EPA: Climate bill could cost family $100 annually

Oct 25, 2009 By H. JOSEF HEBERT , Associated Press Writer

(AP) -- A Senate plan to tackle global warming would add about $100 a year to the energy costs for a typical household, according to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The analysis released late Friday by the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, generally mirrors the cost projected by the EPA when it examined similar legislation that the House passed in the summer.

The Democratic bill calls for cutting greenhouse gases from power plants and large industrial facilities by shifting use away from fossil fuels, especially coal. It would cap emissions and allow trading of pollution allowances to mitigate the cost.

Boxer, D-Calif., has scheduled hearings this coming week on the bill. The committee will hear from Obama administration officials, including the EPA, on Tuesday.

President , in a speech Friday in Boston, said he believes "a consensus" is emerging in Congress on the climate issue. But he also accused some opponents of making "cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence" that the earth is becoming warmer in an attempt to derail legislation.

"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy, when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs," Obama told his audience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Boxer said the bill provides "a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs and protecting our children from dangerous pollution."

Critics of the bill have called it a massive . They also say the EPA uses overly optimistic assumptions disguising the likely increase in energy costs to consumers.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the committee's top Republican, said the EPA analysis was "unacceptable" and he wanted a more complete economic assessment of the bill before moving ahead. He said committee Republicans may force a delay; Boxer wants a committee vote in early November.

"One would think that, prior to legislative hearings, the committee would have a thorough, comprehensive economic analysis to understand how an 800-plus page bill, designed to fundamentally reshape the American economy, affects consumers, small businesses, farmers, and American families," Inhofe said in a statement.

The EPA analysis released by Boxer said while there are differences between the Senate and House bills, they are so small that the economic costs "would be similar" in the case of either bill. As a result, the EPA produced in detail the same numbers for household costs it issued earlier this year when examining the House legislation - and no revised numbers specifically for the Senate legislation.

It said the cost would add between $80 to $111 a year to households energy bills as a result of higher prices, although energy consumption was expected to decline slightly as a result of increased efficiency measures.

There have been widely conflicting price tags estimated for the climate bills. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the household cost of the House-passed bill at about $175 a year in 2020. It has not examined the Senate bill. But some industry-cited studies have put the cost much higher, some claiming possible added costs of as much as $3,000.

Boxer also released a summary of changes to the bill that introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., last month.

The revised bill describes how pollution allowances for curbing greenhouse gases would be distributed. It is similar to the distribution in the House bill with 35 percent going to large electricity distribution companies, with an understanding that the benefits would be passed onto consumers to ease the impact of electricity prices.

Free allowances also would go to smaller electricity distribution companies, natural gas distributors, providers of home heating oil and to offset costs for low and moderate-income households. A slightly larger portion of the allowances would be auctioned off by the government than would be under the House bill.

On the Net:

EPA analysis: http://tinyurl.com/ylruozv

Sen. Boxer's release: http://tinyurl.com/npwe5u

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Coastal defences could contribute to flooding with sea-level rise

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Senate climate-change bill to be unveiled this week

Sep 29, 2009

Two top Senate Democrats are set to introduce a climate-change bill this week that would put new limits on carbon emissions, as world leaders prepare for a climate summit in Denmark after agreement last week by the G20 nations ...

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

Apr 17, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases

Oct 01, 2009

(AP) -- Proposed regulations would require power plants, factories and refineries to reduce greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility ...

Warner: Climate change a national security issue

Apr 24, 2009

(AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice on climate change, urged lawmakers Friday to overcome partisan differences and pass legislation to curb greenhouse gases.

GOP attacks Democrats for climate proposal

May 30, 2009

(AP) -- Republicans on Saturday attacked the climate change proposal crafted by congressional Democrats and endorsed by President Barrack Obama as doing little to reduce global warming while saddling Americans ...

Recommended for you

Australia launches 'Green Army' for environment

1 hour ago

Australia on Saturday launched its 'Green Army' which plans to recruit up to 15,000 young people for projects to conserve and rehabilitate the environment—the biggest land care mobilisation in the nation's ...

Tracking giant kelp from space

19 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

21 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

21 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Rick69
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2009
If Boxer is so sure it will cost only $100 extra per year, why not have a "guarantee" in the bill that will rebate back anything over $100 to each household. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
E_L_Earnhardt
3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2009
Get ALL the energy out of coal and it will be cheap
and non-polluting!
freethinking
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2009
If the government says its only going to cost a $100 extra, given the way do accounting... the actual cost will be over $1000.

This will hurt the poor and middle class and benefit the rich.
Modernmystic
Nov 04, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Al3
Nov 25, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.