From the inbox (From: "The Hill" <[email protected]>):
NEW COAL INDUSTRY REPORT SLAMS CLIMATE RULE: A new report commissioned by the coal industry says Obama's new climate rule for power plants will raise electricity prices in each state where it applies.
The report, completed by Nera Economic Consulting and commissioned by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, says the rule's costs will approach $300 billion without helping the climate.
"This analysis makes it abundantly clear the president's power plan will result in higher electricity prices and delivers a sharp wake-up call to states and consumers," Mike Duncan, the group's president, said in a statement.
The Monday report is only the latest in harsh criticisms of the rule by the coal industry, which stands to lose greatly from its implementation.
It contrasts with the Environmental Protection Agency's analysis, which found that the benefits in energy efficiency, climate protection and health would far outweigh the costs.
Documentation released with the final rule estimated a cost of up to $8.4 billion and a benefit of up to $54 billion.
Comparing the numbers, NERA finds that the net benefits are negative $300 billion. The EPA finds that the net benefits are positive $45.6 billion. That is a big difference.
I've seen an EPA produced benefit-cost analysis that shows virtually zero net benefits (the smog rule) but I've never seen a coal industry funded benefit-cost analysis that found anything other than something that supported digging up coal (if you know of any counter examples, please let me know). I hate to be a jerk without reading the NERA report, but I suspect that NERA's analysis may be guilty of "confirmation" and/or "allegiance" biases (Ioannidis, John, and Chris Doucouliagos. "What's to know about the credibility of empirical economics?" Journal of Economic Surveys 27, no. 5 (2013): 997-1004.).
