Blue indicates Midknight Review comments; red is a highlighted sentence or word or phrase within the EPA analysis. No changes to the text have been made except for the highlighting. Ed.
EPA Analysis of Cap and Trade
From the House Energy and Commerce Website, an EPA analysis of ACES:The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed an analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), as reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee.
So this is not the EPA report ??!! It is a report of a report. Why doesn't the Energy and Commerce Committee just reprint the EPA report?
Like all modeling projects, it is an estimate of the likely impacts of the legislation. It is the most up-to-date and sophisticated modeling currently available. The EPA analysis finds that: “H.R. 2454 transforms the structure of energy production and consumption.” Deploying Clean Energy Technology. The EPA analysis projects that the legislation would substantially accelerate the deployment of clean energy technology that will create new jobs. Under the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)
• The United States would almost double the share of energy from zero or low carbon sources by 2030, as opposed to the business-as-usual approach. Sounds like a definite projection. Is there such a thing as a "definite projection?" Isn't that like saying ". . .definite guess . . ." ? Seriously.
• Advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology would come online by 2015 to 2020 and lead to 25 gigawatts of new and retrofitted CCS coal-fired generation by 2025, as opposed to 2 GW of CCS in the absence of legislation. This is 44% more CCS generation than was deployed by the discussion draft. 44% more than what?! The discussion draft is nothing more than a "hypothetical." In other words, we are talking about 44% more than what we were talking about yesterday.
• Roughly 65% of the new generation built by 2025 will be renewable, and 92% will be low carbon. Billions of dollars will be directed to states so that each state can create homegrown clean energy jobs. Low Costs. The EPA analysis finds that the costs of the bill are low.
But of, course, they fail to mention how much "new generation" will be actually built by 2025. Certainly what does get built will comply with the new standards. How much will be built is not even mentioned. We believe that 65% of nothing is nothing.
Under ACES:
• The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year). This will not be a deduction in our energy bill but, rather, a deduction is the rate of increase. All we will see is an energy cost increase. This is here in the report to off-set the next paragraph.
The Congressional Budget Office recently projected a cost of 48 cents per day for the average household in 2020 ($175 per year). Neither the EPA analysis nor the CBO analysis take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.1
OK ! What is mis-leading, here, is the notion that cost increases will be limited to the "household" or residential cost increases. Transportation will be effected (fuel for your car); cost of new car purchases will increase around $2300; all commodities transported to your locale will suffer a cost increase because of the effect of this bill on energy costs to the farmer and manufacturer. All of this will cost closer to $150 each month if you do not buy a new car, or $1,800 per year. This statement is disgraceful lie.
• 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. A blatant lie. Read the immediate above. Our comments [above] are one thing. But the report from the CBO just stated that increased costs per household would be $175.00 How do you get "7% lower" out of a $175. increase?
• The models project allowances prices of $13 in 2015 and $16 in 2020, 15% lower than the discussion draft. Again, this is not "15% lower" in fact, but "15% lower" than our report from "yesterday."
Protecting Economic Growth.
The EPA analysis finds that the economy can grow robustly while cutting pollution. Too bad that "cutting pollution" has nothing to do with growing the economy. In Spain, a country with 18% unemployment, they have lost 2.5 industrial jobs for every 1 green job created. With this bill, it is possible that we will never see 7% or 8% unemployment again -- we should be so lucky. There are currently around 18 million people out of work. That number will grow to 22 million, at least, before this crisis levels off and those jobs are not coming back during Obama's presidency.
Under ACES
• The nation’s gross domestic product would grow robustly, from $13 trillion in 2008 to over $22 trillion in 2030, while deploying clean energy technology and reducing global warming pollution Kiss a fat man. The 2030 number is simply made up. It is as real as the 750,000 jobs Obama will create by the end of his 2nd 100 days (that's 150,000 claim for the first 100, and 600,000 promised by the end of the second 100 - both numbers are fantasy realities.)
• Consumption — an economic measure of a household’s purchasing potential — would grow by 8% to 10% from 2010 to 2015, 15% to 19% by 2020, and 23% to 28% percent by 2030.
Effective Energy Policy.
The EPA analysis projects that the legislation would lead to a balanced and diverse mix of energy generation while creating markets that drive emissions reductions.
Under ACES
• Coal would remain a stable source of electricity generation, even as carbon emissions are dramatically reduced and carbon capture and storage technology is deployed.
• A market for domestic offsets is created that would be worth at least $4 billion annually through 2030. What does this mean? Look at this last sentence and tell us what this means -- $4 billion annually through [not by] 2030." What does that mean? Tax revenues !!!! this report admits to $4 billion in new tax revenues. If it is not talking about tax revenues, then the $4 billion is nothing more than a projected evaluation and has no practical meaning.
Details of the Analysis.
The analysis primarily captures the costs and effects of programs under Title III of the discussion draft, as well as some of the energy efficiency measures in Title II (including the building efficiency provisions and the energy efficiency provisions of the SEED funds). Huh ??!!
EPA also analyzed the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard and concluded that it leads to an increase in renewable generation and that any slight increase in rates could be offset by energy efficiency. The core analysis of the economic impacts does not capture the President’s new fuel economy standards or the energy efficiency and clean technology benefits of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that ARRA alone will reduce average household energy costs by up to $100 per year
