Cap and Trade’s Winners and Losers

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Who are cap and trade’s winners and losers? Some of the companies you’d expect to suffer losses from the climate bill being debated in the Senate are actually going to fare pretty well, according to a report released yesterday by carbon-market analysts at Point Carbon.

The analysis looks at the net carbon cost to companies in the oil and power sectors, which account for 40 percent of all the emissions covered under the Kerry-Boxer bill. The legislation in both the House and the Senate would give these companies some allowances at no charge in the early years of a carbon cap, and would then reduce the number of free allowances over time. The net cost reflects the amount of carbon credits a company will need to purchase to make up for the difference between their total emissions and their free allocations.

One of the big winners would be Exelon—the country’s largest utility, a major user of nuclear power, and a strong advocate for climate legislation—which would stand to gain $1.7 billion each year under the proposed legislation, according to Point Carbon. Exelon was one of the first companies to leave the Chamber of Commerce in protest at the business lobby’s climate stance, and its CEO has appeared in ads backing a bill. FirstEnergy, a utility based in Ohio and Pennsylvania, would gain roughly $494 million and Edison would gain approximately $279 million. (The figures are based on Point Carbon’s forecasted average price of $15 per ton of carbon for the first few years of the program.)

For many energy providers, especially those who rely more on renewables and nuclear power, “carbon regulations will have a positive impact on their balance sheets,” the study found. Virginia-based Dominion stands to gain $210 million; North Carolina-based Progress Energy would gain $64 million; and Iowa-based MidAmerican would gain $69 million; Missouri-based Ameren would gain $58 million; and Minnesota and Colorado utility Xcel Energy would gain $27 million.

Even some companies you wouldn’t expect to do so well actually make out okay. Exxon—which alone accounts for 6.5 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions covered under the Senate bill—would have to fork over $5.9 billion per year in the first years of the program. But they’d recoup most of that by charging more at the pump, bringing their total bill to just $277 million. While Big Oil has been among the most outspoken critics of cap and trade, the overall cost to the sector is fairly small—especially when taken in the context of the record $45 billion in profits that Exxon posted last year. Oil companies like Chevron and ConocoPhillips would be in a similar situation.

So who are the losers? Coal-reliant utilities will face the highest costs. Southern Company is expected to fare the worst, with a tab of $393 million, followed by American Electric Power at $252 million and Duke Energy at $129 million per year. Despite that, Duke has been a supporter of climate legislation.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend