“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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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/
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?
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.)
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?…
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
A taste of things to come for the US?
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.”?
“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.
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?
OCW, here you go from Financial Times on 2 April:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9b68690-1fbe-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0.html