logologo_light
  • News
  • Blog
  • States
  • Resources
  • Videos
  • About Us
  • Take Action
  • News
  • Blog
  • States
  • Resources
  • Videos
  • About Us
  • Take Action

The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the State of Wisconsin

New electricity regulations being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy, but would be even more detrimental to Wisconsin’s families and businesses.

According to this joint study published by The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan would cost Wisconsin $920 million in 2030, increase electricity prices significantly and lower disposable income in the state by nearly $2 billion.

The EPA’s proposed rules, which are expected to go into effect in summer of 2015, aim to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired electricity power plants by cutting the allowable amount of emissions by more than half. The rules would force utilities to close coal-fired plants in Wisconsin or adopt expensive and unproven technologies, such as carbon capture and storage.

If the regulations stay unchanged, by 2030, the average residential customer would pay an additional $225 a year for electricity. The average commercial business would pay an additional $1,530 a year for electricity. However, both rate hikes are a fraction of the increases that would be faced by the state’s manufacturers.

Wisconsin’s industrial businesses account for one-third of electricity use in the state. Because of a heavy reliance on electricity to power large machinery, the average industrial ratepayer can be expected to pay an additional $105,094 a year in 2030.

Such a dramatic increase in energy costs for manufacturers – the backbone of Wisconsin’s economy – would have a direct impact on the state’s workers.

Thanks to rising electricity prices across all sectors – residential, commercial and industrial – nearly 21,000 jobs would be lost and disposable income would drop $1.82 billion over the next 15 years.

Wisconsin would suffer especially because of its strong reliance on electricity generated by coal-fired power plants. More than 60 percent of electricity generation in the state is from coal-fired plants, more than double the national average of 28 percent.

The rules proposed by the EPA would therefore inflict large negative impacts on the economy of Wisconsin. The state would experience significant declines in employment, wages, disposable income and investment upon implementation of the policy.

Wisconsinites and state policymakers need to be aware of the serious consequences that come with these rules.

Read the policy brief in PDF form by clicking here.

  • On January 27, 2015
Recent Coal in the News Posts
  • The EPA’s plan to break the electricity grid
  • No Energy Transition Without a Reliable Electric Power Grid
  • America faces chronic electricity shortages in push for renewable energy
  • The latest Biden energy crisis
  • Capito, Miller Introduce Bill to Block Implementation of EPA’s Power Plant Proposals
  • Opinion: Looming power shortages highlight flawed policy
  • Experts Warn of Grid Crisis as PA Senators Demand Green Energy
Popular Posts
  • Be part of the revolutionApril 14, 2015
  • Missouri Should Oppose Obama’s “Clean Power Plan”August 14, 2015
  • NMA Calls EPA’s Power Plant Rule a Reckless Gamble with the EconomyJanuary 7, 2014
Recent Comments
  • Clean Power Plan Facing Opposition in Missouri | Count on Coal on Missouri Should Oppose Obama’s “Clean Power Plan”
  • Death of a Shalesman: U.S. Energy Independence Is a Fairy Tale | SuddenlySlimmer on Voices
Tags
affordability baseload power Bloomberg California carbon capture utilization and storage China coal Department of Energy (DOE) electricity grid electricity prices Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) emissions energy addition energy transition Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Europe Fatih Birol Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) fuel diversity Germany grid reliability infrastructure International Energy Agency (IEA) James Danly Jim Robb Joe Biden Mark Christie Michael Regan Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) National Mining Association (NMA) natural gas New England North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) PJM Interconnection polling renewable energy Rich Nolan Southwest Power Pool (SPP) technology Texas transmission lines U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) United Kingdom Wall Street Journal wind power

Sierra Club Pressed EPA to Create Impossible Coal Standards

Scroll
Count on Coal
Recent Posts
  • Strengthening Energy Security: DPA Action Reinforces America’s Coal Advantage
  • PJM’s Power Crunch: Why Coal Is Critical to Closing a 60-Gigawatt Gap
  • China’s Coal Playbook Is Winning
  • Today’s Gas Glut, Tomorrow’s Price Shock
  • The Global Pivot to Coal Is About More Than Electricity
RECENT TWEETS
Tweets by @countoncoal
Privacy Policy | © Copyright Count on Coal 2024