EIA Study Confirms Climate Protection is More Than Affordable

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released today an analysis of the economic impact of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA).  Once again, the news is good, confirming what we've learned from recent studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): America can easily afford energy and climate legislation that will create millions of clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, and help protect the planet.

EIA finds that American households would spend on average 23 cents per day ($83 per year) for a clean energy future and climate protection. This finding is consistent with estimates from both the EPA and CBO: EPA pegged the cost between 22 and 30 cents per day ($80-$111 per year), and the CBO at 48 cents per day ($175 per year).

Like EPA and CBO, EIA found that while households incur a modest cost, their incomes will grow sharply:

EIA projects over the same time period that, on average, American households' incomes will be more than $11,000 higher relative to today's levels.

Even if we look at EIA's "most pessimistic" case (extremely limited availability of international offsets, and no technological improvements in key low carbon technologies over the reference case), average costs over 2012-2030 (correction: original blog said in 2020) would be nowhere near those projected by industry-backed studies. Under the most extreme assumptions, the average household cost will be 66 cents per day ($242 per year). And income growth is still nearly $11,000 on average.

Today you'll hear again from the drumbeat of the industry-backed naysayers:  the National Association of Manufacturers is releasing yet another report predicting exaggerated, dire economic consequences of climate legislation.  Honestly, they are starting to sound like the birthers. Saying something scary over and over again doesn't make it true. The facts just ain't there to back them up.

Comments