Jane Van Ryan
Posted October 27, 2009
This week, the National Journal's Energy & Environment Blog posed several questions about the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. Among them, "What's your take on the chairman's mark and EPA's analysis?" The blog also invited a number of individuals, including API's Jack Gerard, to discuss the bill's strong points, weak points and provide an overall perspective on the legislation.
In an excerpt from Jack's post, he said:
"Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was directed to assess the Kerry-Boxer bill, it did not conduct a formal analysis. Instead, it chose to rely on its earlier assessment of the Waxman-Markey bill, which was fraught with overly optimistic assumptions that greatly downplayed energy costs. The government's own Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that the Waxman-Markey bill would drive up total costs by as much as $1,870 per household in 2030, which is much higher than the often-quoted "price of a postage stamp a day."
As Jack explains, the Kerry-Boxer bill is too costly for too little positive impact on climate. The Senate should reject it and start over.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR