Global Warming Bill Reduces Gas Bills
- Roland Hwang
- Transportation Program Director, San Francisco
- Blog | About
- Posted June 4, 2008 in Solving Global Warming
The oil companies and their allies have been claiming that gasoline prices will go up under the global warming bill currently being debated in Congress, Climate Security Act of 2008 (CSA). However, not surprisingly they fail to point out that it is the total transportation fuel bills, not the price per gallon of gasoline, which matters most to household budgets.
Today’s gas prices are high because oil companies, auto companies and politicians have not stepped up to provide Americans with real, sensible transportation choices to cut our demand for oil. The solutions are clear: more fuel efficient cars; clean, alternative fuels; and smarter growth to reduce the amount we drive. Wasting less oil means lower fuel bills and exerts downward pressure on global oil prices.
Because we can’t solve global warming without wasting less oil, the Climate Security Act is also an energy security bill. The Climate Security Act will cut oil imports, promote fuel efficient cars, and require oil companies to start selling cleaner fuels, like electricity for plug-in hybrids.
Our analysis clearly shows that with the Climate Security Act we can cut global warming pollution and have lower fuel bills compared to today’s costs. We estimate that annual household transportation fuel bills in 2020 and 2030 are likely to be $530 to $590 lower than 2007 levels even though Climate Security Act will require oil companies to hold carbon emission allowances for the fuel they produce. Higher fuel efficiency and greater use of electricity to power cars reduce the demand for gasoline and outweigh the increase in gasoline prices due to carbon emission allowances. As shown in Table ES1, household fuel bills are 16 percent less in 2020 and 18 percent less in 2030, resulting in an annual savings of $530 to $590. Our analysis uses the US Department of Energy’s estimate for fuel costs under the Climate Security Act.
Table ES1. Household Fuel Expenditures in 2020 and 2030 with the Climate Security Act
| 2007 | 2020 | 2030 | |
| Transportation fuel expenditures, 2006 $/household per year | $ 3,220 | $ 2,690 | $ 2,630 |
| Change in expenditures from 2007 | n/a | -16% | -18% |
| Savings, 2006 $/household | n/a | $530 | $590 |
Even if base gasoline prices do not decline from 2007 levels, household fuel bills are still estimated to be lower. To demonstrate this, we develop an alternative scenario where the base gasoline prices do not decline from 2007 level and retail fuel prices rise when carbon allowance costs are included. As shown in Table ES2, we estimate households still save $230 to $390 in 2020 and 2030, despite the increase in retail fuel prices.
Table ES2. Household Fuel Expenditures in 2020 and 2030 with the Climate Security Act Assuming Constant 2007 Gasoline Prices ($2.77 per gallon)
| 2007 | 2020 | 2030 | |
| Transportation fuel expenditures, 2006 $/household per year | $ 3,220 | $ 2,990 | $ 2,830 |
| Change in expenditures from 2007 | n/a | -7% | -12% |
| Savings, 2006 $/household | n/a | $230 | $390 |
As demonstrated by our analysis, we can solve global warming, reduce our dependency on oil, and have lower gas bills with the Climate Security Act. For too long oil companies have been part of the problem; the Climate Security Act will force them to be part of the solution.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.




Comments
David C. Holzman — Jun 4 2008 06:34 PM
Very interesting. What percentage biofuel, in what feedstock and form, and what % electricity does your analysis assume? Thanks.
Earl Killian — Jun 7 2008 06:37 PM
You wrote about your analysis, but did not provide a link to where it is posted.
You also wrote, "Today’s gas prices are high because oil companies, auto companies and politicians have not stepped up to provide Americans with real, sensible transportation choices to cut our demand for oil. The solutions are clear: more fuel efficient cars; clean, alternative fuels; and smarter growth to reduce the amount we drive. Wasting less oil means lower fuel bills and exerts downward pressure on global oil prices."
I think part of the reason that we lack sensible transportation choices is that many in government, industry, and NGOs are pursuing the hydrogen chimera. Imagine if we had held off deploying wind and solar and had decided to wait for hydrogen fusion? Where would we be now? And yet that is what we are doing today in automotive technology: letting misguided research delay the deployment of alternatives that work today. Even the NRDC seems a bit guilty of this (e.g. your post about the recent CARB change to the ZEV mandate argued that because hydrogen fuel cell vehicles weren't ready, it was appropriate to delay the ZEV mandate, despite the fact that alternate ZEV technologies are ready to deploy).
It is critical that we attack our greenhouse gas emissions and related problems with technology that is ready today, and not hope for research breakthroughs. In the specific case of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, even if the research were to achieve all its goals, they would still be a factor of two inferior to existing technology. That makes that path a dead-end detour.