Green Building Linkedin Green Building Twitter Green Building Facebook Youtube Green Building

How Will Clean Energy Legislation Affect Electricity Prices?

2340879781 b4522488f0 How Will Clean Energy Legislation Affect Electricity Prices?

As debate heats up around the proposals for clean energy legislation in Congress, one of the main points of contention is the amount of money it will cost.  More specifically, everyone wants to know how the average American household will be impacted by the respective energy bills in the House (Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy and Security Act) and the Senate (Kerry-Boxer’s Clean Energy Jobs and American

Power Act).  This article will investigate the change in energy prices one can expect from legislation that could be passed within the coming months, and try to sift through the wide discrepancy in figures that are being tossed around.  Then some recommendations will be presented as to how energy usage can be reduced, to preempt any anticipated rises in cost.

How much will it cost?
How much more money per year should a typical American household expect to pay if clean energy legislation were to pass?  Depending on where one gets their information from, this figure varies hundreds of dollars!

It helps to learn where the information is coming from.  Analyzing the House’s proposal, the U.S. Government’s Environmental Protection Agency found that, “the overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).” Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost to be about $175 per household.  On the other hand, an August report by the conservative Heritage Foundation claims that “a typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs” after the passage of Waxman-Markey.

Although it may be difficult to agree on how many more dollars Americans can expect to pay from clean energy legislation, nearly every study concurs on one fact – we can expect energy prices to increase in the future with the passage of a clean energy act.  For anyone in the country paying utility bills, from homeowners to property managers to retail owners, this means they can expect to see their electricity prices rise.

So what should we do?  Fight legislation?
Hardly.  Aside from ecological and health arguments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global climate change, there would be catastrophic impacts on the world’s economy were we to proceed at our current pace of fossil fuel consumption.  In fact, most scientists argue that we need to take much more drastic and strict measures at combating climate change than even the more ambitious proposals worldwide are suggesting – meaning many feel that the House and Senate acts would not go far enough in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Thus, fighting any attempt at curbing greenhouse gas emissions (such as stymieing clean energy legislation or not participating in international climate talks) is near-sighted and irresponsible, because of the enormous toll we would be placing on our future’s environment and economy.  The current House and Senate proposals may not be perfect, but they are a step in the right direction – so let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

A better solution: Energy efficiency!
A better solution: start using less electricity and less energy as we make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.  The best way to do this is by reducing energy demand and using energy more efficiently. How does one do that?

A good place to start is with an energy audit of a building, which analyzes the energy usage of a building and recommends measures to improve efficiency.  These are often done for free or at a discounted rate by a utility company.  Another option is to hire a certified Home Energy Rater, who typically use high-end equipment to thoroughly diagnose a building’s efficiency.  It is up to the user to implement the recommend improvements once the audit is complete.

Another recommendation is to have the systems of the building commissioned.  Commissioning entails hiring a commissioning agent to come inspect elements of the building – such as the HVAC system, lighting, water heating – and make sure they are all operating at maximum efficiency and as they were intended to do.  Then the agent will make the adjustments to correct any deficiencies and have the systems running at optimal performance levels.

For a larger building or commercial space (such as an office or retail store), one can attempt to implement an overhaul in operations and management that will demand less energy use by the individuals occupying the space.  There are several programs that exist which provide guidelines for instituting these changes, which include such recommendations as switching to more efficient appliance to informing building occupants about energy-saving techniques.

In any approach, it is important to use the tools and information available and put them to use.  Whether this is the latest in IT or simply common sense that should be shared, applying intelligence to our system of energy consumption will reap huge rewards.

The EBS Team

Waxman-Markey Opposition Threatens US Leadership

2947812018 eed9f19473 Waxman Markey Opposition Threatens US LeadershipHR 2454 or the Waxman-Markey bill, named after its two major supporters Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was passed in the US House of Representatives on June 27. Its major mandate is a cap and trade system though it does have other green practices scattered throughout. There has been a lot of talk recently, because of this bill, of the viability of a cap and trade system in the US. To evaluate the government’s ability to implement this new system we have to first understand it.

The basics of a cap and trade are fairly simple. It is a way to limit emissions through a credit system. Every business acquires a certain amount of credits; depending on the type of system these credits are either auctioned off or given away by the government. These credits represent the amount of carbon that businesses can emit. If the business cannot adhere to the limit of emissions their credits allow, they must buy credits from companies who are below their cap. Thus the companies who are responsible and limit their emissions are rewarded and those who are not as environmentally friendly are punished.

With this particular cap and trade system only 28% of the credits would be auctioned off over the next ten years. The other 72% will be given away for free, especially to heavy users of coal and other fossil fuels to help them cope with the change. The auctioning of the 28% will generate an estimated 276 billion dollars, which will be distributed to a range of places. Low and middle income families will receive money to help them deal with the increases prices passed down as a result. Big carbon emitters will also receive money on top of getting a good chunk of the free credits.

Where the trouble begins
The specifics of the cap and trade system embedded in HR 2454 are a little troubling. Understand that many businesses with currently high carbon emissions are going to have a hard time adjusting to meet the new standards, but giving them free credits is not the way to go. Auctioning off all the credits would generate government revenue – money that could be distributed to more of the people hardest hit from the resulting increase in prices of energy and goods. Maybe this increase in rebates would quell some of the opposition to the bill.

Besides implementing a cap and trade policy, the bill mandates a 17 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 87% reduction by 2050. Considering the mandates being implemented in California and 21 other states (for instance, buildings will use net zero energy or have net zero carbon emissions by 2030), these reductions do not seem extreme.

The public response to this bill has not been good. Googling the bill generated several articles: almost all were in opposition. Sadly, people tote it as another method Obama has found to increase taxes. They claim it is an unnecessary step to solve a group of alarmists’ wild and false theory, Global Warming. Without arguing the validity of Global Warming, one friend put it to me this way:

“If the believers are wrong and Global Warming is not true then we have implemented changes that will improve our environment and the Earth, if the naysayers are wrong and Global Warming does exist and we do nothing, our cities are underwater.”

The United States is the economic leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on the globe, but we have never been a leader on sustainability. We haven’t signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, we have very few “Green” standards in place, and per capita we emit the most carbon out of any country in the world (19.6 metric tons/person/year compared to 3.7 tons/person/ year from second place China).

Many people claim we are alone in this ever-growing crusade to save the Earth. Interestingly, they claim Europe has given up on sustainability because it is not feasible and unnecessary. Amazing how facts can become so skewed. Not only has the EU accepted the Kyoto Protocol, they have also implemented strict green building standards, emissions limits for cars and many European Countries already have an existing cap and trade system in place. Interestingly, they implemented all of these environment-saving standards with their economies intact…

The US has always lagged behind Europe and other developed nations when it comes to environmental conservation measures. Though this bill is flawed it is a positive step forward in its intent and its power to reduce emissions. Nation-wide opinions need to change on the role of sustainability in our society and hopefully the success of this bill can be the catalyst.

The EBS Team