June 25th, 2009

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

Talk about a hot and windy debate as Washington grapples with the first big bill to try to power up a new clean energy economy. Studies and accusations are whipping around like wind propellers as the constituencies of fossil fuels and new energy square off.

While this seems like a flurry of much ado — is it possible that the American Clean Energy and Security Act wouldn’t pass?

Still, there’s much at stake. As we know from last year’s blockbuster stimulus bill, no one really reads all the copy, so there could be a lot of caveats, crumbs and sneaky insertions embedded into the 1,000-plus page act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill.

One hot button issue (funny how the political cliches fit this climate change topic) has been whether the bill will drive up electricity costs. Stands to reason that re-jiggering how we get power and the sort of power we use will come with costs. It also seems reasonable to expect that over time, clean energy, coming as it does from ongoing natural phenomena like the wind and the sun, would have cost efficiencies compared with crude oil, which must be siphoned from the earth and shipped around.

In my earlier blog, I asked who really knows how much these changes will affect household electrical bills; I mean really, how can we tell? It’s such a tar pit of variables.

Apparently, The Pew Center on Global Climate Change does think it has a handle on this issue. At least they’re trying harder than most to decipher the variables and forecast the future. For their take see their “Eight Myths About the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill.”

Myth #2 deals with energy costs and Pew seems to conclude that this switch to clean energy might (maybe) cost US households somewhere around $100 a year over the next few decades.

They also agree with our “who knows” thesis, saying essentially that: “Given the limitations of economic modeling, no analysis should be assumed to give a correct answer.”

They also note, a bit illogically, that even though we can’t count on any given economic analysis, if a group does undertake such an analysis (which might not be worth much) they definitely should “faithfully represent what is actually required by the bill”.

Right. Let the wrangling recommence.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media