Blog

Study: EPA’s Power Plan Could Total At Least $366 Billion


10.17.14

Whitfield: “This new study confirms what we already know: EPA’s power plan is unaffordable and unworkable…”

A new study by NERA Economic Consulting released this week calculates the costs and consequences of the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide regulations for existing power plants, referred to by the agency as the “Clean Power Plan.” Among NERA’s findings:

  • The costs of EPA’s plan could total $366 billion or more over a 15-year period.
  • Under EPA’s plan, consumers and businesses could face costs of $41 billion or more annually.
  • EPA’s proposal would cause electricity rates to increase an average of 12% to 17% nationwide, and some states could face price increases over 20%.
  • EPA’s plan could shutter 45,000 megawatts or more of coal-based electricity.

NERA’s new analysis quantifying the potential impacts of EPA’s proposal on the affordability and reliability of electricity in the United States underscores concerns being raised by states and other stakeholders regarding the proposed rule. The Energy and Power Subcommittee has been conducting oversight of EPA’s plan, including a June 19, 2014, hearing with EPA, a July 29, 2014, hearing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and a September 9, 2014, hearing with state energy and environmental regulators. These hearings have highlighted that the administration’s Clean Power Plan proposal is unachievable for many states, and that nationwide, the rule would result in higher prices for consumers, reduced electric reliability, and would pose a serious threat to America’s economic competiveness.  

“This new study confirms what we already know: EPA’s power plan is unaffordable and unworkable, and will devastate local communities and households struggling to keep the lights on. American consumers will be forced to pay a high price tag for a plan that will have no real effect on the climate,” said Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY). “Instead of finding ways to make energy more expensive and less reliable, we should be working to improve energy affordability and access.”

###
 

Blog