Costs of Inaction FINAL VERSION.doc1 - Amazon Web Services · 2009-10-08 · Costs of Inaction 6 measures could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants cumulatively by 127

Costs of Inaction 1

The Costs of Inaction:

Delaying Action on Global Warming

Costs Consumers and the Environment

U.S. PIRG Education Fund October 2003

Costs of Inaction 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written by Beth Lander of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. © 2003, U.S. PIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Anna Aurilio, Alison Cassady, Anne Haggerty, Eva Howe, Katherine Morrison, Dan Vitek, and Julia Webb for their contributions to the report. The author also would like to thank James Bumbera of the Property Claims Service, Steve Clemmer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Allen Escobar of the Small Business Administration, David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dave Hewitt of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, John Meador of the Army Corps of Engineers, Bruce Redcay of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Raquel Sabogal of the Centers for Disease Control, and Lynn Tjeerdsma of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency for their help with data collection. We would like to extend a special thanks to our funders, without whom this report would not have been possible: Energy Foundation, J.M. Kaplan Foundation, John Merck Fund, New York Community Trust, Park Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and individual contributors. For copies of this report send a check or money order in the amount of $30 made payable to U.S. PIRG Education Fund at the following address, attention “Reports.”

U.S. PIRG Education Fund 218 D Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707 (phone)

(202) 546-2461 (fax) [email protected]

This and other publications are also available on our website at www.pirg.org. U.S. PIRG is a non-profit, non-partisan consumer and environmental watchdog organization. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, in association with state PIRGs in 28 states, conducts research and policy analysis on public health, environmental, consumer, and democracy issues.

Costs of Inaction 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................2 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................5 BACKGROUND: THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING ..........................................................................7 CURBING GLOBAL WARMING WHILE SAVING CONSUMERS MONEY ....................................................9

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ....................................................................................................................9 Standards for Homes & Buildings .............................................................................................9 Appliance Standards .............................................................................................................10 Utility Programs ....................................................................................................................12

TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY....................................................................................................13 RENEWABLE ENERGY .................................................................................................................17

Reducing Global Warming Emissions ......................................................................................17 Economic Benefits of Renewables ..........................................................................................19

CAPPING CARBON EMISSIONS ...................................................................................................21 INVESTMENT IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY....................................................................................21

EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND WORLDWIDE..............................................23 EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN 2002...........................................................................................23 EXTREME WEATHER CONTINUES IN 2003 ....................................................................................25

FINDINGS: ECOMOMIC LOSSES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER IN 2002 ...............................................26 INSURED LOSSES IN THE UNITED STATES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER ...........................................26 GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON WEATHER-RELATED DISASTER ASSISTANCE ..............................28 TOTAL FINANCIAL COSTS OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN 2002.................................................31

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................33 END NOTES ...................................................................................................................................34

Costs of Inaction 4

“In July, the U.N. Meteorological Organization affirmed that warming of the atmosphere and deep oceans is intensifying droughts, along with heat waves and floods, worldwide…Just as we underestimated the rate at which the climate would change, we have underestimated the biological responses to warming and the costs associated with the accompanying weather extremes.”

-Paul Epstein, Harvard University Medical School, Center for Health and the Global Environment & Gary Tabor, Wilburforce Foundation’s Yellowstone to Yukon Program1

“Even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected warming could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the U.S., including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise.”

-Letter from more than 800 leading scientists expressing their concern about global warming to Senators Frist and Daschle

“But even though this ice melt and permafrost thawing is happening too fast to be due to global warming, this is the kind of prototype of what we should expect after the next few decades…This is a good dress rehearsal for the kinds of things we could see later."

-Atmospheric chemist Ralph J. Cicerone of the University of California at Irvine2 “Climate change may well be about our planet’s future, but it is also about the financial risks to corporations, and the impact on the retirement savings of millions of Americans.”

-Statement by Connecticut Treasurer Denise L. Nappier to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works3

Costs of Inaction 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The majority of scientists are certain that the climate is changing around the world and that humans are causing the transformation. Fortunately, we have the technological know-how to reduce global warming emissions while saving consumers money. But the longer we wait to take serious action the more devastating the consequences. We should not be daunted by the task at hand. As difficult as it may seem to change the weather, the fact is that we may already have. Burning fossil fuels – oil, coal, and gas – to power our cars and generate electricity emits global warming gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the primary pollutant, but nitrous oxide and methane also contribute to global warming. The buildup of these gases in the atmosphere has formed a heat-trapping blanket around the earth, causing average temperatures to rise. This in turn alters the climate of the planet, throwing weather systems out of balance. There are numerous ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while saving consumers money and boosting the economy. Energy conservation and efficiency programs not only curb emissions of global warming pollution, but also lower the cost of powering homes and businesses. Manufacturing cars that can go farther on a gallon of gas reduces tailpipe emissions of global warming gases while saving consumers billions at the gas pump. Finally, increasing our electricity generation from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, would reduce global warming emissions while alleviating many of our most pressing environmental and public health problems, including acid rain, smog, asthma attacks, and mercury contamination. Renewable sources of energy also would benefit our economy; studies show that investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources lowers the price of natural gas and creates substantially more jobs than similar investments in oil and gas production. Despite the availability and feasibility of these options, the federal government has not taken meaningful action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This delay has measurable opportunity costs—the savings that consumers could be enjoying as a result of energy efficiency programs and electricity generation from renewable energy. Specifically:

• By increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 30%, energy bills would be reduced by $75 billion every year for 15 years, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). ACEEE also found that energy savings from more efficient building codes could result in global warming emission reductions of nearly 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide cumulatively by 2020.

• The Appliance Standards Awareness Project projects that increasing air conditioners’

efficiency by 30% by 2030 would save consumers more than $1.4 billion cumulatively. This could reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than 3.3 million metric tons, the equivalent of eliminating almost one and a half 300 MW coal-fired power plants operating nearly all the time.

• ACEEE estimates that the net lifetime economic benefits for a public benefits fund to spark new

investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be approximately $100 billion or nearly $1,000 per U.S. household by 2020. These efficiency and public benefit

Costs of Inaction 6

measures could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants cumulatively by 127 million metric tons by 2020, about a 6% reduction from projected business as usual carbon emissions.

• A 40-mile per gallon fleet-wide fuel economy standard for cars and light trucks implemented

over the next ten years would conserve two million barrels of oil daily, save consumers $16 billion annually at the pump when fully implemented, and cut global warming pollution from passenger vehicles by 20%, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

• The Union of Concerned Scientists also found that a national renewable energy standard of

20% of electricity generation by 2020 could save consumers $4.5 billion on their energy bills between 2002 and 2020 and reduce global warming emissions from power plants by 19% in 2020.

By delaying acting on global warming, we not only lose the benefits of powering our economy more efficiently, but we also increase the costs of dealing with the consequences. Over the years, scientists have noted a steady climb in the number and severity of extreme weather events. 2002 tied with 1998 to be one of the warmest years since global temperatures have been recorded. By the end of the year, about 50% of the United States had been afflicted with drought. In 2002, approximately 700 natural disasters worldwide caused $55 billion in economic damages and took 11,000 lives. Internationally, weather-related natural disasters in the last ten years caused more than $550 billion in economic damages. The United States has not been immune from the growing financial burden of global warming. In 2002, extreme weather events cost insurers and taxpayers almost $20 billion. Specifically:

• According to data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Flood Insurance Program, Army Corps of Engineers, Small Business Administration, and Farm Service Agency, the U.S. government spent $13.8 billion in 2002 on weather-related disaster assistance.

• Property Claims Service, the information resource for the insurance industry for compiling and

reporting estimates of insured property loss, reported more than $5.8 billion in insured property damage due to catastrophic weather-related events in 2002.

• The states recording the highest economic costs due to extreme weather, including both

federal government expenditures and insured losses, include Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Georgia.

• The states spending the most per capita in 2002 to recover from extreme weather events

include North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

Fortunately, we can simultaneously reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and save Americans money. But our window of opportunity is closing. The longer we wait, the greater the risk that the consequences will be irreversible.

Costs of Inaction 7

BACKGROUND: THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING

The majority of scientists are certain that the climate is changing around the world and that humans are causing the transformation. The data suggest that the climate is changing because of a build-up of global warming gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary problem gas, but nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) also contribute to global warming.4 The leading cause of this build-up of global warming pollutants is the burning of fossil fuels – oil, coal, and gas – combined with the clearing of forests and other activities of a burgeoning human population. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has formed a heat-trapping blanket around the earth, causing average temperatures to rise. Since the pre-industrial era, or about 1750, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased by 31%.5 Studies of ice cores show that historically, atmospheric temperatures are higher when concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are higher. These same studies show that concentrations of greenhouse gases are far higher today than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years.6

In the U.S., electricity generation accounts for 33% of total global warming emissions, transportation activities for 27%, and industrial activities for 19%. The remaining 21% of global warming emissions in the U.S. are due to residential, agricultural, and commercial activities.7

Evidence of global warming is all around us. Average temperatures are increasing at a rate that far exceeds the normal temperature swings for the past thousand years.8 Since 1900, temperatures in the northern hemisphere have increased by more than 1º F (.5 ºC),

precipitation has increased by 5 to 10%, and growing seasons have lengthened.9 In addition, the breakup of major ice shelves in the Arctic is tangible evidence of global warming.10 Future climate scenarios show likely increases in heavy precipitation, tropical storms, and temperature. Scientists fear that global warming will worsen the frequency, timing, intensity, and duration of these extreme weather events.11 In order to curb global warming, we must reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases in our atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an officially appointed body of the world’s global warming experts, if we do nothing, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will at least double and could triple by the end of the 21st century.12 The emissions we have already released will remain in the atmosphere for many decades to centuries. Therefore, even if global warming concentrations are stabilized, global warming could persist for hundreds of years. 13 We have to stop short of doubling global warming concentrations to avoid

��

��

Figure A. 2001 Global Warming Emissions by Sector

33%

27%

19%

8%

6%7%

ElectricityTransportationIndustry

��AgricultureResidential��

�� Commercial

Costs of Inaction 8

dangerous harm to our climate. Our window of opportunity is now closing. We cannot afford to delay taking action on global warming. If we allow our climate to reach the breaking point, we will be paying the price for many years.

Costs of Inaction 9

CURBING GLOBAL WARMING WHILE SAVING CONSUMERS MONEY Fortunately, there are solutions to global warming. We can reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by:

• increasing energy efficiency in buildings and appliances; • strengthening fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks; • instituting a national systems benefit charge to support energy efficiency and renewable

energy; • implementing a national standard to generate electricity from clean, renewable resources; and • shifting investment away from fossil fuels – oil, coal, and gas – to renewable energy and fuel

cells. These solutions will save Americans money and cut global warming emissions. But our window of opportunity is closing. ENERGY EFFICIENCY Energy conservation and efficiency programs not only reduce emissions of global warming pollution, but also benefit consumers. After the initial expense of purchasing equipment to make their homes and offices more efficient, consumers enjoy smaller energy bills. Research by the RAND Corporation has shown that many energy efficiency improvements, such as new technologies and building codes, over the last 25 years have saved Californians billions of dollars—up to $1,300 per person—and given the entire state economy a 3% boost.14 Such improvements also could greatly reduce global warming emissions, since energy generation accounts for 33% of global warming emissions in the U.S. Standards for Homes & Buildings Building energy codes require that new structures meet minimum energy efficiency criteria, reducing electricity bills as well as global warming emissions. Energy efficient buildings minimize heating and cooling requirements and reduce electricity demand. The Alliance to Save Energy, a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders, estimates that the U.S. could reduce electricity consumption by 30% with no reduction in current or future living standards using existing technology improvements. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that a 30% increase in U.S. building efficiency (which is reasonably attainable) would reduce energy bills by $75 billion every year in 15 years.15 ACEEE also found that energy savings from more efficient building codes could result in global warming emission reductions of nearly 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide cumulatively by 2020.16 The Union of Concerned Scientists has found that continuous improvements to building codes would save 22 billion kWh of electricity by 2010 and 100 billion kWh by 2020. This translates into 0.10 quadrillion British thermal units of fossil fuel savings by 2010 and 0.47 quadrillion British thermal units by 2020.17 In the summer of 2001, as California faced rolling blackouts, a combination of recently enacted efficiency programs and voluntary measures by homeowners and businesses reduced electricity use by

Costs of Inaction 10

almost 7% compared with the previous year (after adjusting for seasonal differences and economic growth). These conservation efforts included setting the thermostat at 78 °F and installing energy saving devices, such as compact fluorescent lights. Californians ultimately saved an average of 3 cents per kWh on their energy bills.18 Given that California residents consumed 76,233 million kWh in 2001, they saved more than $2 billion in 2001 alone from their energy conservation and efficiency efforts. a,19 Appliance Standards Appliance efficiency standards already implemented have saved consumers money – including initial purchase cost – while saving energy. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in 2000, existing appliance standards saved 1.2 quadrillion British thermal units of energy (1.3% of total energy use) while reducing consumer energy bills by $9 billion.20 The 1987 National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) requires the periodic updating of appliance efficiency standards. In 1997, DOE began to update the standards for fluorescent lights, clothes washers, water heaters, central air conditioners, and heat pumps. The fluorescent light bulb standard was completed in late 2000, and the other three were finalized in the final month of the Clinton administration. If properly implemented, more stringent appliance standards would save 4.2 quadrillion British thermal units per year (3.5% of projected total energy use) by 2020. Most importantly, much of this reduction would be at times of peak electricity demand, cutting peak demand by 12.6%.21 According to the Appliance Standard Awareness Project, stringent efficiency standards for clothes washers, air conditioners, water heaters, and other appliances would save consumers more than $3 in energy savings over the life of the appliance for every $1 spent.22 Additional national standards for products not covered by NAECA, including commercial refrigerators, traffic lights, distribution transformers, icemakers, and many other products, would cost-effectively result in a 1% reduction in total U.S. energy use, saving consumers $7 billion per year by 2020.23,24

The Clinton administration set a standard calling for a 30% increase in efficiency for central air conditioners and heat pumps (the SEER 13 standard). In May 2002, the Bush administration announced that it would implement a 20% increase in efficiency – the SEER 12 standard – rather than the SEER 13 standard. This lower standard reduces peak electricity savings by 17,000 MW, creating the need for 40 additional power plants.25

As shown in Table 1, the SEER 13 standards would provide significant environmental and consumer benefits above and beyond that of the SEER 12 standards. By increasing air conditioners’ efficiency by 30%, by 2030 the U.S. could save consumers more than $1.4 billion cumulatively and reduce peak generation by almost 20,000 MW. This is the equivalent to the capacity of approximately 65 power plants operating intermittently to generate electricity at peak times. This could reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than 3.3 million metric tons, the equivalent of eliminating almost one and a half 300 MW coal-fired power plants operating nearly all the time.b

a The California Energy Commission estimated that residents consumed 76,233 million kWh in 2001, multiplied by 3 cents, the result is $2,286,990,000 in savings. b The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that a new coal-fired power plant releases approximately 2 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of operation. A power plant with a 1 MW (1,000 KW) capacity will produce the equivalent of 8,760,000 kWh annually at full operation – that is, 8,760 hours multiplied by 1,000. At this rate, such a plant would emit an estimated 17,520,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, which is the equivalent of 8,760 short tons or 7,947 metric tons of carbon dioxide.


Table 1. Savings Under SEER 13 vs. SEER 12

Source: Appliance Standards Awareness Project analysis, March 2002.


Utility Programs In addition to setting standards, federal and state governments fund and mandate energy efficiency improvements, with most of the programs administered by electric utilities. These programs have included weatherization for low-income households, appliance recycling, efficiency programs for business customers, and more. These programs are cost-effective. The California Public Utility Commission recently calculated that energy efficiency programs administered by the state’s utilities from 1994–97 cost an average of 1.6 cents per kWh, which is significantly less than the average cost of electricity in 1999.26,27 The benefit cost ratios for utility energy efficiency programs are 1.09 for residential programs, 1.90 for nonresidential programs, and 2.18 for new construction programs – a weighted average of 1.61. This means that Californians received $1.61 back for every $1.00 they spent.28

Nevertheless, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, since 1993, spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs has dropped almost 50% while energy use has climbed.29 The California Energy Commission recently estimated that the state lost more megawatts through cuts in energy efficiency programs than the power shortfalls that sent the state into rolling blackouts on several occasions. If funding for energy efficiency programs had stayed as high from 1995–1999 as it was in 1994, savings from these programs would have reduced demand in 1999 by as much as 1,101 MW.30 Most of the rolling blackouts California experienced in 2001 could have been caused by shortages of only 500 MW. A public benefits fund would offset these declines by placing a small charge, usually one to three tenths of one cent per kilowatt-hour, on all electricity flowing through the transmission grid. This money can be used for energy efficiency programs; investments in promising renewable energy technologies; low-income assistance programs; and clean energy research and development. States that already have some form of systems benefit fund in place include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, because of state budget problems, some of these funds are being raided to pay for programs that are not related to energy efficiency or renewable energy. A federal level public benefits fund would provide matching federal money for all of the state revenue collected in the state funds, allotting a baseline amount to states that do not have programs, and give states and utilities incentives to expand energy efficiency programs and other public benefit activities. An analysis by American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that this could save 50 quadrillion British thermal units of electricity by 2020, which is equivalent to the output of 500 average sized power plants.31 These electricity savings translate into lower energy bills for consumers. ACEEE estimates that by 2020, the net lifetime economic benefits for a public benefits fund would be approximately $100 billion or nearly $1,000 per U.S. household. In addition, these efficiency and public benefit measures would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants cumulatively by 127 million metric tons by 2020, about a 6% reduction from projected business as usual carbon emissions in 2020.c,32

c The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy projected carbon emissions from fossil fuels to reach 2,063 million metric tons by 2020.


TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY The transportation sector accounts for 40% of total petroleum use and about 27% of global warming pollution in the U.S.33,34 Increasing fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles is the single biggest step we could take to reduce oil consumption and global warming pollution from the transportation sector.

In 1975, President Ford and a bipartisan vote in Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. These standards require that the average fuel economy of all cars and trucks—not specific models—sold by each manufacturer meet specific targets. The standards quickly led to dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency, requiring that cars achieve an average of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and light trucks, including SUVs, pickups, minivans, to achieve an average of 20.7 mpg, thereby doubling fuel economy prior to 1970. Almost 30 years later, the federal government has failed to pass any meaningful increase in vehicle fuel economy. In fact, average fuel economy is at a 23-year low. Since the CAFE standards were implemented, carmakers have exploited the loophole allowing light trucks to meet a lower efficiency standard by developing and marketing a whole new class of vehicles – the SUV for non-commercial use as a family car. As a result, light trucks have become an increasingly larger portion of new vehicle sales (Figure B).35

Figure B. Registrations of Light Trucks (Sport Utility Vehicles, Minivans, and Pickups): 1987-1997

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Here’s What’s New in Truck Trends.”

Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/viuspr/97tvprus.pdf. In 1994, Congress froze CAFE standards at their already outdated levels and prevented the Department of Transportation from even studying the appropriateness of updating the standards. In the following years, the House of Representatives upheld these restrictions. In 2000, a bipartisan group of 40 senators reached a compromise that left the CAFE freeze in place but authorized a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to determine the impacts of improving CAFE standards. This 2001 NAS study found that automakers could use existing technology to increase the fuel economy of its fleet to 40 miles per gallon over the next decade while improving safety and maintaining performance.36


Applying existing technology to improve the fuel economy of cars would provide enormous benefits to the economy while reducing our dependence on oil and curbing global warming emissions. Simply closing the “light truck loophole” to require light trucks to meet the same standards as cars would save owners of SUVs, minivans, and large pickups more than $27 billion at the gas pump, easily paying for any costs in updating vehicle technology.37 According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this change also would reduce U.S. global warming emissions by 11.5% cumulatively in 2020.38 Transportation currently accounts for 27% of all U.S. global warming emissions. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, had we adopted a 40-mpg fleet wide standard in 2002, by 2012 the United States could have conserved two million barrels of oil daily, or 62% of projected Persian Gulf imports. Such a standard could have saved consumers $16 billion annually at the gas pump in 2012 and continued to rise as the efficiency of the fleet improved, with even greater savings during gasoline price spikes. It could have created more than 40,000 jobs in the auto industry by 2010 and cut global warming pollution from passenger vehicles by 20%.39 Therefore, if implemented now, a 40-mpg standard within the decade would reduce U.S. global warming emissions by 5.4%. By 2015, the U.S. could enjoy the economic benefits of the 40-mpg standard being fully implemented. By 2020, savings would be even greater as consumers get rid of their older, less efficient vehicles and replace them with newer, more efficient cars. Table 2 highlights savings of a 40-mpg fleet-wide CAFE standard to consumers in 2015 and 2020. With a 40-mpg fleet, the U.S. could save nearly $43 billion annually by 2015 and $70.8 billion annually by 2020 at the projected gasoline price of $1.40 per gallon.


Table 2. State-by-State Savings with a 40 mpg Fleet-Wide Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard

Oil Savings (millions of gallons)* Annual Consumer Savings at the Gas Pump (millions of dollars)

State Annual Usage

2001 (Mil. gal) % Total

Consumption

Annual oil savings by

2015


2020 Savings by

2015 at $1.40/gal

Savings by 2015 at

$1.75/gal

Savings by 2020 at

$1.40/gal

Savings by 2020 at

$1.75/gal

Alabama 2458.2 1.80% 561.56 926.57 $786.18 $982.73 $1,297.20 $1,621.50

Alaska 283.5 0.20% 64.76 106.86 $90.67 $113.34 $149.61 $187.01

Arizona 2493 1.90% 569.51 939.69 $797.31 $996.64 $1,315.56 $1,644.46

Arkansas 1436.6 1.10% 328.17 541.48 $459.44 $574.29 $758.07 $947.59

California 14966.7 11.20% 3,418.99 5641.33 $4,786.58 $5,983.23 $7,897.86 $9,872.32

Colorado 2139.6 1.60% 488.77 806.48 $684.28 $855.35 $1,129.07 $1,411.33

Connecticut 1496.5 1.10% 341.85 564.06 $478.59 $598.24 $789.68 $987.10

Delaware 398 0.30% 90.92 150.02 $127.29 $159.11 $210.03 $262.54

District of Columbia 165.6 0.10% 37.82 62.4 $52.95 $66.18 $87.36 $109.20

Florida 7714 5.70% 1,762.18 2907.59 $2,467.05 $3,083.81 $4,070.63 $5,088.28

Georgia 4835.1 3.60% 1,104.52 1822.45 $1,546.32 $1,932.91 $2,551.44 $3,189.29

Hawaii 419.5 0.30% 95.83 158.12 $134.16 $167.70 $221.36 $276.70

Idaho 650.2 0.50% 148.53 245.08 $207.95 $259.94 $343.11 $428.89

Illinois 5128.3 3.80% 1,171.52 1933 $1,640.12 $2,050.15 $2,706.20 $3,382.75

Indiana 3227.4 2.40% 737.27 1216.49 $1,032.17 $1,290.22 $1,703.09 $2,128.86

Iowa 1563.5 1.20% 357.16 589.32 $500.03 $625.03 $825.04 $1,031.31

Kansas 1312.6 1.00% 299.85 494.76 $419.80 $524.74 $692.66 $865.83

Kentucky 2180.6 1.60% 498.13 821.91 $697.38 $871.72 $1,150.68 $1,438.35

Louisiana 2303.2 1.70% 526.14 868.13 $736.60 $920.75 $1,215.39 $1,519.23

Maine 611.9 0.50% 139.77 230.63 $195.68 $244.60 $322.88 $403.60

Maryland 2529.6 1.90% 577.87 953.48 $809.01 $1,011.27 $1,334.87 $1,668.59

Massachusetts 2806.2 2.10% 641.04 1057.72 $897.46 $1,121.82 $1,480.81 $1,851.01

Michigan 5075 3.80% 1,159.32 1912.88 $1,623.05 $2,028.81 $2,678.03 $3,347.54

Minnesota 2673.1 2.00% 610.64 1007.56 $854.90 $1,068.63 $1,410.59 $1,763.24

Mississippi 1553.8 1.20% 354.95 585.67 $496.93 $621.17 $819.94 $1,024.92

Missouri 3115.1 2.30% 711.62 1174.17 $996.27 $1,245.33 $1,643.84 $2,054.80

Montana 499.6 0.40% 114.13 188.32 $159.78 $199.73 $263.64 $329.55

Nebraska 869.9 0.60% 198.73 327.91 $278.22 $347.78 $459.07 $573.83

Nevada 975.5 0.70% 222.84 367.68 $311.97 $389.97 $514.76 $643.44

New Hampshire 690.7 0.50% 157.77 260.33 $220.88 $276.10 $364.46 $455.57

New Jersey 3998.9 3.00% 913.52 1507.3 $1,278.92 $1,598.65 $2,110.22 $2,637.78

New Mexico 936.4 0.70% 213.9 352.94 $299.47 $374.33 $494.12 $617.65

New York 5679 4.20% 1,297.31 2140.56 $1,816.23 $2,270.29 $2,996.79 $3,745.98

North Carolina 4243.7 3.20% 969.43 1599.55 $1,357.20 $1,696.50 $2,239.38 $2,799.22


Table 2, continued

Oil Savings (millions of gallons)* Annual Consumer Savings at the Gas Pump (millions of dollars)

State Annual Usage

2001 (Mil. gal) % Total

Consumption


2015


2020 Savings by

2015 at $1.40/gal

Savings by 2015 at

$1.75/gal

Savings by 2020 at

$1.40/gal

Savings by 2020 at

$1.75/gal

North Dakota 368 0.30% 84.06 138.7 $117.69 $147.11 $194.18 $242.73

Ohio 5234.5 3.90% 1,195.76 1973.01 $1,674.07 $2,092.58 $2,762.21 $3,452.76

Oklahoma 1830.3 1.40% 418.12 689.89 $585.36 $731.71 $965.85 $1,207.31

Oregon 1546.3 1.20% 353.23 582.83 $494.52 $618.15 $815.96 $1,019.95

Pennsylvania 5148.2 3.80% 1,176.06 1940.49 $1,646.48 $2,058.10 $2,716.69 $3,395.87

Rhode Island 409.5 0.30% 93.55 154.35 $130.97 $163.71 $216.10 $270.12

South Carolina 2289.9 1.70% 523.09 863.11 $732.33 $915.41 $1,208.35 $1,510.43

South Dakota 439.8 0.30% 100.46 165.76 $140.65 $175.81 $232.07 $290.08

Tennessee 2935.2 2.20% 670.51 1106.34 $938.71 $1,173.39 $1,548.88 $1,936.10

Texas 10937.2 8.10% 2,498.50 4122.52 $3,497.90 $4,372.37 $5,771.53 $7,214.41

Utah 997.2 0.70% 227.8 375.88 $318.92 $398.66 $526.23 $657.78

Vermont 342.7 0.30% 78.28 129.17 $109.60 $137.00 $180.84 $226.05

Virginia 3862.1 2.90% 882.25 1455.71 $1,235.14 $1,543.93 $2,037.99 $2,547.49

Washington 2710.6 2.00% 619.21 1021.7 $866.89 $1,083.62 $1,430.37 $1,787.97

West Virginia 840.2 0.60% 191.94 316.7 $268.72 $335.90 $443.39 $554.23

Wisconsin 2536 1.90% 579.33 955.89 $811.06 $1,013.82 $1,338.24 $1,672.80

Wyoming 356.8 0.30% 81.52 134.5 $114.12 $142.66 $188.31 $235.38

Total 134,215 100.00% 30,660.00 50,589.00 $42,924.00 $53,655.00 $70,824.60 $88,530.75 * Assumes that usage does not change from 2001 levels. Notes: Gasoline use data for 2001 from: Monthly Gasoline Reported by States, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2001, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/mf33ga.htm. Gasoline cost projections based on current market price and from: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2003 with Projections to 2025,” 2003, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeotab_12.htm. Consumer savings based on data courtesy of David Friedman from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The calculations are based on a 40 miles per gallon fleet average by 2013, 2015 and 2020.


RENEWABLE ENERGY A renewable portfolio standard mandates that a certain percentage of electricity be generated from renewable sources, thereby diversifying the portfolio, or mix, of our energy supplies. Arizona, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin have passed state renewable energy standards to encourage development of clean energy technologies. 40 Hawaii, Illinois, and Minnesota have set strong goals for the percentage of electricity that would come from renewable energy. A national renewable standard of 20% of electricity generation by 2020 could save consumers an additional $4.5 billion between 2002 and 2020 compared with business as usual.41 As shown in Table 4 on the next page, the U.S. has significant potential to generate electricity from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy and clean forms of biomass. Reducing Global Warming Emissions Increasing our electricity generation from renewable sources would alleviate many of our most pressing environmental and public health problems, including acid rain, global warming, smog, asthma attacks and mercury contamination. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that gradually increasing the percentage of electricity generated from clean renewable sources to 20% by 2020 could reduce global warming emissions from power plants by 19% in 2020 compared with business as usual and also cut smog-forming and soot emissions (Table 3).42 The Tellus Institute, in its report written for the World Wildlife Fund, found that increasing energy efficiency at electric utilities, in the transportation sector and in homes and buildings, in addition to generating more electricity from renewable energy, would reduce pollution that causes global warming by 8.5% between 2000 and 2010 and by 28% between 2000 and 2020.43

Table 3. Power Plant Carbon Emissions Savings Under a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (Million Metric Tons Carbon Equivalent)

2003 2003 2010 2015 2020 CO2 Emissions Under Business as Usuald 615.6 633.4 678.3 726.3 769.4 CO2 Emissions with a 20% RPS by 2020 604.6 609.2 609.9 622.0 622.7 Carbon Savings from RPS 11.0 24.2 68.4 104.3 146.7 % Reduction from Business as Usual 1.8% 3.8% 10.1% 14.4% 19.1%

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, Renewing Where We Live, 2002 and updated 2003.

d Based on U.S. Energy Information Administration reference case for Annual Energy Outlook 2001.


Table 4. Total Technical Generation Potential from Renewable Sources

State Total Electric

Generation 2000 (mill kWh)

Total Renewable Technical Energy

Potential

% Electricity Needs Potentially Met by

Renewables

% Renewable Generation

Potential from Biomass


Potential from Wind


Potential from Geothermal


Potential from Landfill Gas

Alabama 124,554 26,955 21.6% 97.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%Arizona 89,101 14,444 16.2% 11.4% 47.8% 37.1% 3.7%Arkansas 43,975 42,434 96.5% 47.5% 52.5% 0.0% 0.1%California 207,047 215,963 104.3% 7.9% 39.8% 48.3% 4.0%Colorado 43,661 547,510 1254.0% 0.9% 95.8% 3.0% 0.3%Connecticut 33,478 11,546 34.5% 11.8% 86.7% 0.0% 1.5%Delaware 5,912 5,589 94.5% 11.8% 86.0% 0.0% 2.2%Florida 190,936 15,722 8.2% 91.9% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1%Georgia 123,067 25,658 20.8% 94.1% 4.2% 0.0% 1.7%Idaho 11,967 82,453 689.0% 13.1% 76.0% 11.0% 0.0%Illinois 177,404 155,813 87.8% 30.1% 68.0% 0.0% 1.9%Indiana 127,970 36,612 28.6% 71.9% 24.7% 0.0% 3.5%Iowa 41,519 925,500 2229.1% 5.0% 95.0% 0.0% 0.0%Kansas 44,834 1,706,664 3806.6% 1.8% 98.2% 0.0% 0.0%Kentucky 92,630 17,171 18.5% 91.6% 4.5% 0.0% 4.0%Louisiana 89,938 17,879 19.9% 97.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2%Maine 13,050 12,733 97.6% 26.6% 73.4% 0.0% 0.0%Maryland 50,204 9,010 17.9% 31.7% 62.6% 0.0% 5.7%Massachusetts 39,148 37,611 96.1% 5.8% 92.9% 0.0% 1.4%Michigan 104,222 92,176 88.4% 19.1% 79.8% 0.0% 1.1%Minnesota 51,429 1,021,912 1987.0% 3.0% 97.0% 0.0% 0.0%Mississippi 37,516 26,723 71.2% 99.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%Missouri 76,626 110,146 143.7% 25.5% 73.8% 0.0% 0.7%Montana 28,803 1,044,963 3628.0% 1.0% 99.0% 0.0% 0.0%Nebraska 29,122 1,378,218 4732.6% 2.2% 97.8% 0.0% 0.0%Nevada 35,639 45,232 126.9% 1.1% 52.4% 45.7% 0.8%New Hampshire 14,944 10,821 72.4% 28.3% 70.2% 0.0% 1.5%New Jersey 58,204 18,173 31.2% 8.1% 84.3% 0.0% 7.6%New Mexico 33,994 303,583 893.0% 0.5% 97.8% 1.6% 0.0%New York 138,039 115,563 83.7% 10.9% 86.7% 0.0% 2.5%North Carolina 122,114 23,205 19.0% 70.1% 25.6% 0.0% 4.2%North Dakota 31,284 1,601,468 5119.1% 1.9% 98.1% 0.0% 0.0%Ohio 148,438 34,707 23.4% 77.8% 17.1% 0.0% 5.1%Oklahoma 55,441 1,109,608 2001.4% 1.6% 98.3% 0.0% 0.0%Oregon 51,415 84,617 164.6% 17.7% 59.9% 21.9% 0.5%Pennsylvania 205,502 80,630 39.2% 13.6% 84.2% 0.0% 2.2%Rhode Island 5,926 1,296 21.9% 13.6% 64.3% 0.0% 22.1%South Carolina 92,614 14,974 16.2% 93.8% 4.5% 0.0% 1.7%South Dakota 9,697 1,269,733 13094.1% 1.8% 98.2% 0.0% 0.0%Tennessee 95,918 25,372 26.5% 87.8% 9.6% 0.0% 2.6%Texas 379,756 1,696,046 446.6% 1.8% 98.1% 0.0% 0.1%Utah 36,590 34,493 94.3% 3.1% 69.3% 26.8% 0.8%Vermont 6,282 9,730 154.9% 15.7% 84.1% 0.0% 0.2%Virginia 77,013 27,455 35.6% 47.3% 48.7% 0.0% 4.0%Washington 108,811 68,621 63.1% 21.8% 73.7% 3.3% 1.2%West Virginia 92,783 15,355 16.5% 36.4% 63.6% 0.0% 0.0%Wisconsin 59,230 112,726 190.3% 19.1% 80.2% 0.0% 0.7%Wyoming 45,257 932,300 2060.0% 0.2% 99.8% 0.0% 0.0%Total 3,783,004 15,217,115 402.2% Source: Union of Concerned Scientists. Not all of America’s renewable potential will be developed due to economic, physical, and other limitations.


Economic Benefits of Renewables Renewable sources of energy also would greatly benefit our economy. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources creates substantially more jobs than similar investments in oil and gas production. A recent study conducted by the Tellus Institute for the World Wildlife Fund found that increased investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency would create 700,000 net new jobs by 2010 and 1.3 million jobs by 2020.44 Another study by the State of Wisconsin found that increased use of clean renewable energy sources would create three times more jobs than traditional sources of electricity.45 According to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), every megawatt of installed wind capacity creates about 15-19 jobs directly and indirectly.46 In addition, a June 2002 Environment California analysis found that building 5,900 MW of renewable energy capacity in California would lead to 28,000 year-long construction jobs and 3,000 permanent operations and maintenance jobs. Over thirty years of operation, these new plants would create 120,000 person-years of employment, which is four times as many person-years that would be created by building 5,900 MW of natural gas power plants.47

Renewable energy also boosts economic growth by redirecting dollars spent on energy into local economies. Currently, most states import energy from other places, so money spent on petroleum and coal, for example, flows from the local economy to other states or even other countries.48 Some economists estimate that 80% of every dollar spent on energy bills leaves the state economy.49 In contrast, energy efficiency and local renewable energy sources keep energy dollars within the state economy. Economists refer to the “economic multiplier” as a measure of how much economic activity could be generated in a community by different types of investments. Money spent on oil and gas has an economic multiplier of $1.48, but money spent on energy efficiency has an economic multiplier of $2.32. This means that for every dollar spent, energy efficiency generates $0.84 more economic activity in local economies than buying oil and gas.50

Farmers and ranchers would especially benefit from increased renewable energy use. Some developers pay landowners more than $2,000 per turbine per year for installing a wind turbine on their property. Farmers can plant crops and graze livestock right up to the wind turbine. Generating just 5% of our nation’s electricity from wind energy alone by 2020 could provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural landowners by 2020 and 80,000 new jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.51 Farmers could reap additional benefits by growing energy crops, converting crops and crop wastes into energy, or selling these crops and crop wastes to energy companies to produce power for homes and businesses. Tripling U.S. use of clean biomass energy from farm wastes and energy crops could provide as much as $20 billion in new income for farmers and rural communities.52 Farmers and ranchers also can use solar energy to cut electricity costs and power remote water pumps, lights, and electric fences. Solar power is often much less expensive than extending new transmission lines to remote locations. And, because they require no fuel and have no moving parts, they are more convenient to operate and maintain than diesel or gasoline generators.

Increased use of clean, renewable energy also could save consumers money. The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of a 20% by 2020 renewable energy standard and estimated that consumers would save $4.5 billion on their energy bills between 2002 and 2020.53 Similarly, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that a weaker 10% standard by 2020 could save energy consumers $13.2 billion between 2002 and 2020.54


In the long run, increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources would reduce demand for natural gas and therefore the price. A study by EIA – using very high estimates of renewable energy costs and low costs for natural gas – shows that increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy to 20% by 2020 would cost roughly the same as business as usual through 2006, and less in the long run.55 The Union of Concerned Scientists found that a 20% renewable portfolio standard by 2020 could save as much natural gas as 3.8 trillion cubic feet, which is about three-quarters of the natural gas consumed by U.S. households today.56 In its report entitled Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on Natural Gas Markets, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that nationwide efforts to improve energy efficiency and generate more electricity from renewable energy could cumulatively save industrial, commercial, and residential consumers at least $75 billion over the next five years.57 Lowering wholesale natural gas prices directly translates into significant savings for residential natural gas customers, as is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Average Annual Savings per Residential Natural Gas Customer ($/customer)

Number of Natural GasResidential Consumers 2004 2008 5 Year Avg.

Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers 2004 2008 5 Year Avg.

Alabama 807,245 47.00 54.00 63.00 Nebraska 476,275 70.00 78.00 88.00Arizona 884,789 40.00 47.00 51.00 Nevada 550,850 53.00 69.00 68.00Arkansas 552,716 70.00 85.00 94.00 New Hampshire 84,760 85.00 111.00 116.00California 9,600,493 52.00 61.00 65.00 New Jersey 2,436,771 79.00 100.00 111.00Colorado 1,365,594 77.00 76.00 87.00 New Mexico 485,969 70.00 88.00 92.00Connecticut 458,105 85.00 112.00 118.00 New York 4,243,130 90.00 112.00 122.00Delaware 122,829 65.00 78.00 88.00 North Carolina 891,227 58.00 72.00 82.00District of Columbia 138,412 90.00 107.00 122.00 North Dakota 106,758 89.00 99.00 114.00Florida 590,221 22.00 24.00 28.00 Ohio 3,195,407 87.00 101.00 118.00Georgia 1,737,850 62.00 68.00 82.00 Oklahoma 868,314 62.00 67.00 79.00Idaho 251,004 70.00 84.00 88.00 Oregon 542,799 73.00 87.00 97.00Illinois 3,670,693 111.00 128.00 146.00 Pennsylvania 2,542,724 94.00 116.00 127.00Indiana 1,613,373 85.00 101.00 115.00 Rhode Island 216,781 85.00 110.00 116.00Iowa 818,313 76.00 85.00 99.00 South Carolina 501,161 45.00 56.00 64.00Kansas 836,486 68.00 73.00 86.00 South Dakota 144,310 72.00 81.00 94.00Kentucky 749,106 70.00 84.00 97.00 Tennessee 993,363 56.00 68.00 78.00Louisiana 952,753 42.00 49.00 56.00 Texas 3,738,260 47.00 53.00 61.00Maine 17,302 59.00 76.00 80.00 Utah 657,728 80.00 81.00 91.00Maryland 959,772 77.00 92.00 103.00 Vermont 29,463 89.00 114.00 122.00Massachusetts 1,283,008 89.00 116.00 122.00 Virginia 941,582 78.00 97.00 105.00Michigan 3,011,205 98.00 111.00 132.00 Washington 841,617 82.00 95.00 108.00Minnesota 1,249,748 90.00 100.00 119.00 West Virginia 363,126 60.00 69.00 82.00Mississippi 437,899 62.00 77.00 82.00 Wisconsin 1,484,536 82.00 95.00 109.00Missouri 1,326,160 69.00 77.00 89.00 Wyoming 129,897 105.00 110.00 118.00

Montana 226,171 76.00 85.00 98.00 Total 60,252,745 73.00 86.00 96.00 Source: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on Natural Gas Markets. September 7, 2003. Available at http://www.aceee.org/energy/natgassummaryreport.pdf.


CAPPING CARBON EMISSIONS Settings standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy will put us on the path towards curbing global warming emissions. However, setting a mandatory limit on carbon emissions will provide necessary impetus to implement these policies now rather than later, encouraging the development of advanced emissions-reducing technologies. Studies have shown that a cap on carbon emissions would not adversely affect the economy. A study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that if an emissions cap were fully implemented, it would cause a loss to the economy of less than one fifteenth of one percent in 2010 and less than one quarter of a percent in 2020. It would cost American families less than one quarter of one percent of average income in 2010 and less than four-tenths of a percent of average income in 2020.58 In comparison, the average American spends about 5% of income on restaurant dining and about 4% on entertainment.59 The results of another study on an emissions cap are even more positive. The Tellus Institute, in its study for the Natural Resources Defense Council, found that if a cap were implemented in 2010, the net savings to consumers would start in 2013, reaching $48 billion annually in 2020.60 Industry also has demonstrated the economic benefits of a cap on carbon emissions. DuPont established a target to reduce its global warming emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2000. During this time, energy consumption remained flat, while production grew 35%. DuPont saved 16.2 million barrels of oil, or approximately $325 million in 2000 alone.61 Likewise, IBM chose to conserve the equivalent of 4% of the company’s annual energy electricity and fuel use. Between 1991 and 2001, the company conserved approximately 8.6 billion kWh of electricity, thereby avoiding approximately 5.67 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, while saving about $529 million.62 The Bush administration has proposed voluntary reductions in “global warming intensity.” The administration’s voluntary emissions intensity system would allow global warming emissions to actually increase by 30% above 1990 levels over the next ten years, or about 10% higher than they are today. The Bush administration also denounced the international process to reduce global warming, claiming that the temporary exemption of developing nations from emissions reductions made the Kyoto Protocol a “fatally flawed” treaty. The Kyoto Protocol would require the U.S. to reduce global warming emissions 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.

INVESTMENT IN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY There are other technologies that could reduce global warming emissions. Some of these are on the verge of making a break-through, and some are far off in the future. Redirecting federal investment in fossil fuels and nuclear power to renewable energy and other advanced emissions-reducing technology would inject $1.4 billion in new funding to help realize the full benefits of wind power, solar energy, fuel cells and other promising technologies.63 An example of technology on the verge of entering the market is hydrogen-powered fuel cells, which can power both automobiles and stationary objects. Stationary fuel cells can be used in portable devices like laptop computers and cell phones, and there are currently 650 large stationary fuel cell systems around the world. In addition to reducing global warming emissions, stationary fuel cells can increase


reliability by providing clean, localized power. For example, a fuel cell in New York City’s Central Park continued operation during the August 14th blackout.64 Automakers already have invested significant amounts of money into fuel cell research. In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced plans to fund research for hydrogen-powered cars; however, the administration’s proposal allows for production of hydrogen using fossil fuels and nuclear power, which negates the emissions-saving benefits of hydrogen power. Although the nuclear energy industry has trumpeted nuclear power as a solution to global warming, it is fraught with many problems. Nuclear fission puts our lives at risk from potentially disastrous accidents and creates radioactive waste, for which there is no safe disposal process. According to the Department of Energy, 95% of the radioactive waste in this country (measured by radioactivity) is from commercial nuclear reactors. Additionally, nuclear power is expensive. Ratepayers pay some of these costs in their electricity bills, but taxpayers foot most of the bill through massive federal subsidies. A 2002 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy found that even today’s large taxpayer subsidies – such as federally backed insurance for nuclear plant operators, federal research and development funding, and the federally funded nuclear waste disposal program – are insufficient to make new nuclear reactors cost effective. To achieve that goal for just five nuclear power plants would require at least $1.5 billion to $2.75 billion in additional federal subsidies.65 Further research and investment dollars should go to truly clean technologies that help the environment, reduce global warming, and save consumers money. Another clean technology, which is currently on the market and worthy of further financial investment, is zero-emission and low-emission vehicles. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) instituted the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program, requiring the gradual introduction of ZEVs in California beginning in 1998. As the program currently stands, 2% of new car sales in 2003 must be ZEVs, another 2% must be low-emission hybrids, and an additional 6% must be low emission gasoline-powered cars. Since California’s 1990 action, New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont have opted to make California’s regulations their own.66 Although these programs do not necessarily always reduce global warming emissions, California has since passed legislation to limit automotive greenhouse gas emissions.67 American ingenuity has for years developed technologies that have significantly improved quality of life. Despite industry’s “doom and gloom” predictions when clean air and clean water legislation was first passed, the U.S. improved the air we breathe and the water we drink while experiencing economic growth. Likewise, the U.S. will be able to tackle the problem of global warming; we just need a reason to act. The longer we wait, the more expensive the solutions and impacts will become. The costs of inaction are too great for us to pretend that doing nothing is an option without consequences.


EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND WORLDWIDE

Future climate scenarios show likely increases in heavy precipitation, tropical storms, and temperature as a result of global warming. Scientists fear that global warming will worsen the frequency, timing, intensity, and duration of these extreme weather events.68

Obviously, snow, rain, hurricanes, and bad storms are normal occurrences. However, there has been an increase in the magnitude and frequency of these storms, transforming them from everyday to abnormal occurrences. In fact, in July of 2003, the United Nations World Meteorological Organization released a report reaffirming that the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere is leading to more frequent and intense extreme weather events.69 The number of “great” natural catastrophes has increased steadily since the 1960s. Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance agency, classifies a natural catastrophe as “great” if the ability of the region to help itself is distinctly overtaxed, making interregional or international assistance necessary. As shown in Table 6, the number of great natural catastrophes has jumped from 20 in the 1950s to 91 in the 1990s.70

Table 6. Increasing Number of Great Natural Catastrophes: 1950s-present

Decade 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 Last 10 years Number 20 27 47 63 91 70 Economic losses 42.1 75.5 138.4 213.9 659.9 550.9 Insured losses 0.0 6.1 12.9 27.0 124.0 84.5

Source: Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review.

http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN 2002 In 2002, the number of weather-related natural disasterse around the world totaled approximately 700, compared with the long-term annual average of 650.71 Weather-related natural disasters killed 11,000 people worldwide by in 2002 compared with 25,000 in 2001 and 9,000 in 2000.72 Economic losses for 2002 totaled around $55 billion,73 compared with $30 billion in 2000 and $68 billion in 1999.74 Some of the year’s most extreme weather events include:

• Internationally, 2002 was one of the warmest years on record, tying with 1998.75

• The last three 5-year periods (1998-2002, 1997-2001, 1996-2000) have been the warmest 5-year periods in the last 108 years of national record keeping. The 2002 summer was one of the warmest ever in the United States, and no state in the contiguous U.S. averaged below normal for the year.76

e Natural disasters are defined by Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company, as “loss events caused by natural hazards.”


• A series of more than 30 tornadoes tore across the Midwestern United States at the end of

April, causing $1.6 billion in damages, the most expensive tornado loss of all time. In November, the Midwest was hit again with 90 tornadoes that killed 35 people.77

• The 2002 wildfire season in the U.S. was the second worst in the last 50 years, with 2000 being

the worst. Three states recorded their largest wildfires this century: Arizona, Colorado and Oregon.78

• Europe experienced floods of a magnitude that had not been seen since the Middle Ages.79

One very tangible measure of the increase in extreme weather events and their associated costs is through federal disaster declarations. A major disaster declaration requires first the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then the President to approve a governor’s Major Disaster Declaration request, which is based on damage assessment with an agreement to commit state funds and resources to the long-term recovery. 80 FEMA declared 45 weather-related major disasters in 2000 and 49 in 2002 (Figure D).81 By comparison, the average number of weather-related major disaster declarations per year in the 1980s was 23.7. FEMA disaster declarations do not include emergency

Figure C. Significant U.S. Weather and Climate Events for 2002

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate of 2002: Annual Review, 23 January 2003. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/ann/events.html


declarations or fire suppression declarations, nor do they include agricultural disaster declarations like those due to 1999’s drought, which are handled independently by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Figure D. Weather-Related Major Disasters Declared by FEMA in the United States, 1976-2002

01020304050607080

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

Year

Num

ber o

f Disa

ster

s

Source: FEMA, www.fema.gov/library/dis_graph.shtm.

EXTREME WEATHER CONTINUES IN 2003 In 2003, the international community already has seen numerous extreme weather events. During the first 10 days of May 2003, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received a record 412 tornado reports in 19 states. This was the highest count for the first 10 days in May since 1950, when record keeping began, well beyond the previous record of 177 tornadoes in 1999.82 In August, portions of Europe saw desert-like temperatures that resulted in approximately 15,000 fatalities.83 For the first two weeks of the month, temperatures climbed to 104 ºF.84 In the U.S., during the winter and spring, the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast experienced above average precipitation.85 During the summer, much of the eastern U.S. was wetter and cooler than average, while most of the West saw near-record high temperatures. In addition, below average rainfall in parts of the West led to worsening drought conditions.86 In September, Hurricane Isabel struck the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., resulting in approximately $1 billion in damage.87


FINDINGS: ECOMOMIC LOSSES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER IN 2002 This section documents economic loss, including insured costs and government assistance due to extreme weather events for the past decade and for fiscal year 2002. While “economic loss” refers to all damages caused by extreme weather, “insured costs” refers to damages covered by private insurance. Government assistance covers a portion of economic costs that are uninsured, but also covers expenses such as debris removal and temporary supplies. In 2002, extreme weather events in the U.S. cost insurers and taxpayers almost $20 billion, as detailed below. INSURED LOSSES IN THE UNITED STATES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER The costs of extreme weather events are a growing concern to insurance companies. Global warming has been cited as a reason for Munich Re, which insures primary insurers on their risks, to increase its premiums. The continued effects of global warming means insurance companies’ priority will be to insure themselves against these natural disasters.88 The Property Claims Service gives state-by-state insured property losses for the portion of extreme weather events that are classified as catastrophes.f The Property Claims Service is the information resource for the insurance industry for compiling and reporting estimates of insured property loss. Weather-related insured natural disasters cost the U.S. more than $87 billion in the 1990s and more than $5.8 billion in 2002 alone (Table 7). The U.S. suffered more than $162.7 billion in weather-related insured losses since 1950.g

f Until 1997, a catastrophe was defined by the insurance industry in the U.S. as an event that causes more than $5 million in insured property damage and affects a significant number of insured and insurers. In 1997, the threshold was increased to $25 million. g This number has not been adjusted for inflation.


Table 7. Insured Losses from Weather-Related Natural Catastrophes by State: 1990s and 2002

State 2002 1990s State 2002 1990s Alabama $125,000,000 $1,166,497,526 Nebraska $95,000,000 $680,869,717Alaska $0 $42,952,653 Nevada $80,000,000 $132,831,661Arizona $195,000,000 $1,008,393,371 New Hampshire $5,000,000 $147,260,611Arkansas $45,000,000 $387,243,284 New Jersey $45,000,000 $1,204,253,285California $125,000,000 $5,093,411,765 New Mexico $0 $165,129,154Colorado $67,000,000 $2,052,886,921 New York $180,000,000 $2,160,909,846Connecticut $25,000,000 $832,218,830 North Carolina $250,000,000 $4,140,508,888Delaware $3,000,000 $222,971,766 North Dakota $0 $402,991,824Florida $40,000,000 $23,284,157,072 Ohio $275,000,000 $1,369,171,905Georgia $80,000,000 $1,888,970,643 Oklahoma $45,000,000 $2,947,848,034Hawaii $0 $1,963,549,845 Oregon $5,000,000 $323,951,080Idaho $0 $28,542,774 Pennsylvania $128,000,000 $1,819,771,683Illinois $248,000,000 $1,662,691,012 Rhode Island $5,000,000 $417,695,148Indiana $217,000,000 $1,065,425,741 South Carolina $60,000,000 $812,514,807Iowa $20,000,000 $992,572,271 South Dakota $5,000,000 $231,105,655Kansas $115,000,000 $2,387,798,284 Tennessee $265,000,000 $1,166,198,687Kentucky $880,000,000 $921,290,328 Texas $630,000,000 $7,676,234,900Louisiana $555,000,000 $1,550,422,877 Utah $10,000,000 $75,633,583Maine $0 $285,813,917 Vermont $0 $166,231,934Maryland $289,000,000 $653,048,910 Virginia $180,000,000 $1,536,958,548Massachusetts $20,000,000 $1,226,775,608 Washington $0 $642,130,716Michigan $50,000,000 $1,031,944,975 West Virginia $40,000,000 $425,947,418Minnesota $0 $2,423,617,807 Wisconsin $25,000,000 $599,094,122Mississippi $155,000,000 $1,391,743,403 Wyoming $98,000,000 $14,442,550Missouri $170,000,000 $1,068,759,467 Other $0 $3,237,885,174Montana $0 $115,332,592 Total $5,850,000,000 $87,246,604,572

Source: Data provided by Property Claims Service. Figures cited for “Other” refer to claims for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and damages not attributed to any particular state.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON WEATHER-RELATED DISASTER ASSISTANCE The government has several programs that help Americans rebuild their homes and businesses after extreme weather events. These programs range from help in clearing debris caused by the weather to financial loans to rebuild businesses, houses, and compensate for agricultural losses. This assistance helps many people piece back together their lives and move forward even in the most disastrous of circumstances. In fiscal year 2002, the U.S. government spent $13.8 billion on weather-related disaster assistance for damages resulting from federal disaster declarations (Table 8). This aid derives from programs in several federal agencies.

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides funding to states, communities, and individuals to rebuild homes, businesses, and public facilities, to clear debris, to repair roads and bridges, and to restore water, sewer, and other essential services. FEMA spent more than $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2002.

• The National Flood Insurance Program pays for damages resulting from flood disasters. The

National Flood Insurance Program spent more than $145 million for flood losses in fiscal year 2002, with Texas receiving more than half of this amount.

• Small Business Administration (SBA) offers disaster loans to those who are trying to rebuild

their homes and businesses in the aftermath of a disaster. SBA spent more than $939 million in fiscal year 2002 on weather-related disasters.

• Farm Service Agency (FSA) can provide emergency loans where property loss or economic

injuries occur due to a natural disaster that affects farming, ranching, or aquaculture operations. FSA also has several programs that provide direct payments to alleviate agricultural losses due to weather, including disaster assistance, payments for insured and non-insured crop loss, and assistance for grazing losses for livestock. FSA spent nearly $11 billion in fiscal year 2002.

• The Army Corps of Engineers provides emergency clearance of debris, restoration of critical

public services and facilities, temporary supply of potable water, temporary restoration of water-supply systems, structural evaluation of buildings, damage assessment, and technical assistance during and after natural disasters. The Army Corps of Engineers spent approximately $11.1 million in fiscal year 2002.


Table 8. U.S. Government Expenditures for Weather-Related Assistance, 2002

State FEMA Expenditures

Small Business Administration

Gross Loans

Farm Service Agency

Expenditures

National Flood Insurance Program

Expenditures

Army Corps ofEngineers

ExpenditureshTotal

Alabama $19,762,637 $11,506,600 $288,125,800 $394,589.87 $319,789,627Alaska $15,972,604 $3,269,400 $489,112 $126,946.81 $19,858,063American Samoa $0 $25,700 $0 $0 $25,700Arizona $26,173,562 $13,452,800 $94,035,381 $173,500.17 $133,835,243Arkansas $3,338,152 $7,217,900 $394,485,632 $2,185,295.09 $407,226,979California $7,475,820 $48,395,500 $454,169,009 $448,524.63 $510,488,854Colorado $22,368,035 $28,048,000 $120,537,345 $22,442.56 $170,975,823Connecticut $0 $10,583,300 $8,314,007 $12,437.29 $18,909,744Delaware $0 $1,492,100 $10,643,053 $17,024.95 $12,152,178District of Columbia $0 $8,024,000 $0 $0 $8,024,000Florida $0 $109,384,800 $108,844,588 $4,572,187.76 $222,801,576Georgia $0 $21,127,200 $826,136,233 $333,843.79 $847,597,277Guam $354,906,968 $30,187,500 $0 $0 $385,094,468Hawaii $0 $3,217,700 $1,540,275 $449,000.86 $5,206,976Idaho $0 $1,526,400 $98,316,162 $116,676.76 $99,959,239Illinois $23,426,166 $36,280,200 $458,904,951 $5,813,300.65 $524,424,618Indiana $15,524,038 $12,081,300 $274,309,904 $1,040,867.27 $302,956,109Iowa $10,947,053 $5,921,400 $537,700,781 $914,486.31 $555,483,720Kansas $49,197,405 $8,954,800 $449,748,361 $78,817.43 $507,979,383Kentucky $40,502,646 $23,801,300 $112,836,012 $6,698,827.85 $183,838,786Louisiana $279,864,961 $5,160,800 $234,525,006 $4,982,581.82 $524,533,349Maine $0 $7,061,000 $13,142,500 $0 $20,203,500Maryland $8,497,610 $16,862,700 $49,644,630 $69,818.92 $75,074,759Massachusetts $0 $20,859,200 $10,543,557 $9,797.50 $31,412,555Michigan $6,376,312 $10,530,800 $188,901,167 $106,778.54 $205,915,058Micronesia $39,407,112 $1,237,500 $0 $0 $40,644,612Minnesota $49,258,945 $45,036,900 $508,782,905 $3,619,128.30 $606,697,878Mississippi $51,178,684 $15,939,900 $268,396,485 $3,576,055.93 $339,091,125Missouri $113,010,783 $14,512,500 $319,325,762 $6,020,907.07 $452,869,952Montana $1,843,388 $4,677,400 $154,952,817 $791.46 $161,474,396Nebraska $1,561,620 $2,383,500 $439,648,293 $12,368.26 $443,605,781Nevada $853 $5,098,300 $11,006,023 $0 $16,105,176New Hampshire $0 $2,359,600 $6,589,380 $6,903.44 $8,955,883New Jersey $78 $53,899,800 $8,251,411 $225,624.94 $62,376,914New Mexico $7,428,330 $2,327,000 $57,492,344 $104,574.11 $67,352,248New York $27,526,870 $37,399,600i $237,369,410 $463,903.17 $302,759,783

h A state-by-state breakdown of Army Corps of Engineers disaster spending for fiscal year 2002 was not available. However, only 8 states received Army Corps assistance. These states included Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the territory Guam. i SBA allocated $436.4 million to New York in fiscal year 2002 in response to the World Trade Center attacks. New York Original Disaster Loans approved for Fiscal Year 2002 total $37,399,600.


Table 8, continued

State FEMA Expenditures

Small Business Administration

Gross Loans

Farm Service Agency

Expenditures

National Flood Insurance Program

Expenditures

Army Corps ofEngineers

Expenditures Total

North Carolina $75,166,022 $12,134,100 $340,128,035 $809,740.52 $428,237,898

North Dakota $1,737,746 $1,452,700 $318,971,107 $244,145.16 $322,405,698Northern Mariana Islands $10,410,130 $829,500 $0 $0.00 $11,239,630Ohio $1,987,645 $18,630,900 $289,027,565 $1,292,209.14 $310,938,319Oklahoma $145,394,849 $8,927,900 $303,264,868 $586,497.87 $458,174,115Oregon $22,040,236 $3,590,600 $68,456,696 55,675.16 $94,143,207Pennsylvania $0 $19,768,500 $216,040,572 $612,220.58 $236,421,293Puerto Rico $4,344,421 $2,412,900 $12,081,396 $812,974.01 $19,651,691Rhode Island $0 $4,382,500 $568,818 $0 $4,951,318South Carolina $0 $7,892,800 $85,201,052 $465,720.26 $93,559,572South Dakota $2,273,731 $901,900 $370,402,975 $56,164.72 $373,634,771Tennessee $16,814,770 $12,116,700 $135,106,089 $4,425,478.96 $168,463,038Texas $186,029,970 $145,982,100 $1,049,544,302 $82,851,274.80 $1,464,407,647Unknown N/A N/A N/A $15,409.97 N/A $15,409Utah $55,128 $2,139,900 $41,227,918 $0 $43,422,946Vermont $3,297,582 $901,700 $47,734,719 $863,412.26 $52,797,413Virgin Islands $0 $966,800 $96,113 $102,228.42 $1,165,141Virginia $32,621,978 $31,194,200 $193,681,550 $2,906,887.13 $260,404,615Washington $600 $11,929,400 $185,457,855 $876,750.05 $198,264,605West Virginia $58,714,488 $14,690,500 $10,999,389 $5,400,965.58 $89,805,343Wisconsin $10,563,219 $7,316,900 $498,028,244 $355,789.17 $516,264,152Wyoming $1,641,695 $1,374,400 $28,799,481 $0 $31,815,576Total $1,748,644,842 $939,381,300 $10,942,527,040 $145,331,547 $11,100,000 $13,786,984,729

Source: Data provided by Allen Escobar of the Small Business Administration, Dave Hewitt of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, John Meador of the Army Corps of Engineers, Bruce Redcay of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and

Lynn Tjeerdsma of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency.


TOTAL FINANCIAL COSTS OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN 2002 In 2002, extreme weather events cost insurers and taxpayers almost $20 billion. The impacts of losses caused by extreme weather have been felt across the U.S. Many of the states heaviest hit in the 1990s were not on the list for 2002. Additionally, economic losses hit states from all geographic regions—from the Pacific coast to the Deep South to the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic states. Table 9 ranks the 50 states plus the District of Columbia for total economic losses in 2002—the sum of government expenditures and insured losses. The states with the most severe economic losses in 2002 were Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Table 9. Weather-Related Insured Losses and Government Expenditures by State, 2002

Rank State

Total Insured Losses and Government

Expenditures Rank State

Total Insured Losses and Government

Expenditures 1 Texas $2,094,407,647 28 Florida $262,801,5762 Louisiana $1,079,533,349 29 Michigan $255,915,0583 Kentucky $1,063,838,786 30 Colorado $237,975,8234 Georgia $927,597,277 31 Washington $198,264,6055 Illinois $772,424,618 32 Montana $161,474,3966 North Carolina $678,237,898 33 South Carolina $153,559,5727 California $635,488,854 34 Wyoming $129,815,5768 Kansas $622,979,383 35 West Virginia $129,805,3439 Missouri $622,869,952 36 New Jersey $107,376,914

10 Minnesota $606,697,878 37 Idaho $99,959,23911 Ohio $585,938,319 38 Oregon $99,143,20712 Iowa $575,483,720 39 Nevada $96,105,17613 Wisconsin $541,264,152 40 New Mexico $67,352,24814 Nebraska $538,605,781 41 Utah $53,422,94615 Indiana $519,956,109 42 Vermont $52,797,41316 Oklahoma $503,174,115 43 Massachusetts $51,412,55517 Mississippi $494,091,125 44 Connecticut $43,909,74418 New York $482,759,783 45 Maine $20,203,50019 Arkansas $452,226,979 46 Alaska $19,858,06320 Alabama $444,789,627 47 Delaware $15,152,17821 Virginia $440,404,615 48 New Hampshire $13,955,88322 Tennessee $433,463,038 49 Rhode Island $9,951,31823 South Dakota $378,634,771 50 District of Columbia $8,024,00024 Pennsylvania $364,421,293 51 Hawaii $5,206,97625 Maryland $364,074,759 26 Arizona $328,835,243 Total (U.S. only) $19,179,148,07727 North Dakota $322,405,698 Total (U.S. and Territories) $19,636,984,729


Looking at total economic losses on a per capita basis, several sparsely populated states rise to the top of the list for highest expenditures (Table 10). North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming spent the most per capita in 2002 to recover from extreme weather events.89

Table 10. Total Spent Per Capita to Recover from Extreme Weather Events: 2002

Rank State

Amount Spent Per

Capita Rank State

Amount Spent Per

Capita

1 North Dakota $ 508.44 27 Virginia $ 60.38

2 South Dakota $ 497.51 28 Arizona $ 60.27

3 Nebraska $ 311.48 29 Colorado $ 52.81

4 Wyoming $ 260.31 30 Ohio $ 51.30

5 Kentucky $ 259.92 31 Nevada $ 44.22

6 Louisiana $ 240.83 32 South Carolina $ 37.39

7 Kansas $ 229.38 33 New Mexico $ 36.31

8 Iowa $ 195.96 34 Washington $ 32.67

9 Montana $ 177.55 35 Alaska $ 30.85

10 Mississippi $ 172.05 36 Pennsylvania $ 29.54

11 Arkansas $ 166.87 37 Oregon $ 28.15

12 Oklahoma $ 144.02 38 Michigan $ 25.46

13 Minnesota $ 120.86 39 New York $ 25.20

14 Missouri $ 109.80 40 Utah $ 23.06

15 Georgia $ 108.36 41 Delaware $ 18.77

16 Wisconsin $ 99.48 42 California $ 18.10

17 Alabama $ 99.14 43 Florida $ 15.72

18 Texas $ 96.16 44 Maine $ 15.61

19 Vermont $ 85.63 45 District of Columbia $ 14.06

20 Indiana $ 84.42 46 Connecticut $ 12.69

21 North Carolina $ 81.52 47 New Jersey $ 12.50

22 Tennessee $ 74.77 48 New Hampshire $ 10.95

23 Idaho $ 74.53 49 Rhode Island $ 9.30

24 West Virginia $ 72.04 50 Massachusetts $ 8.00

25 Maryland $ 66.70 51 Hawaii $ 4.18

26 Illinois $ 61.30


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We are at a critical juncture. With energy demand increasing and energy markets not functioning well, we must decide on a set of national energy policies that will provide for our future energy needs. We can choose to continue our reliance on fossil fuels, or we can take this opportunity to consume energy more wisely and transform our energy infrastructure. Any policy to responsibly reduce global warming emissions would include the following components: Best-available standards for applying the latest in energy efficiency technology to new housing

and commercial developments and retrofits to existing ones. Best available standards for applying the latest in energy efficiency technology to air

conditioners, residential heating systems and other commercial products, including commercial refrigerators, traffic lights, distribution transformers, and icemakers.

A public benefits fund to encourage investment in energy efficiency programs, investment in

renewable energy, and low-income weatherization assistance programs. A fleet wide corporate average fuel economy standard of 40 miles per gallon for cars and light

trucks within the next 10 years. Mandatory production of zero-emission and low-emission vehicles.

A renewable portfolio standard requiring that 20% of all electricity generation come from

renewable sources by 2020. A mandatory emissions cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

Sound investment in clean technology, such as fuel cells and hydrogen, while shifting

investment dollars away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy.


END NOTES

1 Epstein, Paul and Gary Tabor, Climate Change is Really Bugging Our Forests, Washington Post, 7 September 2003. 2 Gugliotta, Guy, “Ice Shelf Breakup in Arctic Attributed to Global Warming,” Washington Post, 23 September 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49558-2003Sep22.html 3 Nappier, Denise. Statement by Connecticut Treasurer Denise L. Nappier, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 5 June 2003. http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Nappier_060503.htm 4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3rd Assessment Report of Working Group I, 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf 5 “U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2001” http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/LHOD5MJTM5/$File/2003-final-inventory_ES.pdf 6 J.R. Petit et al., Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica:, Nature, Vol. 399, 3 June 1999, p 429-435. 7 U.S. EPA, U.S. Emissions Inventory 2003. April 2003. U.S. EPA #430-R-03-004. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissions.html. 8 Union of Concerned Scientists, Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region, 2003. http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/pdf/confronting_climate_change_in_the_great_lakes.pdf 9 Union of Concerned Scientists, Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region, 2003. http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/pdf/confronting_climate_change_in_the_great_lakes.pdf 10 Gugliotta, Guy, “Ice Shelf Breakup in Arctic Attributed to Global Warming,” Washington Post, 23 September 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49558-2003Sep22.html 11 The Potential Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Health Impacts of Extreme Weather Events in the United States, Gregg Greenough, Michael McGeehin, Susan M Bernard, Juli Trtanj, Jasmin Riad, and David Engelberg, p. 191, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109/Supplement 2/May 2001 12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3rd Assessment Report of Working Group I, 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf 13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3rd Assessment Report of Working Group I, 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf 14 RAND Corporation, The Public Benefits of California’s Investments in Energy Efficiency, March 2000. 15 Ogden, Douglas, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Boosting Prosperity: Reducing the Threat of Global Climate Change Through Sustainable Energy Investment, January 1996. 16 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy with the Tellus Institute, Smart Energy Policies: Saving Money and Reducing Pollutant Emissions Through Greater Energy Efficiency, September 2001. http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e012full.pdf 17 Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy Blueprint: A Smarter National Energy Policy for Today and the Future, October 2001. http://www.ucsusa.org/publication.cfm?publicationID=28 18 Global Energy Partners, California Summary Study of 2001 Energy Efficiency Programs, Final Report, 2003. See also California Energy Commission, Emergency Conservation and Supply Response, 2001. 19 California Energy Commission, California Electricity Consumption by Sector, 2 October 2002. http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/consumption_by_sector.html 20 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, New Appliance and Equipment Standards (fact sheet), 2001. 21 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Overall Savings from Federal Appliance and Equipment Standards, February 2001. 22 Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Facts about Appliance Standards, 12 April 2001. www.standardsasap.org/facts.htm 23 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, New Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards (fact sheet), 2001. 24 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Energy Consumption by Source, 1949-2001,” accessed 23 September 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html


25 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, New Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards (fact sheet), 2001. 26 California Public Utilities Commission, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, The Public Purpose Energy Efficiency Surcharge: Trends and Patterns in the Costs and Benefits of Utility Administered Energy Efficiency Programs, 8 March 2000. 27 U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profiles – California. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/california.pdf 28 California Public Utilities Commission, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Public Financing for Self-Generation: Costs and Benefits of Onsite Photovoltaic, Fuel Cell, and Micro-turbine Systems, January 2001. 29 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, “A Federal System Benefit Fund: Assisting States to Establish Energy Efficiency and Other System Benefit Programs,” accessed 22 September 2003. http://www.aceee.org/energy/pbf.htm 30 California Energy Commission, MW Impacts from Investor Owned Utilities Energy Efficiency Programs – Actual vs. 1994 Level, 15 December 2000. 31 “A Federal System Benefit Fund: Assisting States to Operate Efficiency, Renewable Low Income Programs,” presentation by Steve Nadel, Executive Director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 32 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy with the Tellus Institute, Smart Energy Policies: Saving Money and Reducing Pollutant Emissions Through Greater Energy Efficiency, September 2001. http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e012full.pdf 33 Union of Concerned Scientists, Drilling in Detroit. June 2001. http://www.ucsusa.org/publication.cfm?publicationID=99 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming Emissions – Recent Trends. August 2, 2001. Accessed September 15, 2003. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/EmissionsNationalRecentTrends.html?OpenDocument 35 The U.S. Census Bureau has data on light truck registrations for the years 1987, 1992, and 1997. The data collected in the 2002 census will be available in March 2004. 36 National Research Council, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Standards, 2002. 37 Mark, Jason, SUV Drivers Pay $27 Billion for Fuel Economy Loophole as Gas Prices Rise, March 1999. Cost projections based on estimates from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 38Global warming savings based on data courtesy of David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. 39 Union of Concerned Scientists, Drilling in Detroit. June 2001. http://www.ucsusa.org/publication.cfm?publicationID=99 40 Lists of what state incentives are in place were all generated from the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) located at http://www.ies.ncsu.edu/dsire/summarytables/reg1.cfm?&CurrentPageID=7. 41 Union of Concerned Scientists, Renewing Where We Live: A National Renewable Energy Standard Will Benefit America’s Economy, Cambridge, Mass. February 2002. Available online at http://www.ucsusa.org/publication.cfm?publicationID=349 42 Union of Concerned Scientists, Renewing Where We Live: A National Renewable Energy Standard Will Benefit America’s Economy, Cambridge, Mass. February 2002, located at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=999 43 Tellus Institute, Clean Energy: Jobs for America’s Future, October 2001. http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/clean_energy_jobs.pdf 44 Tellus Institute, Clean Energy: Jobs for America’s Future, October 2001. These numbers are the results of looking at net benefits from implementing renewable and efficiency policies. Any potential job losses in the coal and traditional utility sector were subtracted from the expected gains. They are broken down from the national numbers in various sectors and calculated as if the results would be evenly distributed amongst the states. http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/clean_energy_jobs.pdf 45 Wisconsin Energy Bureau, The Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Use in Wisconsin. For complete text email [email protected] or call the Wisconsin Energy Bureau at (608) 266-8234. 46 American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy and Economic Development: Building Sustainable Jobs and Communities. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconDev.PDF 47 Environment California. Renewables Work: Job Growth from Renewable Energy and Development in California. June 2002. 48 U.S. Department Of Energy, Why Consider Alternative Energy?, 27 June 2003. http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/why_renewables.cfm. 49 U.S. Department Of Energy, Energy Efficiency Strengthens Local Economies.


http://www.eren.doe.gov/cities_counties/enrgyeff.html 50 U.S. Department Of Energy, Energy Efficiency Strengthens Local Economies. http://www.eren.doe.gov/cities_counties/enrgyeff.html 51 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Powering America: Clean Energy for the 21st Century, Document # DOE/GO-102000-0989, March 2000. 52 U.S. Department Of Energy Press Release, “President Clinton Announces Bioenergy & Bioproducts Tax Incentives”, January 27, 2000. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000127.html 53 Union of Concerned Scientists, Renewing Where We Live: A National Renewable Energy Standard Will Benefit America’s Economy, Cambridge, Mass. February 2002. Available online at http://www.ucsusa.org/publication.cfm?publicationID=349. 54 Department Of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Impacts of a 10-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard,” SR/OIAF/2002-03, February 2002. Results of savings obtained by the Union Concerned Scientists through personal communication with Laura Martin at EIA on March 7, 2002. 55 Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Electric Power Plants: Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Dioxide, and Mercury and a Renewable Portfolio Standard. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/epp/pdf/sroiaf(2001)03.pdf 56 Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable Energy Can Help Alleviate Natural Gas Crisis,” June 2003. 57 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Natural Gas Price and Availability Effects of Aggressive Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policies: A Methodology White Paper. September 2003. http://www.aceee.org/energy/natlgaswhite.pdf. See also American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on Natural Gas Markets. September 7, 2003. http://www.aceee.org/energy/natgassummaryreport.pdf. 58 Platsev, Sergey, John Reilly, Henry Jacoby, A. Denny Ellerman, and Kok Hou Tay, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Emissions Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States: The McCain-Lieberman Proposal, June 2003. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt97.pdf 59 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures in 2001 Table 1, April 2003. 60 Tellus Institute, Analysis of the Climate Stewardship Act, July 2003. http://www.tellus.org/energy/publications/McCainLieberman2003.pdf 61 Partnership for Climate Action, Positive Returns on Greenhouse Gas Investments: The DuPont Experience with Advancing Environmental Goals, December 2002, accessed 24 September 2003. http://www.pca-online.org/our_work/docs/GHG_investment_return.pdf 62 IBM, Energy, accessed 24 September 2003. http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/annual2000/energy.shtml 63 Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, U.S. PIRG, Green Scissors 2003, May 2003. http://www.greenscissors.org/publications/gs2003.pdf 64 Fuel Cell Today, Large Stationary Fuel Cell Markets Quantified, 17 September 2003. http://fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,3408,00.html 65 Scully Capital, Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, July 2002. 66 U.S. PIRG, A New Energy Future: Options For a Smarter, Cleaner Energy Future, May 2001. p. 15-6 67 Fuel Cell Today, A Driver for Fuel Cells: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Legislation, 26 July 2002. http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/Legislation/DisplayLegislation/0,1626,491,00.html 68 The Potential Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Health Impacts of Extreme Weather Events in the United States, Gregg Greenough, Michael McGeehin, Susan M Bernard, Juli Trtanj, Jasmin Riad, and David Engelberg, p. 191, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109/Supplement 2/May 2001 69 World Meteorological Organization, According to the World Meteorological Organization Extreme Weather Events Might Increase, 2 July 2003. http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press695.doc 70 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf 71 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf


72 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf 73 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf 74 “The Disaster Process and Disaster Aid Programs.” FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.htm 75 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf 76 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate of 2002: Annual Review, 23 January 2003. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/ann/us-summary.html. 77 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf 78 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate of 2002: Wildfire Season Summary http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/fire02.html#sum 79 Munich Re, Natural Catastrophes in 2002; Year in Review. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2002_e.pdf 80 Federal Emergency Management Administration, “The Disaster Process and Disaster Aid Programs,” 12 February 2003. http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.shtm 81 Federal Emergency Management Agency, “2000 Disaster Activity, January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, Major Disaster Declarations,” 29 December 2000. http://www.fema.gov/library/diz00.shtm 82 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Record Number of Tornados, NOAA Reports,” 13 May 2003, accessed 22 September 2003. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1144.htm 83 CBS News, “French Heat Toll Estimated at 15K,” 9 September 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/29/world/main570810.shtml 84 Burns, Chris, CNN, “Heat Crisis: Health Official Quits,” 18 August 2003. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/18/paris.heatwave/index.html 85 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Climate of 2003 – May in Historical Perspective.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2003/may/global.html 86 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “NOAA Reports Summer was Season of Contrasts – East Cooler and Wetter While West Sweltered,” accessed 22 September 2003. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s2073.htm 87 Francis, Theo and Rick Brooks, Wall Street Journal, “Insurance Rates are Expected to Remain Unaffected by Isabel,” 22 September 2003. 88 Faversham House Group Ltd, Global Warming Causes Insurance Group to up Premiums, 22 March 2002. http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/archive/5336.cfm 89Population data as of July 1, 2002 from U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, 20 December 2002. http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/ST-EST2002-01.php

Documents

Costs of Inaction FINAL VERSION.doc1 - Amazon Web Services · 2009-10-08 · Costs of Inaction 6 measures could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants cumulatively by 127