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
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
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 »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
2 days ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
2 days ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
3 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login