Four problems with the EPA’s new cap-and-trade regulations

EPA bureaucrats are poised to “impose higher energy costs on American families and businesses for meaningless climate benefits,” Heritage’s Nick Loris writes.

Loris identifies four consequences of this regulation:

  • Higher energy prices, lost jobs, weaker economy. Restricting the use of coal, “will raise electricity rates, and those higher prices will reverberate through the economy. Businesses will pass higher costs onto consumers, but if a company must absorb the higher costs, it will invest less and expand less. The combination of reduced production and consumption will result in fewer jobs and a weaker economy.”
  • No climate benefit, exaggerated environmental benefits. Even climate activists argue the regulations will have minimal effect on the climate. Moreover, the government uses bad math to arrive at the program’s stated environmental benefits, for example double-counting the benefits of some regulations.
  • Overly prescriptive EPA picks winners and losers. The federal government is encouraging states to choose its preferred energy sources, like renewable fuels, over proven sources like coal.
  • Federally imposed cap-and-trade. Congress already rejected cap-and-trade, but the EPA is pushing it anyway. States will have one year to develop their own cap-and-trade plan. If they don’t, they’ll be subjected to a federally-run program.

Do you think the administration should impose a cap-and-trade plan like this without Congress’ consent?