Senior Republicans are accusing President Obama of pushing a “National Energy Tax” with proposed new EPA rules to cut power plants’ carbon pollution.
That’s nonsense — or at least a tremendous stretch of the truth: The plan wouldn’t create, raise, or cut any taxes. Only Congress can do that.
Instead, EPA’s plan would force states to lower the carbon emissions from their power plants, offering states and power companies a menu of options for reaching their state-specific targets. In total, the draft regulation is aimed at cutting nationwide power-plant emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.
To do so, EPA offers states options including use of more natural gas and renewables to displace coal-fired power generation; implementing consumer energy-conservation programs; making coal plants more efficient; and using state and regional cap-and-trade programs to achieve these ends. EPA also said Monday that states in theory could use a state-level carbon tax as a way to comply — but on a national level, there’s not a tax to be found.
But the “national energy tax” charge does get at some of the central questions of the white-hot lobbying fight over the rule: Will the plan make electricity more expensive and cost consumers more in energy bills?
Here’s a look at what the pocketbook fight is about.
Will The EPA Plan Make Electricity More Expensive?
That will happen as the nation’s power generation is shoved further away from coal toward lower-carbon and zero-carbon sources.
EPA’s forecasts say as much. The agency predicts that retail electricity costs will rise under the regulation.
Under EPA’s forecast, retail power costs in the lower 48 states would be 6 to 7 percent higher in 2020, and roughly 3 percent higher in 2030 compared to where they’d be without the rule. (The projected changes also vary a lot by region. (See for yourself on pages 129-131 of EPA’s analysis here.)
That Means Monthly Power Bills Will Rise, Right?
That’s trickier. EPA’s answer to that question is: “Yes and no.” Actually it’s: “Yes, and then no.”
The agency argues that states’ and power companies’ use of energy-efficiency initiatives to help comply with the rule will help consumers use less energy. So even if power prices are higher, that would be more than offset by lower power use, and bills will fall — eventually.
EPA predicts that the rule would push average monthly power bills 3 percent higher in 2020 compared with what they’d otherwise be.
But eventually efficiency investments bear fruit, so EPA forecasts that the national average monthly utility bills for households, business, and industrial customers would be around 8 or 9 percent lower in 2030.
“This is a result of the increasing penetration of demand-side programs that more than offset increased prices to end users by their expected savings from reduced electricity use,” the rule states.
In an interview with PBS that aired Monday evening, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledges there would be a “short-term hit” to consumers. But she then noted it “all depends what states want to do.”
“They can look at developing efficiency programs that will reduce demand, and in fact we see that as the most cost-effective strategy for most states, so by 2030 we are actually looking at electricity bills for families going down by 8 percent. There is a short investment opportunity where bills could go up a slight amount, but that’s normal fluctuations of bills we see every day,” McCarthy said.
Does Everyone Buy EPA’s Argument?
Not at all. Industry officials contest EPA claims that the regulation will ultimately lower power bills for households and businesses for several reasons.
Jeff Holmstead, who represents power companies at the lobbying and law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, said on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show on Tuesday that using more “realistic” modelling assumptions would show greater increases in power rates than EPA projects.
Matt Letourneau of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the group questions EPA’s views and assumptions on efficiency gains that EPA believes will enable power bills to fall even as power rates increase.
He argues that EPA’s target of states reaching 1.5 percent in annual electricity savings is “very, very optimistic.”
“They rely on nationwide efficiency gains that exceed what we think is possible,” said Letourneau, the communications director for the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy.
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway.
- 3 Why Gun Control Can’t Eliminate Gun Violence
- 4 Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How Police Use Drones
- 5 How Politics Breaks Our Brains, and How We Can Put Them Back Together
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”