Any Wattage You Want, So Long As It's …
New York’s activist Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, is getting into the kitchen appliance business:
New York State, along with 14 other states and New York City, sued the United States Department of Energy yesterday for failing to comply with a federal law requiring tougher efficiency standards for 22 home appliances.The Energy Department is 6 to 13 years behind the schedules outlined in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, which was passed by Congress to increase the efficiency of furnaces, dishwashers and other household products so that they use less oil, natural gas and electricity.
The department has established efficiency standards for refrigerators, clothes washers and a handful of other items, but it has missed the mandated deadlines for 22 major appliances and household products.
…
Mr. Spitzer said, record-high oil and gas prices as well as the impact of global warming have made energy savings more important than ever.
Let’s begin at the beginning: How does a state attorney general, let alone a city counsel, have standing to sue a federal bureaucracy to force compliance with a federal law? I might see it if New York’s two activist senators were holding hearings, but a lawsuit by local hack politicians that violates the basic principles of federalism?
Next, household appliances are completely orthogonal to the so-called “energy crisis,” which is (to the extent it exists at all) entirely petroleum-based. We do not burn oil to generate electricity. We mostly burn coal — and we’re getting quite efficient at it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the subjective, capricious agenda behind regulating household electrical consumption. I cannot phrase it better than Ted Frank does:
It’s one thing for there to be mandatory restriction of consumer choice when there are externalities or collective-action problems that are not reflected in the price. The classic example is regulation of auto exhaust emissions…
…
But when it comes to “energy efficient” appliances, the cost is “consumers use more energy.” … If consumers are purchasing energy-hog washers and dryers and refrigerators, it’s because they’re willing to bear the extra costs of the energy. So there’s no social problem — unless Eliot Spitzer and Congress think that electricity prices, like prices for smog-producing cars, do not reflect the true social cost of electricity.
If there are externalities to consuming electricity (i.e., power plant emissions), then they can be internalized via electricity taxes (which, in New York at least, already exist). Those who use more, pay more. QED.
By Spitzer’s logic, meanwhile, any consumption of energy, indeed any human activity, should be subject to regulation or outright prohibition because it “contributes to global warming.”
And you thought Commerce Clause jurisprudence was bad…
But of course Spitzer and the other activist hack politicians don’t just see externalities, they see “unwise” consumer choices. Paying more for using your “suboptimal” appliances isn’t enough — you must be stopped altogether. Spitzer knows better than you do how to run your household and manage your finances. And since he proclaims to be acting on your own behalf and the behalf of “the community,” it must be okay — apparently dictatorship is fine so long as it’s “benevolent” dictatorship.
Welcome to the new Politics of the Philosopher-Kings.
One wonders what might be next. Do you really need to have electric can openers? They burn electricity — why not use an old-fashioned manual can opener (or, better, require all food manufacturers to offer pull-tab cans)? Personal coffee grinders? They contribute to global warming — it would be more efficient to have all coffee be ground in large processing plants in advance. Electric toothbrushes? Have you no shame? What’s a little gingivitis when the planet’s at stake?
As I repeatedly say: every advocate of central planning always, always, envisions himself as the central planner.
POST SCRIPT: For those who don’t understand the title of this post.
Suggested Reading:
Similar Posts:
- “United States of Spitzer” Emission Suit Dismissed
- From User Fees to “Non-User” Fees?
- The Politics of
PullSpin - Linkfest: Some Assorted Updates
- Australia: That’s Not a Light Bulb Ban…
Filed under: Uncategorized
"We do not burn oil to generate electricity. We mostly burn coal — and we're getting quite efficient at it."
You might want to consult this table. It shows coal producing roughly a third of our electricity production with nuclear and hydro contributing roughly another 10% each. Which leaves close to 50% for oil and natural gas, with the latter predominating. A categorical, bolded "we do not burn oil" well overstates, and hence undercuts, your case.
[Note from Kip: Quite the contrary. The table clearly shows that we hardly rely at all on petroleum distillate, which was my case precisely. The use of wind, solar, nuclear, etc., is completely orthogonal to my case.]