 |
 |
 |
EIA Executive Summary notes below and full linked here
The reports highlights the 'VAST and nearly impossible new energy' assumptions and 'technological fantasies' being made under this program. Report reflects what a insignificant amount of gross global emissions this will reduce and the massive increase in cost, unsustainable bio harvesting offsets and the lead indicator of the nuclear option.
H.R. 2454 ACESA - All will reducing nearly nothing at the cost of nearly everything....
Key EIA Findings
Given the potential of offsets as a low-cost compliance option, the amount of reduction in covered emissions is exceeded by the amount of compliance generated through offsets in most of the main analysis cases (Figure ES-1).
The vast majority of reductions in energy-related emissions are expected to occur in the electric power sector. Across the ACESA main cases, the electricity sector accounts for between 80 percent and 88 percent of the total reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions relative to the Reference Case in 2030. Reductions in electricity-sector emissions are primarily achieved by reducing the role of conventional coal-fired generation, which in 2007 provided 50 percent of total U.S. generation, and increasing the use of no- or low-carbon generation technologies that either exist today (e.g. renewables and nuclear) or are under development (fossil with CCS). In addition, a portion of the electricity-related CO2 emissions reductions results from reduced electricity demand stimulated both by consumer responses to higher electricity prices and incentives in ACESA to stimulate greater efficiency in energy use.
If new nuclear, renewable, and fossil plants with CCS are not developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with emissions reduction requirements under ACESA, covered entities are expected to respond by increasing their use of offsets, if available, and by turning to increased natural gas use to offset reductions in coal generation. While natural gas generation is expected to fall below the Reference Case level in most ACESA Cases, in the ACESA No International/Limited Case natural gas generation is 68 percent above the Reference Case level by 2030, due to the assumed limited availability of international offsets, new plants with CCS, as well as new nuclear and dedicated biomass capacity (Table ES-1).
Emissions reductions from changes in fossil fuel use in the residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors are small relative to those in the electric power sector. ...Beyond reductions in direct fuel use, the reduction in electricity demand, which ranges from 4.1 percent to 14.7 percent below the Reference Case level in 2030 across the main policy cases, makes an important contribution to the overall reduction in electricity-related emissions.
GHG allowance prices are sensitive to the cost and availability of emissions offsets and low-and no-carbon generating technologies. Allowance prices in the ACESA Basic Case are projected at $32 per metric ton in 2020 and $65 per metric ton in 2030. Across all main analysis cases, allowance prices range from $20 to $93 per metric ton in 2020 and from $41 to $191 (2007 dollars) per metric ton in 2030 (Figure ES-3). The lower prices in the range occur in cases where technological options such as CCS and adoption of new nuclear power plants can be deployed on a large scale before 2030 at relatively low costs, the use of international offsets helps to hold down compliance costs, and/or optimism about future technology availability holds down the near-term incentive to bank allowances for use beyond 2030 (ACESA Basic, ACESA High Offset, and/or ACESA Zero Bank cases).
Higher allowance prices occur if international offsets are unavailable, particularly if it is also the case that low- or no-emission baseload electricity supply technologies cannot be expanded beyond the Reference Case level (ACESA No International and ACESA No International/Limited cases).
ACESA increases energy prices, but effects on electricity and natural gas bills of consumers are substantially mitigated through 2025 by the allocation of free allowances to regulated electricity and natural gas distribution companies....10 to 77 percent above the Reference Case level - across all six main policy cases.
ACESA increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls relative to the Reference Case. Total discounted GDP losses over the 2012 to 2030 time period are $566 billion (-0.3 percent) in the ACESA Basic Case, with a range from $432 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,897 billion (-0.9 percent) across the main ACESA cases (Table ES-2). Similarly, the cumulative discounted losses for personal consumption are $273 billion (-0.2 percent) in the ACESA Basic Case and range from $196 billion (-0.1 percent) to $988 billion .... Full EIA report linked here