High level<\/strong>: the allowances allocated over the life of the program, from 2013 to 2050, heavily favor consumer benefits. Smaller chunks are dedicated to deficit reduction, industry, and other objectives.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n [See full size image here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n What you see is that 68 percent of the allowances are specifically targeted at consumer benefits—things like ratepayer insulation, protection for low-income households, and universal rebates. Additionally, 10 percent of the allowances are set aside to reduce the deficit, shown in gray. Shown in yellow, 9 percent of the allowances are directed to a variety of industry transition measures such as industrial energy efficiency and protection to trade-exposed industries, as well as some giveaways to oil refiners. The remaining allowances—totaling around 13 percent—go to transportation spending, carbon capture and sequestration, clean energy subsidies, research & development, and a variety of smaller purposes. (I provide more definition for each of these terms in the notes, below.)<\/p>\n High level, through time:<\/strong> a summary view of the major categories, tracked in each year of the program from 2013 to 2050.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n [See full size image here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n You can seen the number of allowances under the cap decline for a couple of years; then increase sharply in 2016 (when industrial emitters and natural gas distributors are added); and then decline over time in a linear path until 2050.<\/p>\n Detailed view: <\/strong>all of the major categories for which allowances are awarded.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n [See full size image here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n For those interested in more detail, I’ve prepared a spreadsheet of the raw data<\/a>.<\/p>\n Notes and methods<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The following are explanations of the terms I’ve used in this post, as well as some clarification about the assumptions I’ve made. As a general matter, all of the figures are calculated by Sightline Institute based on the American Power Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n My analysis is, in many ways, indebted to Ted Gayer at the Brookings Institution, who has produced a high-quality analysis<\/a> of the bill’s approach to allowance value distribution. (Another good resource, via<\/a> Joe Romm, is Robert Stavins’ detailed review<\/a> of the bill’s allocations, in which he finds that 82 percent goes to “consumers and public purposes.” And Pete Ericksen at Stockholm Environment Institue just sent me a good graphic depiction by Judi Greenwald at Pew; I can’t find it online, however, so no link.)<\/p>\n “Deficit reduction” refers to allowances distributed to the Deficit Reduction Fund as well as to the one-quarter of allowances in the Universal Trust Fund that are set aside for deficit reduction. My analysis does not include any treatment of allowances set aside for the cost containment reserve.<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n A chat with energy analyst Trevor Houser about how to assess climate legislation<\/a><\/p>\n How utilities plan to continue evading toxic air pollution controls<\/a><\/p>\n Deforestation reductions could save U.S. farmers, ranchers, and foresters $220 Billion<\/a><\/p>\n
\n“Transportation” refers to allowances distributed to “transportation Infrastructure and efficiency” that are in turn allocated in equal thirds to the national Highway Trust Fund, the National Surface Transport System, and transportation greenhouse gas reduction.
\n“Miscellaneous” refers to allowances that are distributed to “adaptation” and “early action.” (“Adaptation” allowances are actually directed to two separate purposes: half of these are for “community protection” and half are for “international adaptation and global security.”)
\n“Tech & clean energy” refers to allowances that are distributed to “energy efficiency and renewable energy,” “clean vehicle technology,” “low-carbon industrial technologies research and development,” and “clean energy technologies research and development.”
\n“CCS” refers to allowances that are distributed to “commercial deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.” The bill’s table setting forth the allowances for commercial deployment to CCS omits the year 2019, apparently by accident. Following Ted Gayer at Brookings, I guessed that the correct figure is 0.8 percent, as it is in 2017 and 2018.
\n“Industry” refers to allowances that are distributed to “trade-exposed industries,” “industrial energy efficiency,” and “refiners.”
\n“Consumer benefit” refers to allowances that are distributed to “electricity consumers,” “natural gas consumers,” “home heating oil and propane consumers,” “consumer relief” (for low-income households), and the three-quarters of the allowances in the Universal Trust Fund set aside for universal rebates.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"