In a letter
pdf available at link
to EPA, the top two Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee asked the agency to use a reference case including the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration's April 2009 Annual Energy Outlook; insert the economic projections from President Obama's fiscal 2010 budget proposal; and include analysis of a variety of situations in which low-carbon energy sources are constrained.
The EPA analysis
also at link
of the House bill found it would cost U.S. households $80 to $111 a year.
Jackson yesterday said EPA won't do a new study because a new analysis
same
of the bill from the Energy Information Administration - the statistical arm of the Energy Department - contains many of the attributes the senators requested, including scenarios where low-carbon energy sources prove to be very expensive.
EPA is prepared to conduct an objective and thorough analysis of the climate and energy bill expected from EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) next month, Jackson wrote in her response (pdf), adding the senators should discuss the parameters of the analysis with the chairwoman.The Chairwoman has already made up her mind and does not need to clutter it with so-called facts.
But Inhofe said that EIA's analysis does not cover some of the key issues they raised in their letter, including the availability of international offsets and the effects of the bill on states like Ohio, which rely on manufacturing for jobs and coal for electricity.
"In effect, EPA has refused to provide members of Congress, as they prepare for meetings and events with their constituents over the August recess, with critical information on the Waxman-Markey energy tax and how it will affect jobs in the Midwest, South, and Great Plains, as well as food, gasoline, and electricity prices for all American consumers," Inhofe said in a statement.