SENATE BILL: Clean Carbon Communities Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I could support your amendment, Ben, but I think we should also denote a time when the money runs out. After a certain amount of time, these new technologies will have paid for themselves and will start generating net positive savings. Those savings could be put to use on green projects. They'll need to take on the burden at some point... and they'll have the resources to do it.

Ignore this. I misread part of the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object (from time of edit).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Objection filed by Senator Averroës Nix, a vote is now open on the above amendment, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Spamage]

Abstain

[Mopsus]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

[Oakvale]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

Me too, I'd like to see an amendment to this end. I can draw one up if you like.

Nay on the current amendment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

Over time, $15,000,000 will grow, even if it seems small now. I can't remember if I posted it here or just did the calculations for interest's sake, but the savings in electricity expenses for a "greenified," hospital-sized building are actually pretty damn impressive. If $15,000,000 converts even one building, you could afford to convert another building in, say, five years, and after that, another building in two and a half. It's an investment.

[Mopsus]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

Me too, I'd like to see an amendment to this end. I can draw one up if you like.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if you are going to write an amendment, I do recommend that you consult with Hagrid on it

[Niemeyerite]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

Me too, I'd like to see an amendment to this end. I can draw one up if you like.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if you are going to write an amendment, I do recommend that you consult with Hagrid on it

Yep, I'm up for whatever. The tricky thing is that it's a bit difficult to tell the regions exactly how they should deal with their savings, as it's money that grows from federal investment, but never actually "belonged" to the federal government. I think it'd have to be a suggestion as opposed to a mandate.

[Napoleon]

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

I really like this idea.

Me too, I'd like to see an amendment to this end. I can draw one up if you like.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. But if you are going to write an amendment, I do recommend that you consult with Hagrid on it

Yep, I'm up for whatever. The tricky thing is that it's a bit difficult to tell the regions exactly how they should deal with their savings, as it's money that grows from federal investment, but never actually "belonged" to the federal government. I think it'd have to be a suggestion as opposed to a mandate.

Make the funding conditional on regions investing their own $15 million on the project, then give them the federal funds to invest as savings. That removes any type of unconstitutional provisions.

[Napoleon]

I still don't understand why the federal government is better equipped than the regions to tackle this project.  Federal oversight might complicate the process more than any amount of additional oversight is worth.

I've lost interest in supporting this. There is little reason why our larger regions should continue to get shafted financially.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Getting provided any funds should hardly be considered "getting shafted." I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's a problem to offer money to regions on the condition that they spend it on green building technologies. If it's so problematic, let's include an opt-out (and in the months I've been here, no region has yet opted out of an "opt-outable" program... so they can't be that bad). We're not specifiying which buildings to improve or when to begin the improvements, so the level of short-term inconvenience this bill will cause is negligible. All we're doing is saying "use this money for this type of project"—the regions can figure out the rest.

[Napoleon]

Getting provided any funds should hardly be considered "getting shafted." I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's a problem to offer money to regions on the condition that they spend it on green building technologies. If it's so problematic, let's include an opt-out (and in the months I've been here, no region has yet opted out of an "opt-outable" program... so they can't be that bad). We're not specifiying which buildings to improve or when to begin the improvements, so the level of short-term inconvenience this bill will cause is negligible. All we're doing is saying "use this money for this type of project"—the regions can figure out the rest.

Regions that are larger and more prosperous are getting shafted with funding that is not proportional.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would it be that hard to make it proportional? Typically we delegate the formulas to the SoIA.


Nay, reluctantly

Shame we are running out of time here. I think an alternative can be crafted though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 53:31 by Ben:

Aye (1): Ben
Nay (5): Averroës Nix, jdb, JulioMadrid, NC Yankee, and Oakvale
Abstain (3): HagridoftheDeep, Napoleon, and Oakvale

Didn't Vote (1): Franzl


The amendment is not adopted.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Friendly

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, but I'm going to object to this one.

Honestly, I much preferred the idea of giving funds directly to the regions and trusting them to decide exactly how they should be used.

Setting requirements and penalties, as this amendment would do in Section 2, isn't something I'm interested in doing here. It's combative, and it totally changes the connotation associated with what it means to go green.

Also, why are we completely stripping away the provisions that would have helped government buildings reduce their carbon footprints? That was basically the main thrust of the original bill, and now it's completely gone. I liked it because if there's one thing the government has uncontested authority over, it's its own property. There was no stepping on toes or carrots and sticks in the original bill, because they were changes that could easily be made. Now we're dealing with an entirely different ball game.

I don't mean to be combative, but this is just an entirely different bill.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Objection filed by Senator Hagrid, vote will commence soon.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'll admit that this amendment does run roughshod over the original bill. But I didn't like the original bill; on the other hand, I did like your suggestion:

Also, here's a suggestion. Even if $15,000,000 isn't able to upgrade every government building in a region, that money will still be put to enough use that the regions will see savings in their in their electricity costs. Could we not suggest that the regions put whatever savings they gleaned from the $15,000,000 investment into a green energy fund? When the fund is big enough, they can start upgrading other buildings. The savings will get bigger, so the fund will grow faster. Just something to think about.

This could easily be incorporated into this bill if my amendment passes.

I'm also open to making Section 2 more flexible. Nudging behaviors in the right direction might be more effective than the cudgel-like approach behind setting strict requirements.

That said, I'm a lot more interested in passing this amendment and continuing from there than I am in doing otherwise. A couple of days ago I was very close to tabling this uninspiring bill, but I think that by expanding its scope to embrace one of the administration's major initiatives we'll be able to accomplish something significant.

I liked my original suggestion too. But I appreciate your support here. If this amendment passes, I'll certainly move to add something similar to the idea you quoted. I'll also support making Section 2 more flexible.

Still, I guess we just disagree, because I'd prefer to work off the original bill. What makes it imperative that this legislation needs to have a big scope? You say we'll be able to accomplish something significant, but the only significant accomplishments I see resulting from this bill are higher electricity costs and layoffs. Sorry Nix, but I'm still going to enter my objection. I could pretend I was happy with it, but I think that'd be doing the process a disservice.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I object.

(Just in case it got missed by Duke or Yankee. )

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I object.

(Just in case it got missed by Duke or Yankee. )

If you haven't noticed, I am workign through a surrogate right now, so there is a bit of delay in response time, hence why it was missed.

Duke can't open a vote until it has had a chance to cool down first (24 hours on the floor).