Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

EIA: Clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would make America more energy independent, cutting U.S. foreign oil bill $650 billion through 2030, saving $5,600 per household

Posted on

"EIA: Clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would make America more energy independent, cutting U.S. foreign oil bill $650 billion through 2030, saving $5,600 per household"

Share:

google plus icon

EIA Oil dollar savings

Although the House-passed clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill doesn’t have a big focus on the transportation sector, it does achieve real benefits in oil savings at low cost (see “EIA analysis of climate bill finds 23 cents a day cost to families, massive retirement of dirty coal plants and 119 GW of new renewables by 2030 “” plus a million barrels a day oil savings“).  Some people have asked me for more detail on this, which I provide courtesy of this guest post from Jeremy Symons, Senior Vice President, Conservation and Education, National Wildlife Federation (bio here).

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA’s) recent analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) includes the first government estimates of the legislation’s impact directly on oil imports.  A number of models, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have determined that ACES would save significant amounts of oil, but EIA is the first to project the specific impact on oil imports so that we can more directly assess the security and financial implications.

Overall oil imports would decline by 590,000 barrels per day by the year 2020 under ACES, according to EIA .  This is roughly equivalent to the total amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2008 (620,000 barrels per day).  Over the next twenty years, America would save $650 billion on foreign oil (cumulatively through 2030).  This is in constant 2007 dollars, and is calculated by applying EIA’s forecast of oil prices to EIA’s projected savings in oil imports.

ACES has many features to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, including strong investments to promote vehicle battery technologies and household smart grid connections to power our cars with electricity.  EIA acknowledges that it wasn’t able to model a number of these features, so the actual oil savings would likely be larger.

[JR:  I'd add that EIA, unlike the IEA doesn't get peak oil (see World's top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: "We have to leave oil before oil leaves us").  So it lowballs future prices.  You can probably increase the numbers in this psot 50% for actual savings.]

In the meantime, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has reached new heights in misinformation by claiming that oil imports of refined oil products would go up under ACES.  That is, we might import less crude oil but we will have to import more diesel or gasoline.  Let’s set the record straight:  EIA’s study of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act determined that the bill would reduce imports of refined oil products by 20% by the year 2025.  Environmental Defense Fund has valuable information on this topic at http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/08/25/api-misses-the-mark-why-refineries-will-do-just-fine-under-aces/ — see also (see “Even fantasy-filled API study finds no significant impact of climate bill on US refining“).

EIA Oil savings

« »

9 Responses to EIA: Clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would make America more energy independent, cutting U.S. foreign oil bill $650 billion through 2030, saving $5,600 per household

  1. Jeff Huggins says:

    For Comparison and Context

    According to ExxonMobil financial and operating reports, their total liquids production and gas production available for sale PER DAY was 3.9 million oil-equivalent barrels per day in 2008.

    That’s worldwide, of course, but it’s ExxonMobil alone, and they are (of course) a U.S.-headquartered company.

    According to a rough and simple calculation, the CO2 generated when that volume of products is actually used amounts to over 1 Trillion Pounds Per Year.

    (I’ve asked ExxonMobil for a more precise figure: So far, they’ve refused.)

    So, although I am very glad that pending legislation reduces oil imports, we have a LONG ways to go in terms of oil and CO2. Just compare the figure associated with reductions in the article above with the fact that ExxonMobil alone produces 3.9 million oil-equivalent barrels per day.

    I’m worried that the media are not covering these things in a way that allows people to really “get it.” The MSM hardly ever cover these sorts of things. And when they do, the coverage leaves out KEY context. Indeed, the media often leave out context that is NECESSARY in order for a reader to even begin to understand the matter being discussed. It’s as if many people (many writers in the media) don’t even realize that, in order to compare two numbers, you need both of them! And, in order to even understand a single number, you need to know the context and what to validly compare it to!

    Here’s a number: Three.

    Now, am I talking about three atoms or three solar systems? It matters.

    I enjoyed the present article (above), but please keep in mind that we have a LONG ways to go. And, I hope that we can encourage the media to shine light on key numbers that matter.

    I’ve mentioned the One Trillion Pound (Plus) Elephant. It will be interesting to see when the media start mentioning the relevant figures to the public?

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  2. Ken Johnson says:

    Jeremy Symons – Re “the bill would reduce imports of refined oil products by 20% by the year 2025″: Is that the change relative to a baseline reference case, or relative to current demand?

  3. Good on Obama sticking to a campaign promise to significantly lower oil imports. Awesome stuff.

  4. paulm says:

    Sarkozy gets it….

    Sarkozy launches carbon tax to help ‘save the human race’
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/sarkozy-carbon-tax-france

    French president vows to lead fight against global warming with tax to encourage cuts in fossil fuel consumption

    Sarkozy said: “There are no reserves left. It’s a question of survival of the human race.”

  5. Raleigh Latham says:

    Exxon’s evil knows no limit’s, I hope millions more soon hop on the exxon boycott.

  6. Ken Johnson says:

    The EIA document states the following (p. 32-33; cf. Fig’s 7-8):

    The impact of ACESA on projections of CO2 emissions from the transportation sector are relatively small compared to emissions reductions realized in the other demand sectors. In 2020, CO2 emissions from the transportation sector are reduced from1.0 percent to 3.5 percent (19 to 68 MMT) across the main ACESA cases relative to the Reference Case. By 2030, transportation-related CO2 emission reductions increase and range from 2.6 percent to 8.5 percent (53 to 174 MMT) across the main ACESA cases compared to the Reference Case.
    Because reductions in transportation-related emissions are not proportional to reductions in other sectors, by 2030 the transportation sector accounts for a larger percentage of total U.S. GHG emissions across all cases. The relatively small changes in the transportation sector are driven by the modest changes in gasoline prices, which are expected by 2020 to range from $0.12 to $0.66 per gallon higher than in the Reference Case (Figure 26).

  7. Ken Johnson says:

    The EIA document states the following (p. 32-33; cf. Fig’s 7-8):

    The impact of ACESA on projections of CO2 emissions from the transportation sector are relatively small compared to emissions reductions realized in the other demand sectors. In 2020, CO2 emissions from the transportation sector are reduced from1.0 percent to 3.5 percent (19 to 68 MMT) across the main ACESA cases relative to the Reference Case. By 2030, transportation-related CO2 emission reductions increase and range from 2.6 percent to 8.5 percent (53 to 174 MMT) across the main ACESA cases compared to the Reference Case.
    Because reductions in transportation-related emissions are not proportional to reductions in other sectors, by 2030 the transportation sector accounts for a larger percentage of total U.S. GHG emissions across all cases. The relatively small changes in the transportation sector are driven by the modest changes in gasoline prices, which are expected by 2020 to range from $0.12 to $0.66 per gallon higher than in the Reference Case (Figure 26).
    Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!

  8. Jeremy Symons says:

    Answer to Ken Johnson’s question regarding the 25% reduction in gross refined oil imports: This was a quick calculation of the reduction from 2007-2020 under the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) analyzed by EIA (“basic case”). Looking only at 2020, the reduction under ACES, compared to the baseline/reference case, is a 7% reduction. From any perspecitve, API’s assertion that oil imports will go up under ACES isn’t backed up by EIA.

    Looking at some of the other threads, I’d just like to emphasize that, any way you slice it, $650 billion is alot of money to keep here in America. As Joe notes elsewhere on Climate Progress, ACES would stimulate more than $500 billion in investment in energy efficiency. EIA’s analysis of the electric sector shows another significant increase in investment in low-carbon electricity technologies. I would rather keep hundreds of billions of dollards here the United States to invest in clean energy and efficiency options that save us money, rather than ship that money overseas to further drain our economy.

  9. Ken Johnson says:

    Here is a link to the EIA document:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/pdf/sroiaf(2009)05.pdf

    Jeremy Symons – Where can I find the data on imports? I see data on Transportation emissions in Figure 7, showing a 5.9% reduction from 2007 to 2020 (Basic case), and a 1.8% reduction from Reference to Basic. What is the cause of the reduction from 2007 to 2020 Reference? (Note that the 2030 Reference projection is back up above the 2007 level – Figure 8.)

    An interesting question is how much of the projected reduction in imports might happen as a result of Peak Oil, with or without ACES.

    [Moderator: Please initial your editorial revisions to my comments.]