IBJNews

Consumer group touts financial benefits of energy efficiency

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

A new report by the Consumer Federation of America touts the consumer benefits of climate and energy legislation, predicting household savings if “strong energy efficiency policies” are adopted.

Such efficiency-heavy legislation could save Hoosier families $424 a year, said Washington, D.C.-based CFA in “Building on the Success of Energy Efficiency Programs to Ensure an Affordable Energy Future.”

But opponents of energy/climate change legislation—which has predominantly been in the form of so-called cap-and-trade legislation—aren’t convinced.

Jim Rogers, CEO of Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy, the largest electric supplier in Indiana, warned previously that electric bills could soar 40 percent in some areas under cap-and-trade scenarios being batted about last year.

Indiana would take a disproportionate beating because nearly 95 percent of electricity in the state is generated by coal. Utilities serving the state would be forced to buy allowances to emit CO2 and/or to invest in alternative generation such as wind or even nuclear power.

CFA says an energy policy more focused on energy efficiency could reduce overall energy use up to 30 percent, as well as create jobs.

“Cap-and-trade has monopolized the headlines. But given its stellar record of success, it’s time for senators to view energy efficiency as a cornerstone of the nation’s climate and energy policy,” said Mark Cooper, research director for CFA.

“Consumers are letting hundreds of dollars a year slip through their fingers, money they can hardly afford to waste,” said Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council.

But the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a 15-percent reduction in emissions would cause prices to rise to the tune of 3.3 percent of after-tax income for the lowest income household—or about $680 a year.

The effects on the middle class could mean an income hit of 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent, or about $880 to $1,500 a year, said the CBO.

Such numbers don’t mean much, however, until Congress comes up with a plan. Early this month, the Senate began reviving energy legislation efforts put on the back burner by health care reform.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT