According to the Wall Street Journal, the EPA is set to rule that carbon dioxide represents a danger to the public and issue regulations curbing the emissions:

Carol Browner, special adviser to the president on climate change and energy, said in an interview Sunday that the EPA is looking at a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that requires the agency to determine whether carbon dioxide endangers public health or welfare. And the agency “will make an endangerment finding,” she said.

Browner also said that the administration plans to issue a national policy for auto missions that would impose tougher efficiency mandates for auto makers.

The New York Times recently ran a series of commentaries discussing the Obama administration’s decision requiring the EPA to reconsider its previous stance on whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Joint Committee on Finance is currently discussing Governor Jim Doyle’s “stimulus” or pre-budget bill (Senate Bill 62).  The Joint Finance Committee is likely going to pass the bill today (Tuesday).  Both the Assembly and the Senate are expected to take up the bill on Wednesday and send it to the Governor for his signature.

Governor Doyle will then submit his  2009-11 budget proposal tonight at 7:00 p.m. when he addresses the Legislature.

A New York-based energy company, Indeck Corinth, has sued the Governor of New York and the state’s Environmental Protection Agency over their decision to enter into a regional cap-and-trade program with nine other Northeastern states without obtaining the Legislature’s approval.

The states that have entered into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) are required to cap greenhouse gas emission from their power sector and reduce emissions 10 percent by 2018.

The lawsuit alleges that New York entered into RGGI without the consent of the State Legislature, and thus is a violation of the separation of powers under the New York Constitution. 

The complaint further alleges that by entering into RGGI, the state:

• imposed an unconstitutional tax;
• lacks the Congressional authorization constitutionally required for multi-state compacts in violation of the United States Constitution;
• arbitrarily discriminated against the energy company; and
• enacted regulations that are inconsistent with the federal Public Utility Regulatory Polices Act and regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The lawsuit, if successful, could have ramifications for Wisconsin. Currently, Wisconsin is in discussions with other Midwestern states to potentially adopt a similar cap-and-trade system. Known as the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, Wisconsin, along with five other states and one Canadian province, are crafting a model rule that would significantly restrict the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the Midwest.

For more information about the Midwestern Accord and the other regional cap-and-trade programs, click here.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an in-depth article today discussing a proposed $10 billion transmission line that would bring wind power to Wisconsin. 

According to the article:

At 765,000 volts, the lines would carry two to six times as much power as the largest power lines operating in Wisconsin today. Wisconsin’s highest-voltage lines are 345,000 volts, and transmission utility American Transmission Co. faces vocal opposition in its bid to build another line in Dane County.

In a related article, the Wall Street Journal yesterday cited a study that put the price tag of updating the nation’s transmission system to allow for more renewable energy at $100 billion.

Last week, the EPA filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court withdrawing its appeal of an appellate court decision, New Jersey v. EPA, striking down the Bush administration’s Clean Air Mercury Rule. 

Background and information on the case and EPA’s decision to withdraw its request can be found here and here.

During this economic downturn it appears that groups are more closely analzying the economic impacts of implementing cap-and-trade and other related climate change policies.

For example, California recently enacted the most ambitious climate change legislation in the country. Assembly Bill 32 requires California to impose a cap-and-trade policy, which would drastically reduce the state’s levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislation also required the state to provide an economic analysis projecting the new law’s impact on the economy. The report was prepared by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which oversees implementation of the new law. According to CARB’s findings, the new cap-and-trade law would actually increase California’s gross state product by $4 billion. 

Yet a number of prominent, independent economists questioned CARB’s rosy economic findings. In a recently published peer review, Matthew E. Kahn, Ph.D., noted that while he supports the goals of AB 32, he is “troubled by the economic modeling analysis.” For example, according to Dr. Kahn, implementing portions of the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard would cost $60 billion to implement – $54 billion more than CARB’s projections.

Dr. Gary Yohe, an economics professor at Wesleyan University also questioned CARB’s projection that the state’s gross state product would increase $4 billion as a result of the new cap-and-trade program. In his review, Dr. Yohe said, “I must admit that it is, to me, almost beyond belief that the Supplement would report these numbers instead of a succinct conclusion of ‘essentially no change’ in California’s economic position as a result of the climate measures.”

In a separate paper analyzing CARB’s economic projections, Professor Robert Stavins of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government wrote: “I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and should not be used by the state government or the public for the purpose of assessing the likely costs of CARB’s plans.”