

    Thursday may be the warmest day of the year (so far) here. Dr. Hansen was looking pretty exhausted when I saw him a month ago in Atlanta just before the Capitol Hill power plant protest. Perhaps the Hansen effect batteries are still recharging.

  30. Garacka says:

    I emailed my state Governor back in about September when they had their 1st auction to suggest he get the state out of this. I even suggested the State could be subject to risks of litigation. Well what do you know? I think I’ll send him a follow-up.

    BTW, I got no response the 1st time.

  31. Russ says:

    If people screamed loudly at $4/gallon gasoline, how much more loudly are they going to scream when 20% of their income is going to energy in the form of a carbon tax.

    I love the Ray B idea about disconnecting the environmental/AGW from their utility service.

  32. tmtisfree says:

    There was a post recently on Prometheus by Roger Pielke, Jr. about the lack of transparency of RGGI.
    Link:

    I can only conclude that RGGI is in reality a tax…

    Bye,
    TMTisFree

  33. Garacka says:

    Ray B (01:29:08) ,

    In a more perfect world, a U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit against the hoaxsters would work, but it appears that this whole issue will be resolved politically.

    I do think that, perhaps, to mitigate the effects of future technical hoaxes being used to push “agendas”, some sort of punitive action is needed. Perhaps political punishment will be sufficient.

  34. Ed Scott says:

    James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, Andrew Weaver, IPCC
    Bogeymen of the C02 hoax losing ground

    By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, March 30, 2009

    You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer

    James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), and Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, made statements clearly designed to frighten people.

    Both men are politically active in climate change and at the forefront of the attempt to convince the world that CO2 is a problem. Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new – except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing. As Andrew Weaver summarized, ”All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.”

    Hansen increases urgency for action claiming we are on the verge of a tipping point, defined as follows. “Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming.”

    We’re reaching a tipping point, but it’s not the one Hansen anticipates. We’re close to the point where the public and politicians realize they have been totally deceived about the nature and cause of climate change. Even before a shift to concern about the economy polls showed a growing shift in public opinion.

    Weaver is also troubled by his own definition of dramatic change occurring. He wrote in a March 24 article, in the Vancouver Sun, “There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming.”

    Yes, it’s depressing but because people are not fooled any more and politicians are not acting as Weaver expects. And yes, emerging data is going from bad to worse, but only because it shows CO2 is not causing warming.

    Other remarks by both men indicate their fear. For example, Hansen said, “The democratic process doesn’t seem to be working.”

    It’s a bizarre comment from a civil servant prior to his apparently breaking US law (the Hatch Act) again by participating in a public protest at the headquarters of E.ON, a power firm in Coventry, England. The push for elimination of CO2 emissions is failing because, despite his histrionics, democracy is working.

    A few days later in the Vancouver Sun article ironically titled “’Environmentalists’ are abandoning science,” Weaver wrote, “The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.”

    Weaver claims he and his IPCC colleagues “have been as a clear as we know how about the science and the measures needed.” This is simply not the case. Their rules mean they only look at human causes of climate change. They produce a political summary for policymakers then used to make sure the science report agrees with the summary. (Canada Free Press)

    More important, the entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can’t work.

    It’s not surprising Hansen and Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, “They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” However, “If we persevere patiently with observing the real world and improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the politicians and the public: don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.”

    Or as Pierre Gallois put it, “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it,” but more and more people are criticizing it.

    Why have two prominent scientists made such unsupportable sensationalist comments? Simple – they’re losing control of their ability to achieve their political objectives. Here is a list of events raising their fears.

    Even the lowest computer model temperature projections have overestimated the reality. They failed to project the cooling that has occurred since 2000.
    That cooling occurred as CO2 levels rose in complete contradiction to IPCC assumptions.
    Scientists doing proper science yet derogatively labeled skeptics by Hansen and Weaver have consistently shown the fallacy in the assumptions and methods of the IPCC.
    The Kyoto Accord has failed and attempts to find a replacement are failing.
    Proponents of the claims of human induced global warming, such as Al Gore, have lost credibility by making money from the sale of carbon credits.
    Increasingly illogical statements, such as the claim that current cooling is due to warming, raise doubts even if you don’t understand the science.
    More and more politicians, such as Northern Ireland’s Sammy Wilson and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus are speaking out against global warming claims.
    The real cost of reducing CO2 emissions and the inadequacies of alternative fuels are emerging.
    The public does not see warming as a concern. A Pew Center poll of January 22, 2009 showed it 20th on a list of 20 top priorities. On March 25, 2009 the Gallup Poll reported, “Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”
    The growing lack of commitment of the Obama government who they believed would implement their policies. Hansen notes, “he was growing “concerned” over the stance taken by the new US administration on global warming.”
    Instead of accepting that their science and proposed actions are wrong they blame the people. Hansen’s comment that democracy isn’t working means it is not doing what he wants. Weaver’s remark that, “The public debate is becoming a caricature” is an arrogant insult and sadly typical of my experience with too many of the climate modelers. The people whose fears and lack of knowledge they exploited and who they thought were too stupid to understand are using democracy to stop the fraud. Hansen and Weaver’s comments disclose their fears as Hoffer predicted.

  35. Texas Aggie says:

    This tort could be the 21st Century equivalent of Scopes vs State (TN).

    Imagine a discovery process compelling Hansen to discharge his formulae, as the plaintiff’s counsel attack the regulation for being based upon a fraud.

    This is the debate they NEVER wanted and perhaps now cannot avoid.

    I hope every entity fed up with this AGW nonsense files amicus curiae.

  36. Robert Bateman says:

    A really neat trick would be to get a sample or two of coal from the Pittsburg/Antioch Calif. deposits, a couple of geologists, anthropologists and confront Hansen in Concord with a question: What was the place like when this fossilized biomass was formed, the animals & plants and the atmosphere, climate etc?

  37. AnonyMoose says:

    Of course, in an image on WUWT I look for a Stevenson screen. But that thing by the river is about 15 feet across (and zoomed in it becomes the wrong shape). Scrolling west is a waste water plant, but no MMTS visible.

  38. Mark K says:

    Discovery will be interesting when the utility demands the algorithms of any climate models used as evidence.

  39. Robert Freerks says:

    I found this on Dr. Roy Spencer’s website and wanted to verify the information:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

    Mr. Gore Recants
    Wednesday, April 1st, 2009
    In an unprecedented about-face, Al Gore last night recanted his claim that mankind is causing global warming. The announcement was made late Tuesday night from his Nashville home through his press secretary. Mr. Gore has remained unavailable for comment. In part, the announcement reads:

    “While I will continue to support the development and rapid deployment of alternative energy technologies, I believe that the science can no longer support the view that catastrophic global warming is probable. This decision has required considerable soul searching on my part. But this is the nature of science, and scientific progress. I have no regrets over the path I have chosen.”

    The announcement says that Mr. Gore will be publicly renouncing his portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him in 2007 for his tireless efforts to raise global awareness of the climate crisis. In fact, he will no longer be referring to the fight against a ‘climate crisis’, but instead the fight will continue against a “global energy crisis”.

    “The need for inexpensive and readily available energy is the most important issue facing the world’s poor”, the statement reads, “and I will be advocating free market approaches to the leaders of Third World countries in order to allow their citizens to enter and contribute to the 21st Century global economy.”

    There is also the hint that he is considering returning his Academy Award for best documentary, although he hopes that a new movie category (best movie, science fiction) will be created to accommodate his highly acclaimed motion picture on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

    This admissions is too good to not verify before discussing further.

    Regards

    REPLY: This is an April fools joke, ignore it. – Anthony
    Bob

  40. Indiana Bones says:

    Smokey (18:47:16) :

    “I’m in agreement with the posters here. FatBigot echos my feelings: “Oh what fun we have in store.”

    If by hook or by crook Messers Hansen, Gore, Mann, et al. could be lassoed into the inevitable depositions, it would be almost more fun than a mortal being could endure!”

    And imagine the entertainment for us IMmortal beings!

  41. D Caldwell says:

    As soon as the everyday folks on Main Street wake up and realize what this will do the cost and reliability of their utilities, they will begin to elect State and Federal legislators with a bit of common sense.

  42. Roger Sowell says:

    Cap and trade for electric utilities is not all bad. Mostly bad, but not all bad.

    Indeck Corinth is in a bad position because they already use the most efficient technology to generate power, a combined-cycle gas turbine, CCGT. This is what California law mandates for all new gas-fired power plants (excepting of course the peaker plants, but that is a different story).

    Indeck Corinth has very few options to reduce their carbon emissions, which places them at a disadvantage from the get-go. No wonder they are unhappy.

    Where the cap and trade may make sense is for a coal-fired power plant to be replaced with a CCGT. The low cost of coal is offset by the higher efficiency of the CCGT. Also, the coal-fired plant has a higher capital cost for all the coal-handling equipment, the particulate scrubbers, and SOx removal. The reduction in CO2 by replacing coal power with CCGT is rather large. These carbon reductions are worth a lot of money these days.

    California is a participatant in the Western Climate Initiative, an agreement among several western states and Canadian provinces that will be similar to RGGI. Details are yet to be formalized.

    http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/Index.cfm

  43. Steven Hill says:

    It has nothing to do with CO2, it’s all about taxes, taxes and more taxes to support the spend, spend, spend agenda. My advice to everyone is stop buying cars and wait until we see what the new Government Motors Corp. laws are regarding MPG standards. You may find yourself paying a CO2 gas tax on some types of transportation. Obama is so far left that Europe thinks he is crazy.

  44. Ron de Haan says:
  45. Ron de Haan:
    It sounds logical that in order to make possible a world government the US should “near third world status” as the article of your link says.
    All this seems like SF, or better, like political fiction of the 50´s.
    Well, we´ll see what happens in the real world. Hope the old and faithful Sun will keep on spoiling Gwrs. most maddening wishes.

  46. DaveE says:

    I’m curious.

    How much ‘clean renewable’ energy is bought?

    How much is generated?

    If you only want ‘clean renewable’ energy, does your supply get cut off when the wind isn’t blowing?

    DaveE.

  47. Once again: SOx removal, and CO2 removal is done through scrubbing with milk of lime, which, in turn it is obtained by calcining CaCO3 (burning it using fossil fuels) and emitting CO2 to the atmosphere (like crazy dogs running after their tails!). In case of SOx it can be turned also into H2SO4 (sulphuric acid). There could be other more sophisticated and expensive methods, like reducing SOx to elemental sulphur but, again, using a lot of energy.
    All this business is out of reason.
    I insist, my guess is, that the “public” thinks of CO2 as being a “dark stuff” not the transparent gas we all exhale. As for SO2, they ignore, also, that the most humble volcanic eruption produces more SO2 than many refineries in their whole existence.

  48. Dave Wendt says:

    Tom in Florida (04:08:42) :

    Since GoreHansenMann the Manbearpig has established that warm is bad and cooler is better, I’m puzzled that we don’t see more of you Florida folk flying up here to spend your Winter vacations with us friendly folks in Minnesota.

  49. Jack Simmons says:

    From today’s Denver Post:

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/

    Last Saturday night, four of us were going to the Denver Performing Arts Complex. We decided to do the “green” thing and take light rail. When we punched in four round-trip tickets at Southmoor, the machine asked for $28. After hearing that, I volunteered to drive. My gas-sipping car used less than a gallon ($2), and it cost $5 to park. Total savings: $21. That’s the kind of green you can feel in your wallet.

    Wayne Yaffee, Denver

    This letter was published in the April 1 edition.

    People do not want to pay more for green energy. There won’t be any cap and trade or carbon tax. People will let their representatives know, in no uncertain terms, they do not want to pay more for energy. Increasing energy bills could become the new third rail in politics.

  50. Rob says:

    The Thune Amendment

    By Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus

    The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade that results in actual emissions reductions died an early death last night. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:

    To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.

  51. old construction worker says:

    Roger Sowell
    ‘Cap and trade for electric utilities is not all bad. Mostly bad, but not all bad.’
    Cap and trade for electric utilities is all bad. A national CO2 tax will add 2.9 trillion dollars (Wall Street Journal) to cost of goods and services in the U.S. The total U.S. federal income tax for 2007 was estimated at 1.7 Trillion Dollars.
    Washington does not need a new revenue stream. Our government already tax us very which way but loose. It can give business any type of tax credit it wants.
    What will the CO2 Cap and Trade do? It takes the tough decision on “rate” increase out of realm of the House and Senate, and put it in hands of a regulator without any review.
    Or simple put, “taxation without representation”.
    I was reading an article the other day about Spain’s CO2 Cap and Trade/Green energy policy. Their CO2 emission control has cost Spain 5.9 jobs for every job created by Green energy.

  52. E.M.Smith says:

    Robert Bateman (20:38:22) : After Sacramento’s latest rounds of gas taxes, income taxes and sales taxes, this is a back breaker.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/csd-california-socialism-disorder/

    Being taken nationwide by Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein …

    No Exit. Use the reserves we have wisely.
    Energy Conservation is the only answer.

    There is no energy shortage and no need to conserve. Ever.

    chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

  53. Tom in Florida says:

    Dave Wendt (14:54:02) : “to Tom in Florida (04:08:42) :

    Since GoreHansenMann the Manbearpig has established that warm is bad and cooler is better, I’m puzzled that we don’t see more of you Florida folk flying up here to spend your Winter vacations with us friendly folks in Minnesota.”

    If cooler is better, why have humans evolved a body temperature of 98.6F?
    If cooler is better, why does the human body die if the core temperature goes below 80F?
    If humans evolved from cold climates, why do we have sweat glands?
    Enquirering minds want to know.
    Warmer is not only better, it is truly the natural state for humans to be in.

    FWIW, I am aware that, how shall I say it, more volumous humans do not lose heat as quickly as those that are less volumous and perhaps find warm a bit more uncomfortable. Right Big Al?

  54. E.M.Smith says:

    Adolfo Giurfa (13:40:03) : Once again: SOx removal, and CO2 removal is done through scrubbing with milk of lime, which, in turn it is obtained by calcining CaCO3 (burning it using fossil fuels) and emitting CO2 to the atmosphere (like crazy dogs running after their tails!).

    Ooh! Good Point!

    I insist, my guess is, that the “public” thinks of CO2 as being a “dark stuff” not the transparent gas we all exhale. As for SO2, they ignore, also, that the most humble volcanic eruption produces more SO2 than many refineries in their whole existence.

    Unfortunately, Adolfo, my observation has been that the “public” by and large does not think at all. They simply do not want to be bothered at all with anything that involves thinking. Their major desire is to do what they must at work, and get out as quickly as possible, to then play as much as possible with the minimum intrusion of reality possible.

    This is not related to intelligence, either. I have a Mensa member friend who really does not like it when I make him think about AGW… he is much more interested in playing with robots… My family is a bunch of fairly bright folks: primarily interested in hot cars, new cloths, days at the beach, ice hockey, what movie is out, what’s for dinner, and vacation planning.

    NONE of them thinks about CO2 at all in any context ever and does not want to think about it. It has been delegated and they want to be left alone to pursue their muse. I’ve seen the same thing in most other folks I’ve met.

    THAT is the problem. This battle will be fought between the 2% or so on each side that has an interest in it and the outcome will be determined by their relative abilities to influence law, media, and government (not by the validity of their arguments.)

  55. E.M.Smith says:

    D Caldwell (09:11:04) : As soon as the everyday folks on Main Street wake up and realize what this will do the cost and reliability of their utilities, they will begin to elect State and Federal legislators with a bit of common sense.

    In California this took about 5 years and at the end of it we got rid of Grey Davis and got AahNold who is pro-AGW mania. Are you sure this is going to work?…

  56. Roger Sowell says:

    old construction worker:

    You are right that it is better to leave cap and trade alone. But that is not going to happen. We have had cap and trade schemes (laws) for many years, one on the East Coast for NOx and SOx, and one on the West Coast (SCAQMD area in and near Los Angeles) for NOx and PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns size). They worked, after a fashion, reducing acid rain on the East Coast, and smog on the West Coast.

    The carbon cap-and-trade will be with us, whether we (the little people) want it or not. So, the best way for a utility to participate is as I wrote above, shut down a coal-fired plant, replace it with a CCGT, and sell the carbon credits in the marketplace. One has to wonder, though, where all the natural gas will be found. Imported as LNG, some, and domestic, some. But the natural gas pipelines are barely adequate or inadequate on the East Coast during winter as it is. Pushing more natural gas through them to keep the power plants running will be rather difficult.

    Gas pipelines are funny critters. After a certain point, one just cannot shove more gas through the thing. No amount of government legislation will overcome the basic laws of physics. Pipelines win, every time.

    The alternative for coal-power plants is to capture and sequester the CO2 from the exhaust stack. As I wrote on another thread, the cost for this increases the power price between 2.5 and 4 cents per kwh. Not too bad, really, when one learns that replacing the plant with a nuclear power plant will increase the cost of power by 25 to 30 cents per kwh.

    Most engineers know these things, and see them as obvious. Now, if we can only convince the politicians…

    Anybody have any ideas on that one?

  57. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Roger Sowell (17:59:18) :

    (… lots of space clearing… original post above.)

    The carbon cap-and-trade will be with us, whether we (the little people) want it or not. So, the best way for a utility to participate is as I wrote above, shut down a coal-fired plant, replace it with a CCGT, and sell the carbon credits in the marketplace. One has to wonder, though, where all the natural gas will be found. Imported as LNG, some, and domestic, some.

    Gas pipelines are funny critters. After a certain point, one just cannot shove more gas through the thing. No amount of government legislation will overcome the basic laws of physics. Pipelines win, every time.

    Most engineers know these things, and see them as obvious. Now, if we can only convince the politicians…

    Anybody have any ideas on that one?

    Russia and (I think) Iran have lots of LNG – buy it from there! (…huh?).

    Why do we have to buy into this problem of finding alteranatives to cheap, abundant Coal? I shake my head at this mess.

  58. Roger Sowell says:

    Graeme,

    I am with you in the head shaking over coal-based power. But, being realists, we must comply with our laws, no matter how poorly designed. The fines for failure to comply are large, and our government has the power to shut down a facility for non-compliance.

    Just today, April 1, a new California ordinance went into effect for gasoline dispensers at service stations. Those not in compliance will have their pumps tagged as inoperable and fined approximately $6000 per month. The new ordinance will reduce vapor emissions slightly. The old design captured 95 percent of gasoline vapors, and the new design captures 98 percent. It requires approximately $11,000 per pump to upgrade to the new design. No kidding, folks. All this for 3 percent fewer vapors in the atmosphere!

    http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/2009/rule461factsheetfinal3.pdf

    There was no evidence that refrigerants destroy ozone, but the law was passed and everyone had to switch to more energy-intensive refrigerants.

    This idiocy of mixing ethanol in gasoline does nothing to reduce CO2, as the ethanol production uses as much energy as the car obtains from burning it. Yet the law is there, our gasoline costs more, and here we are. The amount of imported oil saved by our making ethanol for vehicles is so small as to be a joke.

    My solution is to require every step in the ethanol production process to burn nothing but ethanol for energy supply. Then, we would see just how much ethanol is left over to mix with gasoline for the cars. But that is too sensible an approach.

    The US has a number of idiot-laws on the books, each one increasing the cost of goods and services, and providing questionable societal value.

    Just wait until you see our Green Chemistry Initiative — if you have not already. That one will surely end our economy, yet it is coming along with AB 32.

    http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/index.cfm

    The lunacy never ends in this state…

  59. old construction worker says:

    Roger Sowell
    ‘We have had cap and trade schemes (laws) for many years, one on the East Coast for NOx and SOx, and one on the West Coast (SCAQMD area in and near Los Angeles) for NOx and PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns size). They worked, after a fashion, reducing acid rain on the East Coast, and smog on the West Coast.’

    1) Are you saying that cap and trade was only one way to deal with acid rain and smog and that other ways would not have worked better?
    Rightttttt, UK CO2 cap and trade has done wonders reducing their CO2 emissions. NOT. And the money flow is soooo transparent.

    2) Since CO2 is a non toxic, harmless gas, why regulate it at all. If you want to shut down coal fired electric plants, tax coal as it comes out of the ground. Don’t hide behind “CO2 drives the climate” scam.

  60. 3x2 says:

    California – never happy. You are the chosen. Piloting the rest of us into green utopia. Citizens, unemployment is in the mind not in crass figures. Milk, Honey and green jobs for all will be your reward when balance is restored. Have a little faith won’t you.

  61. pyromancer76 says:

    Roger Sowell, cap-and-trade for true pollutants, e.g., NOx and SOx are essential, as is continued technological advances that can capture the pollutants and use or sequester them elsewhere. But CO2 is not a pollutant. As all of us on WUWT know, CO2 is necessary for plant (and animal) life and it just might add a tad more warming to our earth helping us during the coldest times. This scientific tagging of pollutants — from results of numerous real studies — and doing something about them is old fashioned environmentalism and an aspect of the American can-do spirit.

  62. 3x2 says:


    A taste of things to come for the US?

    (UK gov) Our existing climate change policies are projected to add around 18% to annual domestic electricity bills and around 55% to industrial electricity bills by 2020.

    So allowing a little time for that 55% to be passed on to customers via everything else they purchase – that is one hell of a tax hike. Enjoy.

  63. old construction worker says:

    3×2 (05:17:05) :
    (UK gov) Our existing climate change policies are projected to add around 18% to annual domestic electricity bills and around 55% to industrial electricity bills by 2020.
    WOW A total of 73% increase in the cost of electricity.
    Thanks for article

  64. Roger Sowell says:

    old construction worker

    “1) Are you saying that cap and trade was only one way to deal with acid rain and smog and that other ways would not have worked better?
    Rightttttt, UK CO2 cap and trade has done wonders reducing their CO2 emissions. NOT. And the money flow is soooo transparent.”

    Yes, there were/are alternatives to cap and trade. One frequently mentioned is command-and-control, in which government dictates what technology is to be used and by what date. Catalytic converters on cars are one example. CAFE standards for gas mileage on cars is another.

    Another approach is to limit the pollutant at the pipe, or smokestack in this case, via both a concentration limit and an annual tonnage limit. That approach is used in Southern California (and elsewhere) for NOx, among others, by limiting the NOx concentration to around 2 or 3 ppm, and the total tons per year based on the size of the power plant.

    The industries usually lobby for cap-and-trade, as this gives them the most flexibility (and opportunity for mischief). However, some oil companies have argued for the case you put forward, just a simple carbon tax and be done with it.

    ” 2) Since CO2 is a non toxic, harmless gas, why regulate it at all. If you want to shut down coal fired electric plants, tax coal as it comes out of the ground. Don’t hide behind “CO2 drives the climate” scam.”

    My view is the same, CO2 is good for living things. But our law makers tend to listen to some scientists rather than others, and in this case they have chosen to listen to the AGW alarmists. I suspect that all this will change in a few years when coal plants are shut down, nobody can afford to build nukes, the wind stops during winter, and natural gas gets cut off for political purposes during a cold winter. Suddenly domestic supplies of coal will look mighty good! Especially to inland areas far from the sea where wave power might do some good — or might not as it is highly variable.

    I wrote on an earlier thread on WUWT about the unusual cold snap in Texas during winter of 72-73. The local gas supplier ran out of gas and the entire state had to curtail businesses and non-essential services for nearly two weeks, so the residents could stay warm. Texas had no nuclear power in those days, and I believe the coal-fired plants were on-line so we had power, too.

    @3 x 2: re California as the leaders. I live in California, and see how it works…my advice is to never follow where California leads…our demonstrated inability to manage a state budget, keep people employed, keep the populace safe from crime, enforce immigration laws, manage our water resources, provide adequate basic infrastructure, establish rational goals and reduce pollution rationally, extract our mineral resources (oil and gas), to me suggest this is not a place to emulate on any matter. If this state did not have warm weather, sunshine, and lovely scenery, nobody would live here.

    Pyromancer — agreed, some chemicals are potent pollutants and should be regulated. As a chemical engineer, I fully appreciate that. Nobody should ever have to endure hexa-valent-chromium, (from the movie Erin Brokovich), or any of a host of other toxic substances.

    3 x 2 and o.c.w., — never mind those figures! The California Air Resources Board has spoken! The power price will only increase 12 percent by 2020. They have experts that told them so! ( sarc off now)

  65. 3x2 says:

    Roger Sowell

    California (…)
    If this state did not have warm weather, sunshine, and lovely scenery, nobody would live here.

    If this state did not have warm weather, sunshine, and lovely scenery it would be the UK.

    It wasn’t just the figures btw, have a read of the article. As I posted there it seems as though we are being governed by the Southpark Gnomes

  66. old construction worker says:

    Roger Sowell
    ‘But our law makers tend to listen to some scientists rather than others, and in this case they have chosen to listen to the AGW alarmists.’

    Then it’s time to slap politicians upside their collective heads.
    Jam their phone lines, fax lines and send letters. And, let them know you will work to throw the ones who vote for CO2 cap and trade out of office.
    Bottom line
    There are more of us than there are corporations and corporations don’t vote.

  67. Geoff Sherrington says:

    The first act of a person or corporation blessed with money from an impost will be to spend the money on more activities that will use more electricity and gas.

    It is very hard to spend new money on goods and services that do not rely upon fossil fuel.

    How about a competition to name HOW one can spend the handout on a non-GHG activity. (Leave nuclear out for the exercise). Then, when all the suggestions are in, sum them to see if there is any significant reduction of fossil fuel demand.

    Blind Freddie can see that this is just a money churn. Have you ever seen a properly-costed report of the totality of those slippery words “energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI will spur innovation in the clean energy economy and create green jobs in each state.”?

  68. Texas Aggie says:

    “Then it’s time to slap politicians upside their collective heads. Jam their phone lines, fax lines and send letters. And, let them know you will work to throw the ones who vote for CO2 cap and trade out of office. Bottom line: There are more of us than there are corporations and corporations don’t vote.”

    Old Construction Worker, you are correct even more than you may know. Remember the Graham-MCain-Kennedy immigration bill. The one Bush wanted passed? Talk about bipartisan & executive support! Do you know what defeated it? You did; we did…using exactly the same tactics that you propose. It was crazy up here. Insane. It even spilled over into House offices.

    In the end, House members where calling their Senate colleagues and asking them not to vote cloture (in other words keep the debate going endlessly – avoiding a vote). The House heard the voice of the people’s anger directed at the Senate and wanted no part of it. They just wanted the bill to go away.

    When we are ready, when the time is right, we will again focus this wrath. Until then, we must continue to educate.

  69. old construction worker says:

    Texas Aggie (05:53:54) :
    From what I understand they (senate and house) want a CO2 cap and trade bill passed by Memorial Day. So time is short.
    How I’m hearing about a “green bank”. What up with that?

  70. Texas Aggie says:

    OCW, here you go from Financial Times on 2 April:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9b68690-1fbe-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0.html

Comments are closed.