3 States Plan a Court Fight on Air-Conditioner Efficiency New York Times - By MATTHEW L. WALD - June 19, 2001 New York, California and Connecticut and several environmental and consumer groups are going to court to try to stop the Bush administration's decision to weaken efficiency standards for central air-conditioners. The case bears on electricity supply, greenhouse gases, acid rain and a new  administration's determination to put its stamp on a flurry of rules issued by the outgoing one. The difference between the Clinton administration's standard and the Bush  administration's replacement could eventually be more than 1 percent of peak energy demand in the United States, say the attorneys general of the states that  plan to sue. In New York, for example, the difference between the standards would be about  1,800 megawatts on a hot summer day, according to the Natural Resources Defense  Council. That is more than quadruple the amount that the New York Power  Authority hopes to add this summer. "We're actually moving backwards at the very moment when greater efficiency  is so important," Eliot L. Spitzer, the attorney general of New York, said. At the Energy Department, Jeanne Lopatto, a spokeswoman, said, "We are confident that the Department of Energy's actions are within the law." When the Clinton administration developed its rule, New York and California  argued that the new standard for air-conditioners should be 30 percent tougher  than the existing one. Texas, with George W. Bush as governor, took the same  position. The Clinton administration, after years of studies and debates among government and industry officials, ordered a 30 percent increase in the minimum efficiency. The rule was issued on Jan. 18 and published in the Federal Register  on Jan. 22. Like all rules, it was to take effect 30 days after publication. When the Bush administration took over, it put a 60-day delay on all new rules. Then the Energy Department said it would substitute a rule calling for a  20 percent improvement. It is still writing that rule. Under the Clinton rule,  manufacturers had to meet the standard in 2006. In their suit, to be filed on Tuesday, the attorneys general plan to point to  a provision in a 1987 federal law that prohibits the Energy Department from weakening an appliance efficiency standard. They also will argue that under the Administrative Procedures Act, the department cannot change a rule without a  period for public comment. If the Bush administration had waited for public comment, the effective date would have passed, possibly weakening its grounds for lowering the standard. At the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that is also  filing suit on Tuesday, Katharine Kennedy, a senior lawyer, said, "If you're  changing a rule in any way, including changing the effective date, you have to  go through notice and comment." But, Ms. Kennedy added, "In terms of finality, it's publication in the Federal Register that matters." The environmental group is joining the Consumer Federation of America and the  Public Utility Law Project, a nonprofit advocate for the poor, in bringing  suit. Experts disagree about the additional cost of more efficient central air-conditioners and the size of the benefits. Under the Clinton administration,  the Energy Department predicted a small benefit and reasoned that the reduction  in power plant emissions of greenhouse gases and gases that cause smog and acid  rain would be an added benefit. When the Bush administration said in April that it would substitute a weaker rule, the Energy Department said that increasing the efficiency of the air-conditioners 30 percent would cost $123 more per unit than increasing it 20  percent. The appliance generally costs $2,000 to $4,000. The industry's major trade association, the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, argues that the 20 percent increase is "a smarter way  to encourage conservation of electricity." The greater initial cost of the  higher efficiciency standard will prevent some people from replacing old  machines, the group says.