Atlasia Clean Energy Act of 2010 (on the President's Desk)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Atlasia Clean Energy Act of 2010

Section I: FL 20.1 (Carbon Tax Act) is hereby repealed

Section II
1)   A cap and trade system is hereby established, which delegates to the government the responsibility of setting a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally in the country of Atlasia.
2)   The cap will be set between the periods of 2011 to 2050, allowing regulated entities to hold rights to emit greenhouse gases.
3)   The initial cap will be set at 2005 emission levels.
4)   The cap must be reduced over time, at the digression of the President, in order to reduce total carbon emissions emitted by industry into our atmosphere.  
5)   After allowances are initially distributed based on cause III in Section II, a set number of entities will be free to buy and sell.
6)   From 2011 to 2013, the legislation will allocate 85% of allowances to industry for free, auctioning only the remainder.
7)   The amount of emissions emitted nationally must either hold or be reduced over time at the digression of the President.
  Emissions must be reduced to 17-percent of 2005 levels by 2020.
9)   Emissions must be reduced to 80-percent of 2005 levels by 2050.

Section III
1)   Electric utilities must meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy resources and energy efficiency by 2020.
2)   Subsidies will be provided for new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development.
3)   Consumers will be protected from energy price increases over 25-percent from current levels.  

Section IV
1)   Electricity providers who supply over 4 million MWh to citizens are required to produce 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal) by 2025.
2)   Companies will be required to pay a fee if they do not meet this standard by 2025.
3)   The corporate tax rate will be cut 3.5% from current levels beginning in 2011 and running until 2025 to encourage industry to invest in clean technology.

Section V
1)   Any company that is 15% below its allotted carbon emissions cap will receive an additional 3.5% cut on their corporate taxes in addition to the cut outlined in clause III of Section IV.
2)   The aim of clause I of Section V is to provide incentives to reduce carbon emissions beyond the status quo to better our environment.

Sponsor: AH "Washed up has been, who needs to be primaried" Duke99

[hawkeye59]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

With all do respect to my friend Duke, I am afraid I can't support this, as I made clear to him. I don't want any limits on carbon emissions because I think they are by design meant to reduce US economic strength relative to China and other countries, and work to beneft certain corporations at the expense of others, while providing miniscule reductions in carbon emissions. However, if I have to choose, I would rather the honest stupidity of the Carbon tax as opposed to the dishonesty of a stupid finanical trading scheme.

[hawkeye59]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

10%?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You know Yankee, i have no problem with you not supporting this. I really don't. I hope you don't over inflate yourself to believe otherwise. Your vote is about as relevant as i am as a whole. But going off and calling me a has been who needs to be primaried is a bit much, donchathink? Once you get to be my age and become irrelevant and equivalent to half a senate seat, you'll look back and understand how hard it is for someone like me to be taken seriously anymore.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know Yankee, i have no problem with you not supporting this. I really don't. I hope you don't over inflate yourself to believe otherwise. Your vote is about as relevant as i am as a whole. But going off and calling me a has been who needs to be primaried is a bit much, donchathink? Once you get to be my age and become irrelevant and equivalent to half a senate seat, you'll look back and understand how hard it is for someone like me to be taken seriously anymore.

The only reason I call you that is 1) I don't think its true and I am trying to get you to stop saying it about yourself by making your sick of hearing it. 2) as a finger to the idiots who say that about you. I take this kind of thing very seriously, thats why I did it . I will change it just the same though. You need to stop beatin yourself up and project some confidence. Look at Fritz, Jedi, and Peter. They have been around far longer then you and they don't say that kind of thing.  I also find it funny that you would connect that to my stated opposition to this bill. The two are unrelated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

10%?

Maybe in a time window of 15 to 20 years.

We aren't going to get off fossil fuels by any substantial amount till they build a working Fusion Reactor and efficient Hydrogen Fuel Cells with hydrogen produced from Water Electrolysis using Electricity derived from the Nuclear Fusion. Thats 50 to 75 years from now.

The best alternative that would currently work is Coal liquification which gets git by these Carbon limitation efforts. It is profitable any time oil is above $45 a barrell compared to Ethenol which Atlasia quit subsizing a while ago and is  not only is not profitable compared to oil, it actually uses oil to make it, more oil then is used to make 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol.

[hawkeye59]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

10%?

Maybe in a time window of 15 to 20 years.

We aren't going to get off fossil fuels by any substantial amount till they build a working Fusion Reactor and efficient Hydrogen Fuel Cells with hydrogen produced from Water Electrolysis using Electricity derived from the Nuclear Fusion. Thats 50 to 75 years from now.

The best alternative that would currently work is Coal liquification which gets git by these Carbon limitation efforts. It is profitable any time oil is above $45 a barrell compared to Ethenol which Atlasia quit subsizing a while ago and is  not only is not profitable compared to oil, it actually uses oil to make it, more oil then is used to make 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol.

How about cutting the emissions of fossil fuels by 20%?

[Franzl]

Didn't you already ask that question?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

10%?

Maybe in a time window of 15 to 20 years.

We aren't going to get off fossil fuels by any substantial amount till they build a working Fusion Reactor and efficient Hydrogen Fuel Cells with hydrogen produced from Water Electrolysis using Electricity derived from the Nuclear Fusion. Thats 50 to 75 years from now.

The best alternative that would currently work is Coal liquification which gets git by these Carbon limitation efforts. It is profitable any time oil is above $45 a barrell compared to Ethenol which Atlasia quit subsizing a while ago and is  not only is not profitable compared to oil, it actually uses oil to make it, more oil then is used to make 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol.

How about cutting the emissions of fossil fuels by 20%?

That is possible but it will take longer then most expect and cost a lot, but its feasible.

Didn't you already ask that question?

No, he didn't. He asked about consumption first then emmissions.

lol, usually I am the one who misses the subtle details like that.

[hawkeye59]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

10%?

Maybe in a time window of 15 to 20 years.

We aren't going to get off fossil fuels by any substantial amount till they build a working Fusion Reactor and efficient Hydrogen Fuel Cells with hydrogen produced from Water Electrolysis using Electricity derived from the Nuclear Fusion. Thats 50 to 75 years from now.

The best alternative that would currently work is Coal liquification which gets git by these Carbon limitation efforts. It is profitable any time oil is above $45 a barrell compared to Ethenol which Atlasia quit subsizing a while ago and is  not only is not profitable compared to oil, it actually uses oil to make it, more oil then is used to make 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol.

How about cutting the emissions of fossil fuels by 20%?

That is possible but it will take longer then most expect and cost a lot, but its feasible.

Didn't you already ask that question?

No, he didn't. He asked about consumption first then emmissions.

lol, usually I am the one who misses the subtle details like that.

Like 20 to 30 years?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not a senator, but I would like an amendment cutting the burning of fossil fuels by 20%.

Completely unrealistic and impossible any time in the next 20 to 25 years.

10%?

Maybe in a time window of 15 to 20 years.

We aren't going to get off fossil fuels by any substantial amount till they build a working Fusion Reactor and efficient Hydrogen Fuel Cells with hydrogen produced from Water Electrolysis using Electricity derived from the Nuclear Fusion. Thats 50 to 75 years from now.

The best alternative that would currently work is Coal liquification which gets git by these Carbon limitation efforts. It is profitable any time oil is above $45 a barrell compared to Ethenol which Atlasia quit subsizing a while ago and is  not only is not profitable compared to oil, it actually uses oil to make it, more oil then is used to make 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of ethenol.

How about cutting the emissions of fossil fuels by 20%?

That is possible but it will take longer then most expect and cost a lot, but its feasible.

Didn't you already ask that question?

No, he didn't. He asked about consumption first then emmissions.

lol, usually I am the one who misses the subtle details like that.

Like 20 to 30 years?

Depends really.

[Fritz]

I sent a copy of the bill to my dad, to get his reactions.  My father, now retired, spent his career in law, specializing in environmental issues.  He is what you would call an environmentalist.  So, this is his area of expertise.  Anyways, I would like to share his thoughts about this with the Senate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

I sent a copy of the bill to my dad, to get his reactions.  My father, now retired, spent his career in law, specializing in environmental issues.  He is what you would call an environmentalist.  So, this is his area of expertise.  Anyways, I would like to share his thoughts about this with the Senate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your dad is pretty cool, Fritz. There's a lot of sense in what he writes (even if he misidentifies Cantwell as a Republican)

I'm seriously considering a Fritz's Dad Amendment to this bill.

Other thoughts, Senators, on the fee and dividend approach?

[tmthforu94]

I sent a copy of the bill to my dad, to get his reactions.  My father, now retired, spent his career in law, specializing in environmental issues.  He is what you would call an environmentalist.  So, this is his area of expertise.  Anyways, I would like to share his thoughts about this with the Senate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your dad is pretty cool, Fritz. There's a lot of sense in what he writes (even if he misidentifies Cantwell as a Republican)

I'm seriously considering a Fritz's Dad Amendment to this bill.

Other thoughts, Senators, on the fee and dividend approach?

I'm sorta digging it too, partly because one of my favorite American Senators is behind it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its better then the current Carbon Tax but it also doesn't enrich Goldman Sachs/Enron type people.

[Badger]

Encouraging signs of support. I'm particularly interested in hearing from Duke as this is his bill he labored long on after all.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Fritz's dad makes some interesting remarks. He seems to hit on several of the things people tend to use when they oppose a bill such as this, and he does offer some good alternatives. I would be willing to accept his changes if it would make the bill more palatable to the masses, though I don't know how I'd like the idea of taxing all emissions in the manner in which he described. I'm also no expert in this field either. I'll be the first to admit.

Also, I'd rather not include mandates to force them to spend the money they get back on energy research. I would hope the fees that would be imposed in the future would be enough to deter them from straying from the plan. The incentive of more tax breaks if they exceed their goals is another provision included to nudge businesses in the right direction.

Perhaps my Republican side comes out in this bill when I give businesses such leeway with those tax refunds. I don't know.

[Purple State]

For a great bit-by-bit breakdown of cap/dividend, go here (PDF).

[Badger]

For a great bit-by-bit breakdown of cap/dividend, go here (PDF).

Interesting proposal. I question a major portion of it though:

"Revenue generated by carbon permits comes from producers and importers of coal, natural
gas and oil. In other words, a power plant that burns coal does not buy carbon permits; it is
paid by the mining company that mined the coal."

By regulating and taxing (let's call it what it is) "upstream" at the point of production, this seems to take away the incentive for power plants and refineries to upgrade technology for cleaner consumption of coal, gas, oil, etc. If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it shouldn't matter whether a ton of coal is produced or or ton and a half, but rather how much carbon emissions are created and the point of consumption. If an upgraded clean coal plant burning two tons of coal  creates only half the carbon emissions as a less modernized plant does burning only one ton, it seems the latter plant should be paying twice as much for permits rather than vice-versa.

The primary reasoning for this measure is stated as:

"The CLEAR Act’s “upstream” point of regulation means that only 2,000 to 3,000
fossil fuel producers and importers will face any new compliance obligations,
greatly reducing any regulatory bureaucracy."

I suppose that's a benefit, but it seems the additional manpower needed to enforce compliance at the source of consumption rather than production is a relatively small cost well worth focusing the limitation of greenhouse gases on the producers of the gases themselves rather then on the producer of raw materials (i.e. fossil fuels) themselves, thereby encouraging clean consumption technology and upgrades and likewise discouraging letting older more polluting plants and refineries continue unabated.

With that change I believe the rest of the "fee and dividend" plan could still be implemented as proposed.

[Bacon King]

I oppose this bill. Cap and trade is a horribly beauraucratic and inefficient mess compared to a simple carbon tax. It forces Atlasian companies to bend backwards to try to purchase for the exact number of carbon they'll need, placing far too much emphasis on targetting the wrong things. Even the Financial Times argues that a simple carbon tax is superior to a convoluted cap and trade system. In a little while I'll come and quote my posts from the last time the Senate tried to pass a cap and trade. Suffice it to say, I will be voting against this bill and encourage everyone else to do the same.

[Bacon King]

From the CO2 Cap-and-Trade Bill of May, 2009.

My apologies, but I do feel the need to engage in debate here. Sorry for not having already done so; these last few days I've been moving back from college.

We already have a perfectly acceptable carbon tax system in place, where companies simply pay a set rate per tonne of carbon they emit. This money goes into government coffers.

Why replace that with a system that forces companies to keep additional brokers/accountants/etc on payroll to buy the carbon credits, keep track of them, and make sure they're setting targets correctly? This creates additional costs for firms much greater than simply paying for the carbon itself. In addition, there's also the cost to the taxpayer in both regulating the carbon markets and enforcing the proper use of the emission permits- not to mention the completely needless bureaucracy of deciding how the carbon credits get assigned in the first place.

For more detail on how a carbon tax system is superior to cap-and-trade, please see this article in the Financial Times.

Honestly, while well-intentioned, this bill is needless. It would create unnecessary bureaucracy, increase costs that industries face, decrease government revenue, and would ultimately be bad for Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Emphasis mine.

Companies can buy more credits than they need, for example, and in the event that they produce less carbon than expected, can sell these credits at a higher price at a later date.

Who's buying from a company that bought too many credits? A company that bought too few, and is straining to meet it's quota so hard that it's willing to buy the carbon credits at greatly overpriced rates. That, my friend, is unneeded inefficiency that is solely the cause of the cap-and-trade system. In addition, also note that all companies would be forced to hire on brokers, analysts, and accountants just to manage the carbon markets and their credit count, increasing overhead costs and decreasing profits for the entirety of Atlasian industry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm of the opinion that firms should compete through their products, not through government-abetted manipulation of financial markets. And that is, essentially, what buying credits above one's expected output level is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's unfair about everyone receiving the same rate? Should some companies pay less for their outputted carbon just because they hire brokers who are more skilled at acquiring credits? The social cost of a ton of carbon is the same regardless of who emits it, so the price should also be the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While on the topic of potential abuse of the system, isn't there a far greater risk in bias regarding however carbon credits are assigned in the first place? Huge potential for favoritism, lobbying influence, corruption, and the bureaucracy that assigns the credits isn't even accountable to an electorate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See the Financial Times' article especially for this topic. It is useless stability for a company to know how much carbon they will produce; in order to be financially efficient they must know ahead of time the cost of their emissions. If you want stability while reducing carbon emissions you can gradually increasing the taxes over time rather than gradually reducing permits over time. Economically, both would have the same effect, but the latter causes much more problems for firms in terms of predicting for future budgets and problems.

[Bacon King]

Well, nobody's talking. I move to amend this bill to remove Sections I and II, and renumber the rest accordingly.

[Badger]

I hope to have something concrete (maybe an amendment, maybe not) to offer tomorrow, FWIW.