Friday, 08 June 2012 10:56

N.J. Being Sued for Rejecting Cap and Trade

Written by 

The state of New Jersey is being sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environment New Jersey for pulling out of a 10-state climate initiative. In the announcement of withdrawal from the initiative, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie declared that the compact, known as RGGI, was ineffectively reducing carbon emissions. But the two plaintiff organizations are claiming in the suit that Christie did not follow state law in his withdrawal from the program.

RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), a compact involving New England and Mid-Atlantic states, places a limit on carbon dioxide emissions, much like cap and trade. Reuters reports, “Under the plan, states agreed to cap and then reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 10 percent by 2018.” States that auction carbon credits to power plants are provided technical support, Reuters adds.

RGGI requires utilities to pay an allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide produced, a cost that is ultimately passed along to consumers in the form of higher rates for electricity, not unlike the cap and trade scheme the Obama administration attempted to foist on the American people.

During Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, he commented:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

RGGI is just a microcosm of how a federal cap and trade system would have worked.

Governor Christie announced last year that the Garden State would be withdrawing from RGGI. He called the program “a failure,” citing its leading problem: that power suppliers have been able to reach their caps easily, and carbon allowances are trading at bottom-level prices because plants are taking advantage of cheap prices for natural gas, which is less polluting than fuels such as coal.

“RGGI does nothing more than tax electricity, tax our citizens, tax our businesses, with no discernible or measurable impact upon our environment,” Christie declared.

But the withdrawal has not been an easy process for the Governor. New Jersey’s Democrat legislature passed a bill last year that would have required the state to rejoin the RGGI; however, Christie vetoed it. Last month, the legislature passed a similar bill, but Christie is expected to veto that one as well.

Christie has admitted that he accepts the notion of man-made climate change, but believes that RGGI does not properly address the causes.

"Governor Christie has been very clear about this issue — he thinks RGGI is just another tax on New Jersey businesses and residents and that it has not been effective," said Larry Ragonese, spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Environment Protection. "We are taking steps as a state to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and we don't need to get involved with this bureaucratic program."

Ragonese also indicated that the state has taken the proper action in its withdrawal from RGGI “in close cooperation with the Attorney General’s Office and we believe we are in full compliance with the law, so we disagree with the premise of the suit.”

But the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environment New Jersey contend that Christie violated state law which requires that the Governor's administration notify the public of its intention to withdraw from the plan and provide a comment period before going forward with the decision. “Governor Christie unilaterally made his decision to leave RGGI — without taking any input from stakeholders or the public," said Matt Elliott of Environment New Jersey. "As we contend today, his actions are not only bad public policy, but also illegal."

A spokesman for Christie asserted, however, that the decision was well within the legal parameters. "There was nothing illegal about our withdrawal from RGGI," Michael Drewniak said in a statement. "Participation in the RGGI consortium was via a contractual arrangement with provisions for any state to pull out with notice and without penalty."

Drewniak indicated that Christie felt compelled to withdraw from the compact because RGGI is “a failed public policy that taxed businesses and residents and left New Jersey at a competitive disadvantage.”

Reports that the 10-state compact was failing have pervaded the area over the last few years. Last September, New Jersey Watchdog reported that RGGI was on the “brink of failure” because the September 7 auction of the group managed to raise just $14 million — one tenth of the $117 million record it set two years previously. At that same auction, RGGI was unable to sell a single one of its 1.8-million future permits, revealing a total lack of confidence in the future of the compact.

Like New Jersey, New Hampshire has been dealing with an internal struggle as to the future status of the RGGI compact. Two years in a row, the New Hampshire House passed a bill to remove the Granite State from RGGI. House Speaker William O'Brien said after the vote three months ago,

In 2009, Governor Lynch signed an agreement to begin the process of raising the price of gas and heating fuel by implementing this absurd scheme known as low-carbon fuel standards. This bill puts the brakes on this assault on our wallets at a time when we should be working to reduce the cost of gas, not raising it.

The New Hampshire House raised similar arguments against RGGI as Christie.

“RGGI is not about the environment,” said House Science, Technology and Energy Committee Chairman and bill supporter Rep. James Garrity (R-Atkinson). “RGGI is about the money, and that's not fair to taxpayers.”

In the end, however, New Hampshire’s Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley offered an amendment that continued the program.

RGGI has also faced heavy opposition from local Americans for Prosperity organizations. “[New Hampshire] ratepayers have already seen their electricity rates increased from the failed cap-and-trade scheme known as RGGI,” said Corey Lewandowski, state director of Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire.

The lawsuit over New Jersey’s withdrawal from RGGI will be heard in the appellate division of  the state Superior Court. Governor Christie remains confident that his case will be upheld, and assures voters that New Jersey will not be rejoining RGGI.

Photo: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in Trenton, N.J., May 31, 2012: AP Images

3 comments

  • Comment Link Madeleine Friday, 08 June 2012 23:45 posted by Madeleine

    Gov. Christie can counter sue, he can also get other states to join him in a class action suit, that should end all of this nonsense about suing a state for excersizing their rights. Ny daughter lives in Jew Jersey and she likes Gov l Christie, at least he stands up for his state.

  • Comment Link Nancy Friday, 08 June 2012 19:29 posted by Nancy

    We all know already that this Cap N Trade is only a method to get more money from business and consumers, one of the ways Gov't. was to bring poverty in to His Marxist way of belief.

    I am Proud and in Support of Gov. Christie for having the courage to stand up for what He Knows to be wrong and just another way to create more poverty to all of us.

  • Comment Link Madeleine Friday, 08 June 2012 18:52 posted by Madeleine

    The taxes are so high in New Jersey now that I don't know how the people of NJ will be able to pay much more in taxes or the businesses, tyhey will jsut go soemwhere else or else the states will be fighting this for yeaqrs. This Environmental agency baloney is just that, its just a way ot make money for the EPA and they realioze that we know that, dont' the states have rights anymore? This cap and trade is even worse and a man named Henry Waxman, a known communist under survielance in NY city in the 70's is the one who drew up the cap and trade document. Why dont' we ust dig up Hitler and see if he has anything to add to this bill. I'm glad Gov Christie is fighting back maybe all the states should have a class action suit and be done with it, that ought to fix their wagon. Who do they think we are, no one elected them ot anything and the UN are not elected officials either, read the condititution, no unelecte dforeign bodies of men can make laws for us is what it says so they should be sent packing now. They are hooking up with China gainst us and they think the States are going to sit here? Alabama got rid of them , I hope everyone follows suit, we are not money machines, let the UN go ot Arabia, they ar elaoded over there, we are broke thanks to them . They killed the goose that laid the golden egg with their greed, now go fly a kite.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in