WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with Republican Committee member Senator George Voinovich (R-Oh.) today sent a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson requesting a more thorough and comprehensive economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009.
“An updated and more complete analysis of Waxman-Markey is critical to the legislative process,” Inhofe said. “Congress needs this information in order to act in the best interest of constituents, the economy, and the nation’s energy security.”
Full Text of Letter Below:
July 24, 2009
The Honorable Lisa Jackson
AdministratorEnvironmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Federal Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Jackson,
On January 23, in a memo to EPA employees, you wrote that “public trust demands that we reach out to stakeholders fairly and impartially,” and that the Agency consider, “the views and data presented carefully and objectively, and that we fully disclose the information that forms the bases for our decisions.” This is a sound policy that will burnish the agency’s credibility and the quality of its work.
We hope this policy will guide the agency’s economic analysis of climate change legislation. Getting quality data and analysis based on reasonable assumptions is critical to understanding how cap-and-trade legislation works and how much it costs.
The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009 contains 1,400 pages of complex provisions and programs that will profoundly affect every corner of the American economy. The costs of implementing this bill—and others like it—will be paid by consumers, businesses, and families. And its economic impact will fall disproportionately on our constituents and in similar states in the Midwest, South, and Great Plains, which depend on manufacturing for jobs and coal for electricity. Congress and the public need to understand how such economic burdens will affect their constituents and their communities.
In our view, EPA’s recent analysis of Waxman-Markey offers an incomplete account of the bill’s major provisions, how they overlap, and how they impact consumers, households, and the economy. Our hope is to work together with your staff to produce a detailed, comprehensive, and objective analysis to inform the upcoming legislative debate in the Senate. Based on your commitment to using the best available science and input from a wide variety of interests to support your decisions, we are confident we can accomplish this task for the benefit of stakeholders and the public.
The following points summarize the assumptions and scenarios that we would like your staff to use in conducting an analysis of Waxman-Markey:
1) A reference case that includes the most recent Energy Information Administration’s updated Annual Energy Outlook (April 2009) and incorporates economic policies consistent with the President’s 2010 Budget Proposal.
2) A core policy case with changes in underlying assumptions, along with modeling the same provisions as the June 23, 2009, EPA Waxman-Markey analysis, to provide consistency of comparison.
3) Alternative Policy/Sensitivity Cases that include more realistic assumptions about technology deployment.
4) Modeling of the full Waxman-Markey bill using the conditions established in the reference case, including updated alternative policy and sensitivity cases.
5) A detailed discussion of the efficacy of this bill in terms of its contribution to the G-8 agreement to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius.
6) A detailed discussion of EPA’s Integrated Planning Model’s (IPM) treatment of costs for renewables and natural gas supply and demand.
7) Cost analyses of the Waxman-Markey provisions on households and energy intensive, trade exposed industries.
We request that your agency provide policymakers and the public with the most up-to-date analysis, based on real-world assumptions, about energy production and use, the deployment of new technologies, and a complete account of the bill’s cost to the economy. I hope you and your staff can complete this analysis by August 7th.
A detail description of our modeling request is attached. Please contact Todd Johnston or Tom Hassenboehler for further guidance and discussion.