MA: Growing a Renewable Energy Economy Now Act (Passed)

[Boston Bread]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Harry S Truman

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Basically, the purpose of this Act is to move the Mideast towards a more sustainable future in terms of energy production without gutting the economy in the process. The idea is to encourage the growth of new RECs while providing incentives for existing companies to transition to Renewable forms of energy production.

I'm open to adjusting the numbers a bit when it comes to tax credits/ increases so long as the underlying intent of the act - to make Renewable Energy more economical than Non-Renewable Energy - is preserved.

[TDAS04]

This definitely seems like a good idea.  We do need to be more sustainable when it comes to energy I will continue to examine the costs and details of this proposal, but it appears encouraging.

[MadmanMotley]

I agree with the governor and believe this would be a good idea, but I would like to see some cost analyses of this before I can endorse it.

[Hatman 🍁]

Looks good to me. I would hope that it's at least revenue neutral. If not, I'd recommend increasing the tax on non-renewable energy producers.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would like to see some cost analyses of this before I can endorse it.

Under current Mideast statute, the corporate tax rate for companies in the top revenue bracket (those whose gross yearly revenue is $70M+) is 5.0%. Under this Act, that rate would be raised to 7.5% for non-RECs. Thus, a non-REC that claims $70M or more in revenue per year would pay $5.25M in Regional taxes, a $1.75M increase.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The tax rate for RECs (Renewable Energy Companies) does not change; however, all existing RECs may deduct 5.0% of their gross yearly revenue from their total taxable income. Thus, an existing REC making $70M a year would be taxed as if its gross yearly revenue were $66.5M. The most recent Budget passed by the Mideast sets the corporate tax rate for companies making between $20M and $70M at 4.0% of gross yearly revenue, meaning that our hypothetical E-REC would pay $2.66M in corporate taxes, a $840,000 decrease.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thus, between these two hypothetical companies, the Mideast government gained $1.75M in revenue from the non-REC and lost $840,000 from the E-REC, for a net gain of ~$910,000.

As of 2014, 33% of energy in the former United States was produced by renewable means, while 67% was produced by non-renewable means. Assuming that current conditions in the Mideast mirror this state of affairs, this would suggest a significant increase in revenue for the Mideast. Calculating the changes in growth in the Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy sectors and the revenue changes that would ensue goes beyond my abilities as an economist, but I hope I have at least partially answered your question.

[Boston Bread]

Truman's cost analysis suggests that this bill will have no budgetary issues. This bill has my support.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Tax increases towards any business will merit my opposition to this bill. The subisidies in the current bill are bad enough and render my abstaining at final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Unless there are any further concerns, I motion for a final vote.

[TDAS04]

After looking at the cost analysis, I support this bill.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

After looking at the cost analysis, I support this bill.

So you're ok with increasing taxes on one set of businesses all because they won't go renewable? It's not the government's prerogative to reward or punish for a business decision it's the right of the market to do that.

[Hatman 🍁]

After looking at the cost analysis, I support this bill.

So you're ok with increasing taxes on one set of businesses all because they won't go renewable? It's not the government's prerogative to reward or punish for a business decision it's the right of the market to do that.

Is it possible that he might care more about the environment than your precious "free market"?

[Boston Bread]

If businesses use non-renewable energy, there are long-term costs that will be incurred in the form of climate change, air and water pollution. Our entire region would have to deal with those consequences. A tax/fee would put the burden of polluting on the business. Making sure that businesses face the true cost of their energy use means a more fair market.

[TDAS04]

After looking at the cost analysis, I support this bill.

So you're ok with increasing taxes on one set of businesses all because they won't go renewable? It's not the government's prerogative to reward or punish for a business decision it's the right of the market to do that.

Government has the right to do this, and business is able to afford this.  Protecting the environment and adopting more renewable sources of energy is vital.  Not only does that state have in interest in this, but the people will benefit if business has incentives to adopt environmentally friendly practices, and business also has much to gain from renewable energy.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

After looking at the cost analysis, I support this bill.

So you're ok with increasing taxes on one set of businesses all because they won't go renewable? It's not the government's prerogative to reward or punish for a business decision it's the right of the market to do that.

It is the government's prerogative, however, to take action to curb practices that pose a threat to the general welfare of the people. This Act is hardly as hard-fisted as it could have been: I could have simply required all energy producers to switch to renewable energy, but I didn't because I do value the right of businesses to make these decisions on their own terms. Ultimately, however, the economy and the people of the Mideast will take a much harder hit if we fail to address this issue. Corporate profits take a second seat to the welfare of the people, especially when the issue at hand is as serious as the continued health of our planet.

[Boston Bread]

Sorry Harry S. Truman, but my work in the Assembly is going to be on hold for the weekend. And since JCL is on leave as well, it would be more courteous to hold a vote after the weekend.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sorry Harry S. Truman, but my work in the Assembly is going to be on hold for the weekend. And since JCL is on leave as well, it would be more courteous to hold a vote after the weekend.

That's okay. I'll be out of town and without internet access beginning on Wednesday and continuing until the following Monday (4/13), so if we could hold the vote either before or after that period (as I'd like to actually vote for my own bill), that would be great.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not generally of fan of increasing the complexity of the tax code.  How does this bill relate to any previous measures the region has taken toward this same goal?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

How does this bill relate to any previous measures the region has taken toward this same goal?

There is currently very little legislation on the books concerning renewable energy. The closest thing I could find was this law (passed in 2007), which calls for carbon emissions in the Mideast to be reduced 60% by 2060 but lays out no specifics as to how this should be achieved. I also found a 2012 law raising the gasoline tax, but that bears little relation to this bill as it concerns energy producers, while the aforementioned law targets energy consumers. Simply put, this Act isn't going to conflict with a myriad of previous actions taken by the Regional government, because the Mideast does not appear to have done much in regards to this issue.

[Boston Bread]

I am calling a vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Boston Bread]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The difference in treatment between new and existing energy companies concerns me.

I vote Nay.

[Hatman 🍁]

Aye

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

While I believe in environmental stewardship like our progressive friends, I in good conscience cannot support the methods by which they choose to go about it. Therefore I must vote

Nay