Thursday, June 25, 2009

Modest Net Costs for Waxman-Markey

Opponents of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill argue that we can't afford it. It's a familiar refrain. We heard it here in Delaware during the debate over wind power, usually with wildly inflated cost projections. But it turns out that it won't be as expensive as the critics claim. The Congressional Budget Office came in with a cost of $175 per household.
Critics often cite the burden on the poor as a reason to not support renewable energy. (Again we heard that from Delmarva Power during the wind power fight.) But the CBO analysis projects a net benefit to the lowest income quintile of $40 per year.
The Environmental Protection Agency projects a lower net cost per household of $80 to $111 per year, and predicts energy savings for U.S. households:
As a result of energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.
These savings will come by investing in renewable energy technologies that won't be subject to the relentless and inexorable increase in fossil fuel prices. The EPA projects that by 2025 two thirds of new energy generation will be from renewable sources. Neither analysis includes the costs of unchecked global warming, which could be considerable.


Blogger Joanne said...

Thank you for these facts. I just sent them to Mike Castle (with a link to your posting). According to today's NJ, he is worried about the cost of the Energy Bill....

"I am concerned about the cost aspect of this -- how that's going to be passed on to consumers and the possibility of businesses in our country making the decision that they don't want to bear that cost and therefore shifting jobs to other parts of the world."

7:39 AM, June 26, 2009  
Blogger Tom Noyes said...

Thank you for contacting Castle.

As you can read in the following post, I called his office to try to get a longer piece on this into his hands.

2:55 PM, June 26, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home