No, Obama’s Climate Plan Is Not a National Energy Tax

But EPA admits that consumers and businesses will pay higher power bills — initially.

PALO ALTO, CA -JULY 12: Power line towers are shown July 12, 2002 in Palo Alto, California. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission boosted the maximum price of electricity from $55.26 per megawatt hour to $91.87 in the wake of record-breaking temperatures for the week, including 112 degrees in Redding, California today. One megawatt is enough to power about 750 homes. 
National Journal
Ben Geman
June 3, 2014, 10:31 a.m.

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?

Yes.

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.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

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.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

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.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

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.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

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.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

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.”

Source:
×