This document contains an email exchange between Michael Catanzaro and Mario Lewis discussing estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on potential job losses from greenhouse gas regulation. In the emails: 1) Catanzaro provides Lewis with information from his EIA contact indicating they do not have job loss estimates as cited in a recent report. 2) Catanzaro includes a draft response to a question about the EIA report, arguing the President opposes greenhouse gas regulation and his alternative approach better balances economic growth and emissions reductions. 3) The response cites analysis finding a cap-and-trade proposal could reduce GDP and lead to over 60,000 job losses annually, while the

1. Perhach, William
From: Catanzaro, Michael J.
Sent: ~~~~Friday, May 27, 2005 6:08 PM
Seto: mnlewis~cei.org
Subject: Re: EIA numbers
back from phil on how to cite.
Mar10, still waiting to hear
- - - - …--- - - - -
--
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
---- original Message ---
From: Mario Lewis <mei~ciog
J._Catanzaro~ceq.eop.gov>
To: Catanzaro, Michael Ji. <Michael
2005
Sent: Fri May 27 17:24:15
Subject: RE: EIA numbers
at EIA denied having
job loss estimates? My contact
Thanks Mike. How can/should I cite the
such estimates.
---- original Message--- cqepgv
[mailto:Michael J._aazr
From: Catanzaro, Michael Ji. 4:55 PM
2005
Sent: Friday, May 27,
To: Mar10 Lewis
Subject: EIA numbers
Mar10, else.
Here's the information. Let me know if you need anything
Best,
Mike
indicates that greenhouse
the recent ETA report that
Q. What is your reaction to
us economy?
minor (0.4%) impact on the
gas caps would only have a
A.
regulation of
spoken to his position opposing
The President has previously program.
gases through a 'cap-and-trade"
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
on Energy Policy
by the National Commission
The ETA report analyzed a proposal dollars between now and 2025.
GDP growth by $570 billion
that would reduce cumulative
of 171,000 non-farm jobs in
2025.
The NCEP proposal would also lead to the loss jobs.
period average 62,000 non-farm
Job losses over the 2006-2025
C to limit costs,
a "safety value" of $7/ton
the NCEP proposal included income and
While which further constrains disposable
that still equates to $0.05/gal of gasoline
or opportunities for education.
limits savings, investments,
delivers greater
approach to climate change
In contrast, the President's only reduce emissions
fact, the NCEP proposal will
mitigation benefits at less cost - in in 2012; compared to the President's 18% goal.
by 16.8%
intensity of the U.S. economy
efficiency while
promote improved near-term
The President's climate policies
growth.
supporting broad-based economic
such as
efficient energy ~echnologies
Through investment in cleaner, more

2. hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and advanced nuclear energy, we set a path to slow
the rate of emissions growth, stop it, and - as the science justifies - reverse that
growth
Unlike the NCEP approach which affects only the U.S., the President's approach
involves all nations in a common effort to meet our multiple objectives:
o0 promoting and maintaining economic growth
o enhancing energy security
o reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and
o delivering access to enhanced energy resources to support poverty reduction.
2