Ken Johnson’s Posts

• Responding to Dan at the Carbon Tax Center

  Are carbon taxes a viable option? 0

  Posted 1 day, 18 hours ago

  According to Sen. John Kerry, no.

  There has been a lively discussion of this topic on James Handley's blog at carbontax.org. My last comment, responding to Dan's 11/19/2009 comment, was blocked, but is replicated below:

  Dan,

  Thank you for the calculations. This is excellent.

  One point of clarification, re "As I understand, Ken would have the entire cost of wind power subsidized from the carbon fee revenue." If $100/MWh wind power is competing against $50/MWh fossil fuels, then wind would only need a $50/MWh subsidy (not $100/MWh) to be cost competitive. So the $10/MWh carbon fee could actually… Read More

• It’s Easy Being Green, but ...

  Saving the planet is hard 1

  Posted 1 month, 3 weeks agoPaul Krugman concludes in "It's easy being green," that "the claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax." Indeed, but the notion that the Waxman-Markey legislation is about "saving the planet" (Krugman's words) is equally inscrutable.

• Duelling diatribes

  Hansen versus Romm 0

  Posted 4 months, 1 week ago

  For all of Waxman-Markey's faults, I think it gets two things right: (1) allowance set-asides to fund tropical forest conservation, and (2) a meaningful price floor...However, they leave W-M with no coherent policy foundation, because its other regulatory mechanisms -- the cap, trading, economy-wide linkage, banking, borrowing, and offsets -- all operate to achieve the converse objective of minimizing costs within limits of a predetermined (and unsustainable) emission cap.

• Ken Johnson

  Even More About Me 0

  Posted 4 months, 1 week ago

  [8/19/2009]

  I am a California resident and climate policy activist with a particular interest in California’s legislative policy related to climate change. My advocacy activities have focused recently on California’s AB 32 legislation and the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

  Recent writings:

  "Preserving Additionality of Complementary GHG-Reduction Actions Under Waxman-Markey" (June 16, 2009)
  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1421947
  
  "A Decarbonization Strategy for the Electricity Sector: New-Source Subsidies" (July 22, 2009)
  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1427106
  
  "The Role of Policy Logic in U.S. Climate Legislation" (July 23, 2009)
  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437741

  I have provided comments, testimony, and technical analysis for the following groups and activities (search for "Johnson"):

  Western Environmental… Read More

• How 'tough' is tough enough?

  Obama's 'tougher fuel standards' 2

  Posted 6 months, 1 week ago

  Four questions about the Obama administration's planned fuel standards for automobiles.

All Posts

Ken Johnson’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This is great -- something really sensible coming out of Congress! Energy efficiency is not limited by lack of a carbon price -- the price incentive from fuel savings alone can far exceed any contemplated trading price or carbon tax. What is lacking is "innovative financing models": The government or utilities could pay for home efficiency improvements, and could recover all of the investment -- with interest -- through utility bills or property taxes, and consumers would still come out ahead! Now if they could take this one or two steps forward. What about transportation policy? Vehicle efficiency improvements beyond California's existing tailpipe GHG standards would yield net profits well in excess of $200/ton-CO2 -- and rising. "Innovative financing models" for transportation vehicles could create decarbonization incentives far in excess of any existing or planned vehicle efficiency standards. What about electricity generation? In this case a price incentive is needed because low-carbon sources have positive (though declining) net costs. But if carbon fees are used only to subsidize new, low-carbon energy generation, then they could effectively give new renewables an immediate price advantage on the order of $100/ton-CO2 with fees starting out near zero (because there would initially be no "new" sources). The price incentive could draw sufficient private equity or bond financing to propel the clean-energy revolution. Another job for "innovative financing models". Sen. Merkley -- You're on a roll!On Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits posted 17 hours, 57 minutes ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "The best way forward is not to further subsidize wind farms ..." Why not? If the 2.1 cents/kWh production tax credit isn't enough, then why not make it 10 cents/kWh? With coal accounting for over 93 percent of the state's power production, the 10 cent/kWh subsidy could be financed from a carbon fee of less than 1 cent/kWh. You want to distribute the revenue to consumers? Give them their dividends in the form of low-cost, clean energy. Either that, or give them equity shares in renewable energy companies. Carbon tax dividends would disappear, whereas dividends from clean-energy equity shares would increase, as carbon is phased out. [Or maybe you are more concerned about getting your hands on the money than phasing out carbon. No?]On To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon posted 1 week, 5 days ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "While we need to continue developing alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass, the cornerstone of any new proposal must include exploration of our offshore resources and the expansion of nuclear power." Mr. Wicker: Why? Is there any good reason to favor non-renewable, polluting energy sources over sustainable, clean energy? "...there are 19 billion barrels of oil currently off-limits to production in our nation’s deep waters." How much of a change in oil prices would result from exploitation of those resources? (Any clue?) "Both of these bills require substantial reductions on carbon emissions ... I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change ..." Okay, so if "substantial reductions on carbon emissions" would have "no effect on climate change," what would?On Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) posted 1 week, 5 days ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "RGGI appears to be off to a good start, with low permit prices and no evidence of gaming." There isn't much incentive for gaming with CO2 prices at $2/ton. The House climate bill is in a different league, with its floor price starting at $10/ton. "The [SO2] program regulating power plants has exceeded expectations, beating the SO2 emissions cap years ahead of schedule and costing only one-fourth of what was expected." Blah, blah, blah. I'm so weary of this kind on inane parroting of dogmatic drivel. The only motivation that regulated entities had for "beating the SO2 emissions cap years ahead of schedule" is that they could exceed the cap in future years (via banking). The low price, even with prodigious banking, is evidence of overly lax regulation. The EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule would provide an estimated 25-to-1 societal return-on-investment, but would be limited by the large number of banked allowances that industry has been able to hoard as a hedge against more stringent future regulations. Trading, banking, and offsets are, in effect, sanctioned forms of "gaming" that allow industry to keep emission reductions capped at an unsustainable level. The least-cost, least-effort regulatory paradigm underlying cap-and-trade is fundamentally a game of procrastination.On Gaming cap-and-trade: Should we worry? posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hapa - There is a lot of "low-hanging fruit" -- especially energy efficiency -- that will literally "pay for itself". ("... the entire 2020 target in the Waxman-Markey climate bill could be met with energy efficiency at a net savings to U.S. consumers and businesses of $700 billion ...") According to the California Air Resources Board, vehicle efficiency improvements beyond existing state regulations would yield a net return-on-investment of $262/ton-CO2 just from fuel savings. Seed funding for efficiency and clean-energy technologies can come from the private sector, as it does with the Berkeley FIRST financing program for residential solar. For the higher-hanging fruit that has positive costs, the government does not necessarily have to pay the costs. Let the polluters' pay! But they wouldn't necessarily need to pay very much. For example, if carbon fees in the electricity sector are used exclusively to subsidize new-source, renewable energy generation, then the fees would start out at zero because there would initially be no "new" sources. So if we can't get the big, monster federal climate bill, let the states have at it!On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 2 weeks, 5 days ago 29 Responses