An article in today's Southern will certainly put a smile on GOP Rep. John Shimkus' face. Headlined "Cap And Trade Could Be Costly," the story quotes only two individuals -- both representing utility companies (and their talking points) -- who raise concerns about a potential spike in electricity costs if Congress passes a cap-and-trade bill this year. Here's an excerpt:

Scott Ramsey, president of Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, said the bill, also known as cap-and-trade legislation, could cause electricity bills to spike by as much as $1,300 a year for the more than 80,000 customers served by the co-op in the region. [...]

Shawn Schukar, vice president of strategic initiatives for Ameren, said that utility's customers would feel the pinch, too.

"There are so many unknowns in the bill, and so many assumptions that you have to make, that I could give you a range you could drive a truck through," he said of what a rate increase might look like for customers. "We generally think in the early years, a 10- to 20-percent increase (in customer bills) from the (cap-and-trade) bill alone."

This article is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the utility execs fail to acknowledge that the legislation includes several provisions aimed at improving energy efficiency for buildings, appliances, and industry.  These need to be part of the equation, as they will mitigate electricity costs and pollution by cutting down on energy use and making it cheaper to use clean inputs. They also overlook that Illinois' renewable energy standard is actually stronger than that laid out in the energy bill recently passed by the U.S. House. This means that Illinois consumers are already paying slightly more as utility companies take major steps to wean the state off dirty fuel.

The paper also fails to mention that the Waxman-Markey bill establishes five separate programs aimed at protecting consumers from higher electricity, natural gas, and heating oil costs along with extending tax dividends to customers and offering additional protections to low- and moderate-income households. Taking all of these factors into account, two separate independent studies -- one by the Environmental Protection Agency and one by the Congressional Budget Office -- show that most consumers would pay less than $200 more per year in energy costs if cap-and-trade was implemented. And Nate Silver's regression estimates that Illinois residents heavily reliant on coal would only pay an average of $192 extra per year by 2020. "These fear-tactic estimates of the cost just aren't credible," Environment Illinois' Max Muller told us today.

The SIPC official quoted in the Southern piece raises an interest point regarding the risk of market speculation, which could artificially raise the price of pollution allowances. But while there are legitimate concerns that cap-and-trade will create a new market for carbon derivatives that are susceptible to manipulation, Kevin Drum argues persuasively that those worries are overblown.

At the same time, neither the utility reps nor Southern reporter Blackwell Thomas examine the cost of inaction. Numerous reports have shown how climate change will have devastating economic and societal effects on the Midwest, including reduced air quality, more frequent and severe heat waves and flooding, and water deficits.

But when two industry sources are the only ones quoted in an article, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by the results.