The Competitive Enterprise Institute announced today that it is acting as co-counsel in a recently filed lawsuit in the state of New York against the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (a state cap and trade program). The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of small business owners in New York State who have faced increased electricity costs, and can be read here (.pdf). The American Spectator has a short write up here. The basis for the suit relies on the fact that elected officials in New York enrolled in the RGGI without approval by the state legislature. New York is the only state involved with RGGI who entered the initiative without approval from its legislature. As RGGI has forced electricity generators to purchase annual carbon allowances, it has raised the price of electricity for New York residents, effectively acting as a tax on electricity producers (those who produce more than 25 megawatts annually) in New York.

As far as its success or failure, the RGGI has faced many of the same problems similar programs have faced around the world. A very low allowance price for carbon will result in very little actual emissions reductions. Much of the ‘on paper’ emissions reductions will be made up by increased emissions in bordering states, as energy intensive industries relocate and electricity producers import energy from out of state. State legislators have raided the funds raised by RGGI and used them for unrelated purposes (the stated goals of RGGI are to use the funds to spur development in energy efficiency measures and increased production of non carbon emitting energy sources). In New York alone,$90 million of the ~$320 million raised by RGGI has been redirected towards budget shortfalls.

New Jersey recently signaled its intention to end its participation. Similar efforts are underway in New Hampshire (though they face a threatened veto by the Governor).

In an editorial cleverly titled, “Drill, Brazil, Drill says the U.S.“The Washington Post joined in the growing public displeasure over President Obama’s public support for the Brazilian oil industry, which seems to be rising at the expense of administration support for the oil industry in the United States.

As CEI’s Myron Ebell pointed out last week:

This is the same President who has spent the last two years doing everything he can to reduce oil production in the United States.  Cancelled and delayed exploration leases on federal lands in the Rocky Mountains; the re-institution of the executive moratorium on offshore exploration in the Atlantic, the Pacific, most Alaskan waters, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico; the deepwater permitting moratorium and the de facto moratorium in the western Gulf.  The result is that domestic oil production is about to start a steep decline.

The editorial also mentions the tariff on ethanol. Trade restrictions are bad policy. However, the case for Brazilian ethanol is slightly more complicated than that. If Brazilian ethanol were imported to the U.S., it might displace some ethanol production that is occurring in the U.S. as historically Brazilian ethanol has been cheaper. This would be fine.

However, much of the consumption of ethanol in the United States is because of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Corn ethanol production will be peaking near its current level of production, because it does not satisfy the cellulosic ethanol nor the advanced biofuel requirements of the RFS. It would need to have much higher GHG emission reductions (as an aside, the ethanol industry is lobbying to change the language of the bill such that corn ethanol would qualify).

Allowing Brazilian ethanol into the U.S. would allow it to fill a steadily increasing “Advanced Biofuel Requirement” in the RFS. If this Advanced Biofuel will be produced expensively in the U.S. at all cost (or the EPA decides to allow corn ethanol to qualify), then the case for allowing cheaper foreign sources of ethanol into the U.S. is compelling. However, if the EPA will continue to cross out mandates when they are impossible to meet, the tariff might actually keep Americans from being forced to buy increasing quantities of a product that couldn’t pass the market test. This depends on the behavior of the EPA in terms of their assessment of how difficult it would be for refiners to meet the mandate.

The Washington Post is correct to push Obama on supporting more production in the U.S., especially with unemployment still so high. The case for ending ethanol is more complicated, overshadowed by government policy forcing Americans to use it while filling up their cars.

My CEI colleague Sam Kazman has a great oped in today’s Wall Street Journal, on how federal regulators are making us dirtier…literally.

Here’s the gist:

In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were “excellent” and five were “very good.” By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were “fair” or “poor.” This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as “often mediocre or worse.”

How’s that for progress?

The culprit is the federal government’s obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren’t as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.

Read the whole thing here.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbmnODQPFcM 285 234]

Richard Morrison, William Yeatman and Ryan Young join forces to bring you Episode 74 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We talk about the COP-15 post-game and China’s changing reputation with the climate change crowd starting around (7:00).

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q8hbQWGqYw 285 234]

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott team up with special guest co-host Tim Carney to bring you Episode 73 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with happenings at COP-15 in Copenhagen and the suppression of Phelim McAleer’s Climategate questions (segment runs 0:45-7:00). We end with an interview with Tim Carney, author of the new book Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses (available online and at fine booksellers everywhere).

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCmDmMbtSb0 285 234]

Your host Richard Morrison teams up with collaborators Jeremy Lott and William Yeatman to bring you Episode 72 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We begin with UN climate hypocrisy in Copenhagen, presidential arm-twisting on health care and a cloudy look at government transparency. We conclude with the end of the tobacco road in Virginia and scandal of banking and nepotism in Venezuela.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C70EK4RfPgA 285 234]