Wish that were more popular in political circles.

But i def prefer C&T over nothing, by far.

A price on CO2 is what’s most critical.

And using that money generated for clean energy & energy efficiency.

I don’t know if a carbon tax would work better than a cap and trade program. I can see how C&T might do a better job of steering the money toward effective reduction projects, but that’s a “might”.

On reflection it seems like a carbon tax would also require a number of inspectors and ‘tax collectors’ to make that approach work. It’s not clear that there would be labor saved by going to the tax route.

Overall, I’m glad to see something happen even if it might not be the very best approach. I’m not one to let perfect get in the way of good enough.

I prefer a Carbon Tax instead of a Cap & Trade [C-T] program. I prefer the Carbon Tax for it’s simplicity and ability to monitor the financial aspects of the program. Please go to the below website to view the 6 reasons I prefer the Carbon Tax.

carbontax[DOT]org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/ Change “DOT” to a .

HOWEVER, regardless of which program is used [C-T or Carbon Tax] the end RESULT should be what we all are hoping for.

I didn’t look at the CA C-T program until YESTERDAY so please understand I am certainly no expert in the CA C-T legislation. I did however work for many of the individuals who have spear headed the CA C-T program effort before I retired some 12 years ago. What I HAVE learned by reviewing just a few of the CA program documents is that the C-T program appears to be quite complex. The following list was just cut and paste from one of the CA C-T program documents.

1. California Cap-and-Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Partner
Jurisdictions
2. California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards
3. Energy Efficiency
4. Renewables Portfolio Standard
5. Low Carbon Fuel Standard
6. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets
7. Vehicle Efficiency Measures
8. Goods Movement
9. Million Solar Roofs Program
10. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles
11. Industrial Emissions
12. High Speed Rail
13. Green Building Strategy
14. High Global Warming Potential Gases
15. Recycling and Waste
16. Sustainable Forests
17. Water
18. Agriculture

As you can see from the list, the CA C-T plan touches almost every aspect of almost everyone life. It’s not just about coal plants, refineries or cement plants. It covers almost everything the people of CA touch everyday. Maybe that is one of the reasons it took so long to get this approved; but again I haven’t researched that aspect and don’t intend to.

As an engineer by profession, I usually look for and provided specific solutions for specific problems. CA already has an air resources board which has had a positive impact on air pollution. CA also has other agencies that have done a very good job of ensuring the people of the state have clean water and still more agencies that probably control coal/coke or cement plant production particulates.

C-T or a Carbon Tax – it doesn’t make much difference to me; they are all structured to do about the same thing. That same thing to me means; getting us off dirty fuels and creating a more healthy environment to raise our kids and grand-kids. Its not that I don’t want clean air and water and a better environment I certainly do. I just want us to take the least costly and most effective approach. And since this law was just recently passed, I don’t have the foggiest idea which of the two strategies will work best for California.

Iin closing; some people will always believe that Cap and Trade is the best approach and some individuals like myself will believe that a Carbon Tax is a more cost effective and direct approach. Putting it quite simply – its like the difference between white cake and chocolate cake. They are different and unique but they both taste good. There really is no right or wrong way in either approach. They are just different ways of achieving the same goal.

Tom Garven
Lake Havasu City, AZ. USA

Obviously C&T on coal plants is not going to be a big deal in CA. From reading the LA paper piece it sounds like refineries might be the bigger issue. And they certainly aren’t going to move out of state. Oregon or Washington are not likely to host them ‘dirty’ and nowhere else along the west coast has port facilities.

As for a few people getting hired to oversee/operate this program. Fine. More people working.

Would the money spent on their salaries have gone to renewable energy? I doubt it.

No one expects the transition from fossil fuels to renewables to be cost free. But when you consider the billion dollars we spend every day to support burning coal and the billion dollars we spend every day for imported oil can you not see moving to renewables a great, wonderful investment that will quickly repay itself and provide us benefits far into the future?

Getting off of fossil fuel makes such incredible economic sense it crazy that we are not spending a billion dollars a day getting renewables up and running. Get rid of oil and gas and we have a much more affordable future.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF8&t=h&msa=0&msid=108904972691697019650.00047a835a1074814bf45&ll=37.247821,-111.577148&spn=6.120544,9.338379&z=6&source=embed

How many coal fired plants used for electricity generation did you find in CA.?

Please go here for a description of the CA C&T program in part.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

Go here for a further 152 page look at the plan and analysis and some of the agencies involved.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf

I don’t have a count on the number of NEW Government agencies that are being created but I bet between the advisory committees, boards, community and state agencies its a bunch. For every dollar spent on or by those agencies, that is one less dollar spent on renewable energy.

Got to run guys – will check back tomorrow.
Tom G.

And I’ll bet that in sunny places solar is starting to drop the cost of power. Large array solar is now around $0.15/kWh and the price of power from gas peakers is much higher at times.

If merit order pricing is in effect the high cost of peaker power pulls the price of all the rest of the supply up to its level. I’ve seen peaker prices well over $1/kWh. Having adequate solar on line would cap that rate at 15 cents.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/21/utility-ceos-talk-solar/

First, I don’t see a difference between cap and trade and a carbon tax on rate payers. Both would raise the cost of electricity coming from a coal-burning plant. I do see a possible benefit from the C&T in that the funds will go directly to mitigating atmospheric carbon. Collected taxes would possibly go into general tax funds and be spent for non-environmental purposes. A purposed tax could mitigate this problem. But either way, the cost of coal-generated electricity rises and that makes renewables competitive sooner.

What might happen is that XYZ Utility Co. might offset the CO2 from their coal plant by building a wind or solar farm. It would force them to transition to clean energy faster than they otherwise might. That wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Now for the unevenness of how the C&P will play out, I don’t understand that. If one utility company has eliminated the coal from its energy mix how will the placement of C&P on a coal burner selling power into another utility company effect them? If PG&E’s costs go up a bit because they get some power from a coal plant how will that change the rate of someone who buys their power from SDG&E?

(BTW, I’m not sure PG&E gets any power from an in-state coal burner. There are a couple of small cogen plants in the Stockton area which might sell to PG&E or to SMUD. Do you know if C&T will apply to power purchased from outside the state?)

Finally, I don’t understand how out of state renewable plays any role in all this. Solar, wind and geothermal do not release CO2. Why would they be part of the discussion?

Well, really finally, I do agree that it would be best if we had a national or world-wide program to eliminate carbon but that just isn’t going to happen right now. CA is going to lead the way for the other 49 states just like we’ve pushed car gas mileage. We’ll almost certainly make mistakes but they should be fixable and by the time the other states evolve to the point where they are ready to do their fair share we will have furnished them with a route forward.

I only dislike the METHOD we have chosen to get coal off the grid. Cap and Trade for California [CA] to me is a negative inducement. To my knowledge there are only maybe a few [maybe only 2-4] coal fired electric generating plants left in CA.

Now that Cap and Trade has been implemented ALL of the people who live in CA are going to have to pay for the carbon coming from those coal plants. Not only that, since Arizona [AZ] provides coal generation to CA; does that mean AZ will be receiving some of the CA tax dollars to spend on renewable energy? I don’t think so. How about the solar plants being built in AZ feeding power to the CA grid? Who gets the money for those plants? How about the generation coming from Canada, Washington and Oregon; how does that fit into the mix? Cap and Trade is a flawed strategy at the single State level. Regional programs with specific goals maybe have worked.

The people who live in San Diego county have spent 100’s of millions on greener sources of power [nuclear & solar] and are now going to have to pay the same as someone living North of San Francisco who gets power from a nearby coal.plant. Is that fair? When or IF those plants are shutdown does that mean that Cap and Trade will disappear – don’t think so. Why should we punish EVERYONE for the use of coal when some people live [almost] carbon free? It also appears to me to punish individuals who have spend 10’s of thousands making their homes more energy efficient and less carbon intensive. They are now going to be punished by paying the same RATE as everyone else.

In my opinion, we should have the courage and leadership to START the discussions of what might work best for America however I don’t expect to see that happening anytime soon. Just because it has worked in some other country or region does not mean it is the best bet fit for American or even the State of CA. We are a very large and diverse nation.

I could support a NATIONAL incremental tax on coal and selected chemicals, but it would have to be part of a long term energy solution. Just taxing coal or carbon is only part of the solution.

Tom G.

I’m sure some will try to game the system and, like just about any other piece of legislation, it will take some nailing tin over the rat holes as the greedy sniff them out.

Cap and trade that takes coal generation off the grid will be a money saver for taxpayers. We pay a lot of money in government spending and in personal health insurance premiums to deal with the health and environmental costs caused by burning coal.

Cap and trade is a type of tax. But it’s one that creates new activity rather than simply flowing money to the government. Coal burners who find it too expensive to upgrade their plants are going to spend money (pay a tax) to get someone else to create a carbon sink or in some fashion eliminate an equal amount of carbon.

I totally agree with you re: the distrust of Congress. Never before have we see our elected officials from one party intentionally harm the US in an attempt to limit a sitting president to one term. What Republicans are doing to keep people unemployed is reprehensible. We could have put 400,000 Americans to work while costing the very rich only pocket change.

That is so wrong.

1. Cap and trade does not create wealth or help the American people in any way. In fact it robs the people of needed funds by increasing the cost of energy at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
2. Cap and trade is perceived by the public as just another tax to help create a bigger government or to line the pockets of a few individuals or corporations.
3. Cap and trade does nothing to create a larger workforce who pay taxes but does the exactly the opposite by removing needed capital from the private investment sector, and finally;

Cap and trade is not a product – you can’t eat it, the public can’t spend or save it, you can’t drive it or plant it in the ground and watch it grow.

I would much prefer a Carbon Tax or maybe even a Feed in Tariff [FIT]. At least with a carbon tax individuals can monitor how much money is being skimmed off at each level. A FIT would provide INCENTIVES for desirable actions instead of PUNISHING people for using carbon products.

Sorry everyone but on this issue, I must part ways with individuals who believe that Cap and Trade is the best solution for America. About 82$% of the American people no longer trust their members of Congress to do the right thing. There is just too much temptation for abuse in the Cap and Trade system. A Carbon Tax – yes. Clean Air and Water – yes. More renewables – yes.

Bots? Spammers? Concerned people who just really have no idea how this policy will affect them?

..

Guys & Gals: short an simple, C&T will make polluters clean up or give money to clean companies and organizations. You will not be hurt unless you, perhaps, happen to work for a dirty energy company that can’t or won’t transition to a clean energy economy and you also are like that company.

The health savings from the policy will save everyone money on healthcare and will save them money on the fortune they might have to dish out when “natural disasters” related to climate change hit their region.

CA overwhelmingly passed this legislation and the most recent vote was unanimous. If you think everyone is stupid, either you are a genius and should just be happy with yourself in that realization or perhaps you should take a look at the evidence (have you done that?).