New Study: Lower Emission Future Is Likely More Affordable for Consumers

Experts

Policy Counsel, Energy and Environment

By Shannon Baker-Branstetter on Thursday, July 2nd, 2015

This week, Synapse Energy Economics released the first glimpse of a study modeling and comparing two possible futures for the electricity sector–one with cleaner energy and lower emissions and the other with business as usual energy investments.  What may come as a surprise to some, especially given the rhetoric of opponents of EPA’s Clean Air Act rules, the “Clean Energy Future” scenario could save electric consumers $41 billion in the year 2040 as compared to business as usual.

Here’s a short summary of Synapse’s assumptions and findings for the “Clean Energy Future” in 2040:

  • 70% renewables
  • 200 GW of rooftop solar
  • 25% energy efficiency savings
  • 84% lower carbon dioxide emissions (even greater than those envisioned by EPA’s Clean Power Plan)

Fig 1 Synapse

Synapse used the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Renewable Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model to compare the costs of the United States transitioning to a Clean Energy Future with business‐as‐usual costs.  All electric-generating resources continue to operate throughout their useful lifetimes in the Clean Energy Future. 

Over the coming months, Synapse will build upon its analysis to determine the state-by-state consumer bill impacts of the proposed and final Clean Power Plan, which is expected to be released in late summer.  So stay tuned!

 

2 responses to “New Study: Lower Emission Future Is Likely More Affordable for Consumers”

  1. G L says:

    While I totally agree with these numbers, what they fail to address are the regional implications. Under the plan, the areas that have done the least in the past will pay the least and save the most while areas that have attempted to comply in the past have paid the most and will pay the most while having the least savings. The plan should address this by some method of national rather than regional allocation of costs.

    Just an Arkansas redneck, not very excited about subsidizing the energy costs of those who have chosen to do nothing in the past.

  2. G L says:

    While I totally agree with these numbers, what they fail to address are the regional implications. Under the plan, the areas that have done the least in the past will pay the least and save the most while areas that have attempted to comply in the past have paid the most and will pay the most while having the least savings. The plan should address this by some method of national rather than regional allocation of costs.

    Just an Arkansas redneck, not very excited about subsidizing the energy costs of those who have chosen to do nothing in the past.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *