EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Senate EPW today and continues to cite specious economic benefits of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Yet, the EPA’s own economic modeling shows substantial losses of GDP, as I presented in my own testimony last week. Click to enlarge.
Today I participated as witness at a hearing on the impact of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Energy and Nuclear Safety and Subcommittee on Children’s Health and Environmental Responsibility. Given the continued weakness of the U.S. economy, stubbornly high unemployment rate and sluggish investment spending, I urged lawmakers to closely examine the economic and health benefits from regulatory policies like the CAAA and determine if the cost benefits are based on sound economic modeling. More specifically I zeroed in on the EPA’s much touted claim that CAAA provides $2 trillion in economic value and noted that the figure was not based on sound economic modeling and stands in stark contrast to EPA’s own economic simulations which show substantial losses of GDP under CAAA regulations as demonstrated here: You can read the press release from today’s hearing here. And read my full testimony here. You can also watch today’s hearing here:
Tomorrow I will be a witness at a hearing on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Energy and Nuclear Safety and Subcommittee on Children’s Health and Environmental Responsibility. I will be testifying on how the CAAA has stalled U.S. Economic Growth and how EPA’s purported economic benefits are not based on sound economic modeling. Highlights from the hearing and my full testimony will be posted here later in the day so please check back!
Great segment on CNBC’s Squawk Box today with Richard Fisher, President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve. His comments about regulatory overreach holding back U.S. investment and economic growth were absolutely right! Watch here…
My response to this week’s question on National Journal’s Energy and Environment Experts on whether or not President Obama should green-light a controversial pipeline that would send a half-million barrels of Canadian oil to the United States. There is no question that if Americans want to see relief from high prices at the pump, we need to expand our domestic supply. Once referring to oil as “yesterday’s energy,” it’s encouraging to see the President now promote things like domestic oil exploration by expanding access to offshore and onshore reserves. Extension of the Keystone pipeline will also be a useful step to help the administration meet its one-third reduction of imported oil goal and also promote much needed job growth here at home. As API’s Jack Gerard notes, Canada’s oil reserves are second only to Saudia Arabia and could provide the U.S. with a robust 830,000 barrels of oil a day in the future. Increased supply, reduced dependence on foreign oil and job growth are factors that are difficult to ignore and should be guiding the administration’s evaluation process.
What will Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to phase out nuclear power plants by 2022 mean for Germany’s economic future? ACCF’s Brussel-based affiliate, the International Council for Capital Formation, sponsored an analysis in 2005, “Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: The Economic Cost to Germany”, prepared by Global Insight (now IHS Global Insight). See comparison of Exhibit 11 with Exhibit 16 below which shows how many more jobs and GDP will be lost if Germany phases out nuclear power by 2020. Germany’s current emission reduction target is 80% to 96% by 2050 which is close to the case run in the 2005 study assuming their target would be zero emissions by 2050. If Germany phases out its nuclear power by 2020 and tries to reduce CO2 to zero by 2050 (their current emission reduction target), the ICCF analysis shows that there will be additional 130,000 jobs lost in 2020 and an additional 120,000 lost in 2025 compared to the case where nuclear power is retained as part of the generation fleet. GDP will also decline by about 10 billion real euros more in 2020 and 2025 when nuclear power is phased out compared the case where it is retained.
ACCF