The Energy Collective

The world's best thinkers on energy and climate

  • Home
  • Post Here
  • Columns
    • Electricity Markets & Policy Group
    • Full Spectrum
    • Energy and Policy Developments
    • Game Changers
    • Energy for Human Development
    • Seeking Consensus
    • Green Growth
    • New Energy Voices
  • Fuels
    • Oil
    • Wind
    • Nuclear Power
    • Coal
    • Natural Gas
    • Solar Power
    • Renewables
    • Biofuels
    • Geothermal Energy
    • Wave & Tidal
    • Hydro Power
  • Environment
    • Carbon and De-carbonization
    • International Climate Conferences
    • Sustainability
    • Climate
    • Public Health
    • Water
    • Recycling
  • Grid
    • Smart Grid
    • Electricity
  • Tech
    • Cleantech
    • Green Building
    • Storage
    • Rare Earth Minerals
  • Business and Economy
    • Cap-and-Trade
    • Agriculture
    • Efficiency
    • Green Business
    • Utilities
    • Finance
    • Green Jobs
    • Subsidies
    • Risk Management
  • Politics
    • Environmental Policy
    • Energy Security
    • Communications and Messaging
    • China
  • Transport
  • Help
    • FAQ
  • Account
    • Login
    • Register

OMB Issues Call for Additional Public Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon

December 6, 2013 by NRDC Switchboard

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Carbon Pollution and Social Cost

Laurie Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate and Clean Air Program, Washington, DC

Last week the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) invited additional comment on the government’s “social cost of carbon” (SCC), an estimate of climate change damages resulting from carbon pollution. The invitation comes after a recent update provoked intense backlash by the fossil fuel lobby against its use.

Couching their attack in terms of process issues and imprecision in the estimate, polluters accused the Administration of secretly manipulating and inflating the SCC in order to justify stricter standards on carbon pollution. They demanded that any new clean air standards ignore SCC benefits, i.e. essentially to count any benefits of reduced climate change as zero.

While ostensibly about process and imprecision, the attack is really about stopping the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing protective carbon standards to reduce risks of catastrophic climate change; it comes after numerous bills aimed at accomplishing the same goal failed to go anywhere in Congress.

The update did not involve any change in how the government calculated the SCC. Its estimate had been used in over two dozen rulemakings, with multiple opportunities for comment on the methodology used to derive it. The government simply replaced outdated versions of the economic models it used with newer versions, published independently in the academic literature to reflect more recent climate science.

What’s all the fuss then? Why would a seemingly routine best-practice exercise for cost benefit analysis create such an uproar?

The answer is simple: with climate science progressing rapidly and the costs of carbon pollution growing increasingly more severe and apparent, the estimate increased by approximately 50%. At the same time, for the first time ever, forthcoming rules will limit carbon pollution coming from the largest source of these emissions: existing power plants. These plants account for fully 40% of carbon pollution, representing a very large source of profits for the fossil fuel industry.

Herein lies the rub: it turns out that the SCC tips the scale against fossil fuels in favor of cleaner energy. Once you add climate change costs (as partially measured in the SCC) to the cost of electricity generation, cleaner energy is cheaper to society than dirty. If the new rules sufficiently consider climate costs, the logical regulatory outcome spells further growth in the clean energy economy and reduced profits for the fossil fuel industry.

For all the fanfare about the Administration supposedly trying to manipulate the SCC, the real concern of opponents is not process or academic rigor. It is about protecting their own bottom line, which matters more to them than our children and grandchildren’s futures.

Photo Credit: Social Cost of Carbon/shutterstock

Related posts:

Jekyll And Hyde: The Two Sides Of Obama’s Energy Strategy Yes, Climate Change Is Here: Yes, We Can Solve It Carbon Standards Should Reduce Our Dependence on All Fossil Fuels Energy News Roundup: Climate Deal Spurs Building Spree, Dow Selling Billions in Assets, and IEA Sees US Shale Cap Ex Pullback

NRDC Switchboard

Filed Under: Carbon and De-carbonization, Coal, Communications and Messaging, Efficiency, Energy and Economy, Energy Security, Environment, Environmental Policy, Fuels, Natural Gas, News, Oil, Politics & Legislation, Public Health, Risk Management, Sustainability, Utilities, Water Tagged With: government regulation, social cost of carbon

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Energy Collective Columns

Full Spectrum: Energy Analysis and Commentary with Jesse JenkinsEnergy and Policy Developments with John Miller
Game Changers column badgeEnergy for Human Development Column
Seeking Consensus with Schalk CloeteGreen Growth with Silvio Marcacci
New Energy VoicesMore coming soon...

Latest comments

  • Bas Gresnigt on Closing Nuclear Reactors in Ohio and Pennsylvania Will Thwart Climate Goals What has been shown is that nuclear power plants that do more load following run into a variety of p (April 20, 2018 at 3:15 PM)
  • Mark Heslep on Closing Nuclear Reactors in Ohio and Pennsylvania Will Thwart Climate Goals "History shows that nuclear can deliver only base load. Hence it needs fossil plants to deliver the (April 20, 2018 at 2:09 PM)
  • Bas Gresnigt on Closing Nuclear Reactors in Ohio and Pennsylvania Will Thwart Climate Goals Fraunhofer institute gathered real data on the subject. In their graph (showed below) you can see th (April 20, 2018 at 1:59 PM)
  • Bas Gresnigt on New Solar Capacity Exceeded All Other Fuel Sources Combined in 2017, Study Finds Bob, Why so negative? Once the costs of nuclear were less than fossil. Partly thanks to in hindsig (April 20, 2018 at 11:05 AM)

Advisory Panel

About the panel

Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »


Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »


Elias Hinckley is a strategic advisor on energy finance and energy policy to investors, energy companies and governments More »


Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »


Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »


Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »


Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »


Featured Contributors

Rod Adams

Scott Edward Anderson

Charles Barton

Barry Brook

Steven Cohen

Dick DeBlasio

Senator Pete Domenici

Simon Donner

Big Gav

Michael Giberson

Kirsty Gogan

James Greenberger

Lou Grinzo

Jesse Grossman

Tyler Hamilton

Christine Hertzog

David Hone

Gary Hunt

Jesse Jenkins

Sonita Lontoh

Rebecca Lutzy

Jesse Parent

Jim Pierobon

Vicky Portwain

Willem Post

Tom Raftery

Joseph Romm

Robert Stavins

Robert Stowe

Geoffrey Styles

Alex Trembath

Gernot Wagner

Dan Yurman

 

 

 

Follow Us

32-linkedin 32-facebook 32-twitter 32-rss

Content for personal use only. Distribution prohibited. Republication in part or in whole is strictly prohibited. © All rights reserved Energy Central © 2018

Recent Comments

  • Bas Gresnigt on Closing Nuclear Reactors in Ohio and Pennsylvania Will Thwart Climate Goals
  • Mark Heslep on Closing Nuclear Reactors in Ohio and Pennsylvania Will Thwart Climate Goals
  • Bas Gresnigt on Closing Nuclear Reactors in Ohio and Pennsylvania Will Thwart Climate Goals

Recent Posts

  • UK Will Legislate Net-Zero Carbon Emissions Target, Says Minister
  • Why EPA’s U-Turn on Auto Efficiency Rules Gives China the Upper Hand
  • U.S. Natural Gas Production and Consumption Increase in Nearly All AEO2018 Cases

Useful Pages

  • Terms of Use
  • Comments Policy
  • Privacy & Cookies
  • Help
  • About and Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 Energy Central. All Rights Reserved
This site uses cookies, for a number of reasons. By continuing to use this website you accept the use of cookies. Find out more.