PSC Chair: Clean Energy Jobs Act always cheaper than status quo

From a letter by PSC Chair Eric Callisto to the special committees on clean energy jobs:

. . . [W]hat follows is a summary of preliminary PSC cost modeling of the RPS and energy efficiency components of the CEJA. . . .

The modeling shows that in every case in which GHGs are monetized (i.e., there is a compliance cost associated with emitting GHGs), the cost of the CEJA is less than the cost of the status quo over the long run. That is, we will in all likelihood be spending more on electricity in the long run if we don't act now and enact enhanced renewable portfolio standards and take more aggressive action on energy efficiency. . . . (Note: emphasis in original letter)

Table 4 (Note: Tables 1 – 3 were deleted for this summary) shows the forecasted impact of the proposed legislation on monthly electricity bills for an average residential customer. As in previous tables, these values show the incremental impact of the CEJA compared to the Status Quo. For example, the table indicates that monthly bills will be $1.08 lower under CEJA than under the Status Quo if GHG emissions cost $10/ton. Monthly bill impacts were not calculated for commercial and industrial customers because bills in those customer classes vary more widely than residential bills. . . .