The bill, currently the Senate’s favorite among a handful of
climate-change bills on the Hill, aims to cut emissions of greenhouse
gases 72% by 2050 through a cap-and-trade scheme. The Energy
Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Department of
Energy, concluded Tuesday that the bill will “significantly” cut
emissions without huge cost — though reaching the bill’s targets will
be a stretch.
You can keep your cap on. (Associated Press)
The EIA toyed with several different options: a best-case scenario,
where nuclear power makes a comeback, clean coal is a reality, and
renewable energy gets big; a high-cost scenario, where the same
happens, but costs 50% more; and a few more dismal scenarios which make
for tougher going.
According to the EIA, implementing the bill will cut emissions
between 45% and 55% by 2030 (compared to doing nothing). And the cost
is relatively slight—between 0.2 and 0.6% of GDP by 2030. So far, so
good.
Some tidbits: The realistic rollout of more nuclear power, clean
coal, and renewables will be a “major determinant of the energy and
economic impacts” of the bill. Without nukes and clean coal, natural
gas will have to pick up the slack, with gas prices doubling or even
quadrupling
The EIA report did not examine what it acknowledges is one of the
biggest issues with the bill: how emissions permits are doled out. The
economic and environmental impacts of the bill will be very different
if power companies get their permits based on how much they pollute, or
how much electricity they generate.
Finally, the EIA study stops at 2030, though Lieberman-Warner
outlines cuts through 2050. There’s a good reason for that—that’s when
the law of diminishing returns kicks in. As the report notes, “The
emissions targets for the 2030 to 2050 period are likely to be very
challenging because opportunities for further reductions in the power
sector are limited.” Source
