rsmith02’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not just cash. Also staff to create and oversee programs, technical assistance and some issues that are simply not at the state level (embedded CO2 in imports, etc.) 10 states have their own cap and trade program for power plants (RGGI). Several midwestern states announced plans to create an economy wide cap and trade system. At least five states have mandatory economy-wide emissions laws and many more have greenhouse gas goals and plans. All of this would be more effective with a federal law as a backstop and with EPA-quality resoruces to help state agencies.On The real reason the climate bill is going to suck posted 4 days, 7 hours ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Matt, prior use claims would mean we'd have to compensate entities for essentially any form of environmental regulation which incurs costs. The Clean Air Act doesn't say that we should only reduce pollution so long as all polluters are made whole, and that if there isn't money to pay them they don't have to clean up. The atmosphere isn't the province of polluters- we share the sky. On whether ACES got the auction right, 80% of the revenue returns to the public *only* if you believe that the LDC allocation was done right and the state public utilities commissions will define consumer benefit in a way that actually returns value to ratepayers. They could possibly dump it into pet utility projects rather than rebates, for example.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Mr. Smith, My point is that it would be a lot harder to legislate a 100% auction if prices are expected to start out at about $15/ton (compared to $3/ton, which is where RGGI started). " Not really. RGGI states went to 100% auction before the first auction took place so there was no clear price. I think you're mistakenly thinking that auctioning allowances raises the cost to consumers. If you auctioned all allowances and rebated all the proceeds, consumers would gain or lose nothing (cap and dividend). If you invested it into not just rebates but also consumer energy efficiency (cap and invest), rates might be higher but total consumer energy costs would be lower and the CO2 price would be lower with less demand for permits. The most expensive way to go for consumers is handing out permits for free as it transfers wealth from consumers to corporate shareholders. See the distributional charts above. So high allowance prices are actually a reason to auction permits if you care about consumers.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mr. Johnson, the price of RGGI allowances is unrelated to the fact that they are auctioned off rather than handed to for-profit generators for free. The price reflects uncertainty about the program's future as ACES and the senate bill would suspend it until 2017, and the fact that the RGGI cap is inflated, especially with the recent decline in both electricity demand and natural gas prices which have seriously reduced power plant CO2 emissions. The low price reflects a low demand for allowances. At this point I think the best precedent from RGGI is the auction which has raised tens of millions of dollars that are now helping households and businesses cut their fossil fuel use. Read more from a top EPA official here: Hartford Courant, Former Connecticut DEP Chief Says State's Emission Auction Works http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-mccarthy1015.artoct15,0,3297819.storyOn Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Since societies give deference to prior use claims – ie. electricity generators and industries that could previously emit for free – its reasonable that the companies would expect to be granted some allowances." Prior use is a ridiculous assertion that emitters have a right to pollute. As they do not own the atmosphere they have no such right and are entitled to no recourse. In the northeastern US, under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, states have auctioned closed to 100% of permits and reinvested the revenue in efficiency (and renewables) programs for consumers. I don't see why RGGI isn't a more direct precedent for a federal cap and trade system than the EU ETS precedent.On Bingaman hearing on pollution allowance allocation; progressive greens beware posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 17 Responses