Buildings are responsible for about 40% of our energy consumption (this seems high to me...but I'm pretty sure that's what he said). It is believed that with proper design AND environmental control, we could reduce energy consumption of buildings by 80-90%....that's not pocket change in the least.
That's why I can see the reason the government wants to make sure it happens. But, why not try tax credits first - and if that fails, implement a more strict program?
I would still like to hear the rationale as to why they felt they had to go this route as opposed to aggressive tax credits....
I don't mean to sound like I'm behind this idea when I go on and on about energy efficiency, because I am confused by this approach. My main point is just that energy efficiency will be one of the most important means of achieving the type of emissions reductions they hope to achieve...but why this way?
Most States Lose Under H.R. 2454
Consumers in red colored states will pay more for electricity to make up for the shortfall in allowances (dollars in millions).
Based on the allowance allocation formula in H.R. 2454 for electricity consumers, the red states will not have enough allowancesto cover their emissions from electricity generation. The shortfall in allowances to the red states will lead to higher electricity costs for consumers, the total of which will roughly correlate with the dollar losses noted on the map. For example, Texas electricity consumers will see electricity costs go up by roughly $1 billion. To make up the shortfall, red states will have to seek high-cost, non-CO2 emitting electricity sources, reduce electricity production and consumption, or purchase allowances from the green states, or purchase domestic and international offsets, likely a combination of the three.
Interesting little map here. This charts the cost per state.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/061909_2454_map.pdf