1 / 0

Insights from Summer Committee Meetings: Regional Perspectives and Budget Analysis

The Summer Committee Meetings, featuring insights from Yoram Bauman of the Sightline Institute and Bruce Braine from American Electric Power, provide valuable discussions on budget trends and regional learnings. This documentation covers BC Budgets from 2008-2013 and utilizes data from CANSIM sources, offering a comprehensive overview of regional insights that impact electric power and economic strategies. These meetings serve as a key platform for understanding collaborative approaches to energy policy and regional development.

telyn
Télécharger la présentation

Insights from Summer Committee Meetings: Regional Perspectives and Budget Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summer Committee Meetings

  2. Yoram BaumanSightline Institute

  3. Source: BC Budgets 2008-2013
  4. Source: CANSIM 379-0025
  5. Source: CANSIM 134-0004
  6. Learning from the Regions
  7. Learning from the Regions

  8. Bruce BraineAmerican Electric Power

  9. Comparison of Hypothetical U.S. CO2Cap and Trade vs. Tax

    Bruce H. Braine VP – Strategic Policy Analysis NARUC Summer Committee Meetings July 23, 2013
  10. Background Federal CO2 legislation very unlikely in next 3-5 years. Obama Administration moving forward on CO2 regulations (e.g. utility NSPS on new and existing sources) BUT likely insufficient to meet long-term (post-2020) CO2 goals and NOT cost-effective. If policymakers determine more long term CO2 reductions needed, federal legislation (either carbon tax or “cap and trade”) would be required. How do these two approaches compare?
  11. Comparison of Hypothetical U.S Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax Assumptions for ‘apples to apples’ comparison of programs: Total US 17% reduction (below 2005 levels) by 2020 = CO2 tax of $30 per ton Cap and Trade w/ full allocation of allowances for electric utilities/customers Majority of CO2 reductions come from/required from electric sector Carbon Tax Revenues-- ½ for deficit reduction, ½ returned per-capita
  12. Differences in Electric Sector “Direct” Costs Note: Cap and Trade Assumes 100% allowance allocation to customers thru LDCs, but most reductions come from electrics. See Slide 3.
  13. Approximate State Level Impacts of CO2 Tax Notes: (1) “Cap and Trade” Results in Per Capita Values of $200 or less. (2) Values are approximate and do not account for regional shifts in costs from industrial production and/or exports.
  14. Positive Track Record for Cap and Trade U.S. Acid Rain Program European Union GHG ETS Source: European Environmental Agency
  15. Comparison of Other Forms of Cap and Trade and Taxes Cap and Trade with Full Allocation results in a much smaller “negative” impact than Tax with 50% recycling on electricity consumers and overall US GDP and jobs. However, Cap and Trade with 100% Auction and 50% recycling would have similarly large negative impacts as a Carbon Tax. Carbon tax “could” be a net positive for the economy if MOST ALL of proceeds are used to reduce less efficient taxes (e.g. marginal income tax rates). BUT High regional costs and negative distributional impacts on lower/middle income consumers.
  16. Learning from the Regions
More Related