Legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives in June is currently being debated in the Senate and would require companies to hold carbon credits for their emissions. Emilie Mazzacurati, an analyst at Point Carbon, said this would lead to substantial costs, since few permits would be available to each company in the first years of the program. She continues that this wouldn't be too daunting for the oil companies, since they could pass along the cost to consumers.

At a price of $15 a ton for carbon, Point Carbon estimates an increased cost of 5%, which would translate to approximately 13 cents a gallon for the gasoline consumer. For Exxon Mobil Corp (NYSE: XOM), this would mean $5.9 billion in carbon permit expenses, of which it would be able to recoup all but approximately $277 million. This assumes that demand for gas wouldn't decline in the face of a 13-cent increase.

According to Mazzacurati, "They are just going to increase prices, which is going to allow them to recover the money they are spending buying (carbon) allowances."

Companies in the business of generating power, Point Carbon believes, could face greater constraints, since they don't have as much elbow room to increase prices, thanks to state legislation. Those that use low-carbon power sources, such as Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC), on the other hand, could fare well. They have a competitive advantage relative to other power generators that would have to contend with tighter margins.

Exelon could see a 9% increase in revenue, according to the study, because it could take advantage of any price increases allowed for power while not having to purchase as many carbon permits.

So, we know that there's a downside. But, effective climate change programs have never been about preventing an initial cost. Rather, the goal is to make it either cost-neutral or advantageous. If the upside is an increase in jobs, more efficient vehicles or other cost-saving measures, 13 cents is something that can be handled.