Study debunks bill’s selling point as a ‘moderate’ alternative


Washington, D.C.--According to a new study by the Energy Information Administration, the costs of implementing the Clean Air Planning Act (S. 843) would be four times higher than those associated with Clear Skies (S. 485), and under an alternative scenario, the overall figure could be more than 6 times higher.


EIA found that over the period 2005 to 2025, the cost of Clear Skies would fall short of $25 billion. By contrast, EIA’s projections show that the Clean Air Planning Act would cost about $98 billion, about $1,000 a household, and four times as much as Clear Skies. EIA also estimates that the price tag of the Clean Air Planning Act could go as high as $160 billion.


Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, released the following statement:


“As I’ve said all along, Clear Skies is the most aggressive presidential initiative in history to reduce power plant emissions, and it will reduce emissions faster and cheaper than current law.


“This EIA study debunks the notion that the Carper bill is the ‘moderate’ alternative to Clear Skies. As EIA clearly shows, the Clean Air Planning Act imposes caps and timetables that are unrealistic and far too costly, posing serious harm to businesses, the economy, and electricity reliability.


“The President has stated--and history has proven--that, with the right policies, environmental protection and economic growth can coexist. His Clear Skies initiative, which will bring significant health benefits to the American people without causing damage to the economy, achieves that important balance. The Clean Air Planning Act does not.”