l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Published on CNS News http://www.cnsnews.com
EPA Chief: ‘Low-Income Minority Communities Would Be Hardest Hit’ by Obama
’s Climate Regulations
The chief environmental regulator in the United States had some blunt words
of reality regarding the administration’s climate change regulations.
The Clean Power Plan that will require drastic cuts [1] in 47 states’
carbon dioxide emissions – consequently shifting America’s energy economy
away from affordable, reliable coal – will adversely impact poor, minority
families the most [1].
When speaking about the higher energy prices caused by the administration’s
climate regulations on power plants, Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Gina McCarthy said [2], “We know that low-income minority
communities would be hardest hit.”
McCarthy downplayed that fact by saying any minimal higher prices would be
offset by implementing energy efficiency measures that would save consumers
money in the long run.
In fact, as part of the regulation the EPA [3] “prioritizes early
investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by the
Federal government awarding these projects double the number of credits in
2020 and 2021.”
Low and fixed income families will be hardest hit by the administration’s
regulations and energy efficiency programs will not save them. While the
median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs, low-
income families spend about 20 cents of every dollar. And the economic pain
from the regulations will not be simply the direct costs of higher energy
prices, but through higher prices for all the goods we purchase as energy is
a necessary component to manufacture those goods.
Furthermore, federal and state programs already exist to promote energy
savings for low-income families. Through the Department of Energy’s annual
budget, taxpayers fund a weatherization assistance program to make
efficiency upgrades in homes [4] and many state programs exist doing the
same. However, many of these programs over-promise and under-deliver on
energy savings.
Sherzod Abdukadirov, a research fellow on regulatory studies at the Mercatus
Center at George Mason University writes [5]:
“One recent study [6] examined the DOE’s Weatherization Assistance
Program, which helps low-income families improve energy efficiency of their
homes by, among other things, paying for furnace replacement. The study
found that the DOE’s models used to calculate the expected energy savings
actually overestimated the savings 2.5 times. The study notes that the DOE
uses similar models to estimate the energy savings for energy-efficiency
standards for residential appliances. Other [7] studies [8] similarly found
[9] that actual energy savings received by consumers are only a fraction of
the original estimates.
“Another problem is that consumers are different. Given the wide
variety of consumers’ income levels, access to credit and energy usage
patterns, some consumers would not benefit from paying a higher price for
the most energy-efficient furnace. According to the DOE’s analysis, one in
five consumers would be worse off as a result of the standard. This ratio is
even higher for low-income consumers.”
It is not necessarily a win for low-income families if states choose to
implement more stringent energy efficiency mandates to comply with the Clean
Power Plan.
In fact, it could be a big loss. Poorer families tend to have very low
savings, if any at all.
For many, their priorities are putting food on the table and making sure the
bills are paid from month to month. They may prefer cheaper appliances and
light bulbs as opposed to mandated pricier ones (studies show that they do [
10]).
Forcing low income families to pay higher upfront costs for a washing
machine for dubious savings isn’t desirable if the government is taking
money and choices away from more pressing needs that are in the families’
self-interest.
Driving up the price of these products for questionable long-term energy
savings is doing even more harm to these families than helping them.
Arguing that increasing energy prices with regulations will save money by
forcing energy-efficient product purchases is equivalent to cutting
employees’ salaries and telling them that they will save money by shopping
at Target. Just as the option to save money at Target existed before the pay
cut, families and businesses already have an incentive to purchase energy-
efficient products.
When the government mandates efficiency, it removes that choice and makes
consumers worse off.
States could also choose very well not to implement energy efficiency
mandates, but instead put in place a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade program,
force pricier renewable energy mandates on families and businesses.
The point is, no matter what states choose to do, the economic pain will be
felt, which is why Congress and state officials need to reject the
regulation entirely.
A few weeks ago President Obama blasted critics of his Clean Power Plan
saying [11], “Even more cynical, we’ve got critics of this plan who are
actually claiming that this will harm minority and low-income communities —
even though climate change hurts those Americans the most, who are the most
vulnerable.”
But this plan will hurt minority and low-income families the most, as
admitted by McCarthy.
And energy efficiency handouts and mandates are certainly not going to be a
panacea for the federal government’s energy-raising, job-crushing climate
regulations.
Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory
issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The Heritage
Foundation [12].
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/epa-chief-low-income-minority-communities-would-be-hardest-hit-obamas |
|
