Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

A useful summary of Waxman-Markey

Posted on

"A useful summary of Waxman-Markey"

Share:

google plus icon

The Energy and Commerce Committee finally released a summary (here) of the American Clean Energy and Security Act as reported by the Committee on May 21 by a vote of 33 to 25.  Here are the key provisions:

  • Require electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
  • Invest in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
  • Mandate new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.
  • Reduce carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
  • Protect consumers from energy price increases. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day.

The clean energy investments are based on EPA’s estimate of likely allowance cost, which strike me as maybe 25% high.  Yes, the CCS funding is too high (and the 2020 target is still too low).  The renewable energy standard is also too weak, but establishing any energy efficiency standard is important.  I will do a separate post on the building standards, since they are actually pretty impressive.

Here are extended excerpts of the longer summary, which provide a pretty good guide to a bill that, if it becomes law, would lead to a clean energy revolution that replaces most of our existing energy infrastructure over the next few decades:

Clean Energy Provisions

Renewable Electricity Standard. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) requires retail electric suppliers to meet a growing percentage of their load with electricity generated from renewable resources and electricity savings. The combined renewable electricity and electricity savings requirement begins at 6% in 2012 and gradually rises to 20% in 2020. At least three quarters (75%) of the requirement must be met by renewable energy, except that upon receiving a petition from the governor, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can reduce the renewable requirement to three fifths (60%). In 2020, 15% of the electricity load in each state must be met with renewable electricity and 5% with electricity savings. Upon petition by the governor, the renewable requirement can be reduced to 12% and the electricity savings can be increased to 8%.

Investments in Clean Energy. ACES requires major sources of carbon emissions to obtain a pollution permit called an “allowance” for each ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent that they emit. Through 2025, 13% of these allowances are allocated to investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. EPA has estimated that the average allowance price in 2005 dollars will be $16 to $21 through 2025. At these allowance prices, ACES invests over $190 billion through 2025 in clean energy and energy efficiency programs, including: $90 billion in state programs to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency; $60 billion in carbon capture and sequestration technologies; $20 billion in electric and other advanced technology vehicles; and $20 billion in basic research and development into clean energy and energy efficiency. The investments in carbon capture and sequestration include $10 billion generated through a small “wires charge” on electricity generated through fossil fuels.

Investments in clean energy continue after 2025, with 5% of allowances being devoted to renewable energy and energy efficiency, 5% to carbon capture and sequestration, and 1.5% to research and development.

Supporting Private Investment in Clean Energy. ACES establishes a self-sustaining Clean Energy Deployment Administration to support private investments in clean energy technologies, including nuclear power. Other provisions promote private investment in clean energy by reforming the existing Title 17 loan guarantee program.

Energy Efficiency Provisions

Building Standards. ACES establishes new standards for building efficiency, requiring new buildings to be 30% more efficient in 2012 and 50% more efficient in 2016. States are offered allowances that they can sell to support adoption and enforcement of the new standards. The Department of Energy must enforce the standards in states that do not incorporate the building standards into their state building codes.

Appliance Standards. ACES mandates new efficiency standards for lighting products, commercial furnaces, and other appliances.

Vehicle Standards….   The reported bill retains requirements for EPA to promulgate carbon emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles and off-road vehicles, such as construction equipment, trains, and large ships. ACES also establishes a regional planning process to further reduce transportation-related energy consumption.

Global Warming Provisions

ACES contains three primary programs for reducing dangerous carbon emissions that cause global warming: (1) a cap on large domestic sources of emissions; (2) a program to reduce tropical deforestation; and (3) an offset program. In addition, ACES caps emissions of global warming pollutants that are substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, and it requires EPA to set performance standards for some uncapped sources of emissions. Taken together, these programs will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 28% to 33% below 2005 levels by 2020. By 2050, ACES will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by over 80% below 2005 levels through these programs.

Capping Carbon Emissions from Large Sources. Starting in 2012, ACES establishes annual tonnage limits on emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. Under these limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. To achieve these limits, ACES establishes a system of tradable permits called “emission allowances” modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. This market-based approach provides economic incentives for industry to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy.

Preventing Tropical Deforestation. ACES directs EPA and the State Department to use 5% of the allowances to secure agreements from developing nations to prevent tropical deforestation. This program will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by an additional 10 percentage points below 2005 levels by 2020.

Emission Offsets. ACES allows capped sources to increase their carbon emissions if they can obtain offsetting emission reductions from uncapped sources at a lower cost. The legislation allows capped sources to use offsets to acquire up to 2 billion tons of emission credits annually. Half of these credits must come from domestic sources, except that if insufficient domestic offsets are available, up to 1.5 billion tons of emission credits can be obtained from international offset projects. Starting in 2017, ACES requires capped sources to turn in five tons of international offsets to receive four tons of emission credits….

ACES contains multiple provisions to ensure the integrity of offsets, including review by an independent scientific panel. Offsets may not be obtained from sources in a foreign nation until the United States has entered into an agreement with the originating nation establishing the terms of the offset program.

Cost-Containment Measures. ACES contains numerous cost-containment measures recommended by an industry-environmental coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). These include unlimited banking, a two-year compliance period (which allows borrowing one year in advance), and a strategic reserve of allowances that are available for auction if allowance prices exceed 160% of their three-year average. The proceeds of any sales from the reserve will be used to acquire additional international offsets, which will replenish the reserve at a low cost and result in additional reductions in carbon emissions. In addition, ACES establishes a minimum floor price for auctioned allowances of $10 (in 2009 dollars) to provide stability and investment certainty.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration. ACES uses a combination of regulatory requirements and financial incentives to ensure that new coal-fired power plants will operate with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. All new coal plants permitted after 2020 must use CCS when they commence operations. Coal plants permitted between 2015 and 2020 lose eligibility for federal financial assistance if they do not use CCS when they commence operations; if they do not use CCS when they commence operations, they must retrofit CCS by no later than 2025 without federal financial assistance. Coal plants permitted between 2009 and 2015 lose eligibility for federal financial assistance if they do not retrofit CCS within five years after commencing operations; if they do not retrofit CCS by this date, they must retrofit CCS by no later than 2025 without federal financial assistance. The 2025 retrofit deadline is accelerated if four gigawatts of electricity generation is deployed with CCS before 2025; it may also be extended by EPA by up to 18 months on a case-by-case basis.

Allowance Provisions

ACES requires that major U.S. sources of emissions obtain an allowance for each ton of carbon or its equivalent emitted into the atmosphere. EPA estimates that in 2005 dollars, these allowances will cost $11 to $15 in 2012, $13 to $17 in 2015, $17 to $22 in 2020, and $22 to $28 in 2025. Using EPA’s estimates of allowance prices, the total value of the allowances created under the legislation ranges from $60 billion in 2012 to $113 billion in 2025.

For the period from 2012 through 2025, 55% of the allowances will be used to protect consumers from energy price increases; 19% will be used to assist trade-vulnerable and other industries make the transition to a clean energy economy; 13% will be used to support investments in clean energy and energy efficiency; and 10% will be used for domestic adaptation, worker assistance and training, prevention of deforestation, and international adaptation. The remainder (3 % of allowances) will be used to help ensure that ACES is budget neutral.

From the period from 2026 through 2050, up to 58% of the allowances will be used to protect consumers; 19% will be used for domestic adaptation, worker assistance and training, prevention of deforestation, and international adaptation; 12% will be used to support investments in clean energy and energy efficiency; 7% will be used to ensure budget neutrality; and at least 4% will be used to assist trade-vulnerable and other industries.

Protection of Consumers. ACES establishes five programs to protect consumers from energy price increases: one for electricity price increases; one for natural gas price increases; one for heating oil price increases; one to protect low- and moderate-income families; and one to provide tax dividends to consumers. In combination, these programs substantially reduce the impact of ACES on American consumers. EPA estimated that the global warming provisions in the ACES discussion draft would cost the average household $98 to $140 per year, less than a postage stamp per day. EPA has estimated that the changes to ACES made in Committee will further reduce the costs of the legislation.

Protection from Electricity Price Increases. Electricity price increases will be regional in nature, with the greatest increases occurring in the coal-dependent regions of the country. To mitigate these price increases, the regulated utilities that distribute electricity to consumers will receive 32% of allowances through 2025 under a formula that distributes half of the allowances based on emissions and half based on electricity generation. These utilities are directed to use these allowances exclusively to keep rates low and, to the extent they use rebates, to do so to the maximum extent practicable by reducing the fixed-rate portion of consumer electricity bills.

Protection from Natural Gas Price Increases. To mitigate increases in natural gas prices, the regulated utilities that distribute natural gas to consumers will receive 9% of allowances 2016 through 2025. One-third of these allowances must be used for energy efficiency programs. The remainder must be passed through to consumers through lower prices under provisions similar to those that apply to the regulated electric utilities.

Protection of Low- and Moderate Income Families. The electricity, natural gas, and heating oil provisions mitigate the costs of ACES on all consumers. In addition, ACES directs that 15% of the allowances be auctioned and the proceeds distributed back to consumers through a combination of refundable tax credits and electronic benefit payments. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that these provisions will fully protect the bottom quintile of families and part of the next quintile from any direct or indirect energy price increases.

Consumer Climate Dividend. Under ACES, many of the allowance provisions phase out starting in 2026. As these allowance allocations are phased out, ACES directs that the remaining allowances be auctioned and the proceeds distributed to consumers through tax credits.

Protection of Trade-Vulnerable and Other Industries. Pursuant to the Inslee-Doyle program, energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries that make products like iron, steel, cement, and paper will receive allowances to cover their increased costs. The number of allowances set aside for this program will equal 15% of the allowances in 2014 and then decrease based on the percent reductions in the carbon emissions cap. These allowances will phase out after 2025 unless the President decides the program is still needed.

In addition, oil refiners will receive 2% of allowances starting in 2014 and ending in 2026, and merchant coal producers and electricity producers obligated to supply electricity under long-term contracts will receive 5% of allowances through 2025.

Investments in Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency. States will receive 10% of allowances from 2012 through 2015; 7% of allowances in 2016 and 2017; 6% of allowances from 2018 through 2021; and 5% of allowances thereafter for investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Two percent of allowances from 2014 through 2017 and 5% of allowances thereafter will be available to electric utilities to cover the costs of installing and operating carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Three percent of allowances from 2012 through 2017 and 1% of allowances from 2018 through 2025 will be available for investments in electric vehicles and other advanced automobile technology and deployment. One-and-a-half percent of allowances in each year will be allocated to support research and development in advanced clean energy and energy efficiency technologies.

Domestic Adaptation. From 2012 through 2021, 2% of allowances will be allocated to prepare the United States to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The amount of allowances allocated for domestic adaptation will increase to 4% from 2022 through 2026 and to 8% thereafter. Half of these allowances will be used for wildlife and natural resource protection and half for other domestic adaptation purposes, including public health.

Preventing Tropical Deforestation and International Adaptation. From 2012 through 2025, 5% of allowances will be allocated to prevent tropical deforestation and build capacity to generate international deforestation offsets. The allowances allocated to this program will be reduced to 3% from 2026 through 2030 and to 2% thereafter. From 2012 through 2021, 2% of allowances will be allocated for international adaptation and clean technology transfer. The amount of allowances allocated for these purposes will increase to 4% from 2022 through 2026 and to 8% thereafter. Half of these allowances will be used for adaptation and half for clean technology transfer.

Worker Assistance and Job Training. From 2012 through 2021, 0.5% of allowances will be allocated for worker assistance and job training. This amount will increase to 1% thereafter.

« »

14 Responses to A useful summary of Waxman-Markey

  1. Jim Beacon says:

    Goddamn it. The biggest chunk of the “clean energy” investment money — $60 billion swingin’ U.S. bucks — is earmarked for the coal industry to once again fail to create their mythical “clean coal technology” (excuse me, I mean ‘carbon capture and sequestration’ which is the politically-correct code word for clean coal these days). And I must assume that President Obama has already endorsed that $60 billion number in a back room somewhere.

    I am outraged. Think of what that $60 billion could buy in the way of Solar Thermal Storage plants… heck, even spending it on some new nukes would be a better idea than just flushing it down the clean coal toilet. Peabody Energy (the largest coal company in the U.S.) is the new Halliburton.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    And while the 80% reduction of CO2 from 2005 levels by 2050 sounds good on paper, the serious reduction doesn’t really start happening until after 2040. What it means in practice is that even if we do somehow reach that target, we will continue to pump out CO2 for the next 22 years at basically the same level we did in the year 2000! This is a plan to take us straight to 900 ppm hell.

    What a hoax. What a heinous example of business as usual. I take back my C- rating of W-M. It’s now a solid D. Maybe in some school systems this is a barely-passing grade, but it’s sure not good enough to get you into even a second-rate college, much less save the world.

  2. ecostew says:

    When it comes to corn grain ethanol it’s not looking so great either: http://www.farmpolicy.com/

  3. David B. Benson says:

    What Jim Beacon wrote.

  4. The combination of allowing new permits for non-CCS coal-fired plants and removal of the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from capped sources is a significant problem.

    What do you think is going to happen to all of those new coal-fired plants permitted between now and 2020 in the quite likely event that CCS does not materialize? Does anyone REALLY believe we are going to decommission those plants if CCS doesn’t work?

    We’re building a time bomb here that will almost certainly explode in our faces.

  5. Ronald says:

    Thanks Joe for all the analysis and your opinions on this thing.

    Separately, sure we can criticize the clean coal technologies in this thing, but the question is, can it be left out? If the politicians don’t put in the 60 billions dollars’ in, Democratic politicians will get blamed for not even trying. Every Republican can run against a Democrat on the issue. If it doesn’t work out, at least the blame can be the technology, or the scientists and engineers, the bureaucracy, the government, but at least the money was there. No energy/global warming bill can not have clean coal technology research.

  6. Leland Palmer says:

    It doesn’t make any sense to dig any more coal out of the ground.

    But seizing and transforming the coal plants into carbon negative bioenergy power plants is the only way to turn this abrupt climate change event around, IMO.

    http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2006/12/abrupt-climate-change-and-geo.html

    It’s the only thing big enough and quick enough to short circuit the positive feedback loops we are starting to see.

    Needless to say, I support the money for CCS. I don’t like CCS, but it is the biggest and cheapest way to put a lot of carbon back underground in a hurry, which is what we have to do to stop this thing, I think.

  7. Jim Beacon says:

    Ronald,

    Of course there has to be some ‘carbon capture and sequestration’ money in the bill — just in case there is a fairy godmother lurking in a lab somewhere who will actually make it work well enough to clean up all the old coal plants. But $60 billion with a “b”? The single largest chunk of money in the bill being dumped into the coal industry’s bottomless R&D and prototyping pockets? No, that’s way too much. Let ‘em have $10 billion tops (we’ve already given them who knows how many billions over the past 20 years to develop this technology and got zilch for it). Take the other $50 billion and put it into zero-emission solar thermal plants. Or even some new nuke plants as I said. Literally anything else would be a better investment.

    This is a blatant pay-off to the coal industry and chances are they will still oppose the bill anyway and pay their puppets to have it watered down even more. But since they do know that something will be made into law, they’ve made sure they are getting the lion’s share of the federal dollars. This is what all those TV commercials they paid for were really about: “Yes, we want a clean energy bill passed in Washington, but Americans deserve it to be the Right clean energy bill.”

    Hell, as Pat Richards pointed out, for $60 billion the government could offer to buy up 200 of the country’s oldest, dirtiest coal-fired plants for an average of $300 million each (much more than their owners will make off of operating them over the next 20 years) and then phase out those 200 plants out over the 10 years (letting private enterprise replace them with clean energy plants over the same period. They’ll have the $60 billion we paid them for the old plants to build the new clean plants with.

    But just handing the coal industry $60 billion to play around with no guarantee we’ll get anything for it at all? It’s criminal.

  8. Leland Palmer says:

    We can’t just stop producing greenhouse gases, or rather just slow the increase of greenhouse gas production.

    We have to actually start putting carbon back underground:

    http://www.etsap.org/worksh_6_2003/2003P_read.pdf

    A portfolio of Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECS) technologies, yielding negative emissions energy, may be seen as benign, low risk, geo-engineering that is the key to being prepared for ACC [Abrupt Climate Change]. The nature of sequential decisions, taken in response to the evolution of currently unknown events, is discussed. The impact of such decisions on land use change is related to a specific bio-energy conversion technology. The effects of a precautionary strategy, possibly leading to eventual land use change on a large scale, is modeled, using FLAMES. Under strong assumptions appropriate to imminent ACC, pre-industrial CO2 levels can be restored by mid-century using BECS.

    Without carbon negative bioenergy, people are talking about irreversible effects taking thousands of years to go resolve themselves. CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is on the order of one hundred thousand years, I think.

    The only benign, reasonably safe way to “put the genie back in the bottle” is carbon negative bioenergy, that I know of. Clean energy options only slow the growth of CO2 emissions, they do not put carbon back underground.

    We need to put carbon back in the ground, and the only practical way to do that right now is CCS, IMHO.

    The coal plants either need to be shut down or converted. I favor conversion, because we need to put carbon back underground to fight climate change sucessfully.

  9. Ronald says:

    I don’t think that we need to worry about 60 billion dollars being spent in a almost 4 trillion dollar budget in a 14 trillion dollar economy. It’s also not completely clear whether this goes to the coal companies or it is just spent on research.

    Would it be better that the money was going to be spent on something with a better chance of working, sure. But it is for political cover as anything concerning energy and coal is going to need. Could you imagine being a Democrat in a coal state running against a Republican without this?

    Leland,

    It’s not at all sure that CCS is a practical way of putting CO2 back into the ground. They haven’t been able to get it to work with allowable costs on any projects of size yet.

    Maybe biochar would do some good, although there are limits with that like everything else seems to have.

  10. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Ronald-

    Actually, CO2 deep injection is being done pretty routinely for secondary oil recovery and to avoid paying CO2 taxes, and has been for quite a while:

    From Wikipedia:

    Example CCS projects

    As of 2007, four industrial-scale storage projects are in operation. Sleipner [10] is the oldest project (1996) and is located in the North Sea where Norway’s StatoilHydro strips carbon dioxide from natural gas with amine solvents and disposes of this carbon dioxide in a deep saline aquifer. The carbon dioxide is a waste product of the field’s natural gas production and the gas contains more (9% CO2) than is allowed into the natural gas distribution network. Storing it underground avoids this problem and saves Statoil hundreds of millions of euro in avoided carbon taxes. Since 1996, Sleipner has stored about one million tonnes CO2 a year. A second project in the Snøhvit gas field in the Barents Sea stores 700,000 tonnes per year. [21]

    The Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project is currently the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project.[21] Started in 2000, Weyburn is located on an oil reservoir discovered in 1954 in Weyburn, southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada. The CO2 for this project is captured at the Dakota Gasification Company plant in Beulah, North Dakota[22][23] which has produced methane from coal for more than 30 years. At Weyburn, the CO2 will also be used for enhanced oil recovery with an injection rate of about 1.5 million tonnes per year. The first phase finished in 2004, and demonstrated that CO2 can be stored underground at the site safely and indefinitely. The second phase, expected to last until 2009, is investigating how the technology can be expanded on a larger scale.[24]

    The fourth site is In Salah, which like Sleipner and Snøhvit is a natural gas reservoir located in In Salah, Algeria. The CO2 will be separated from the natural gas and re-injected into the subsurface at a rate of about 1.2 million tonnes per year.

    In July 2008, the Government of Alberta announced a $2 billion investment in three to five large-scale carbon capture and storage projects [11]. Full Project Proposals for the projects are due March 31, 2009 and selected projects announced by June 30, 2009.

    A major Canadian initiative called the Alberta Saline Aquifer Project (ASAP) [12] is a consortium of 34 companies that are developing a pilot site for commercial scale carbon capture and storage in a saline aquifer. The initial pilot will sequester 1,000 tonnes per day in 2010, while the commercial phase could see 10,000 tonnes per day as soon as 2015.

    Other possibilities include in situ mineral carbonation:

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/rocks-could-be-harnessed-to-sponge-vast-amounts-of-carbon-dioxide-from-air

    Scientists say that a type of rock found at or near the surface in the Mideast nation of Oman and other areas around the world could be harnessed to soak up huge quantities of globe-warming carbon dioxide. Their studies show that the rock, known as peridotite, reacts naturally at surprisingly high rates with CO2 to form solid minerals—and that the process could be speeded a million times or more with simple drilling and injection methods. The study appears in this week’s early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Peridotite comprises most or all of the rock in the mantle, which undergirds earth’s crust. It starts some 20 kilometers or more down, but occasionally pieces are exhumed when tectonic plates collide and push the mantle rock to the surface, as in Oman. Geologists already knew that once exposed to air, the rock can react quickly with CO2, forming a solid carbonate like limestone or marble. However, schemes to transport it to power plants, grind it and combine it with smokestack gases have been seen as too costly and energy intensive. The researchers say that the discovery of previously unknown high rates of reaction underground means CO2 could be sent there artificially, at far less expense. “This method would afford a low-cost, safe and permanent method to capture and store atmospheric CO2,” said the lead author, geologist Peter Kelemen.

  11. Jim Beacon,

    I do not understand how $60 Billion is going to change hands. All we are talking about is allowances which allow business as usual, where if these allowances had to be purchased they would cost $60B. Since they will not have to be purchased, whoopee, happy days are still here.

    As I read it the bill is not doing much for or against anyone. Maybe the exception is where allowances are passed out to organizations that do not need them to enable operations such as states, where these free allowances could be sold to some other organization that did not get enough. If there are buyers, this could be free money to the selected organizations. Were there organizations that failed to get their lobbyists into the act such that these would be the buyers that we are trying to conjure up in our imagination.

    Of course the pain will come when allowances run out and CCS is required etc., but this is so far in the future nobody is much concerned. Its like floating a long term bond issue that will not much burden the current folks in charge. It has a little of the long term mortgage feel about it. Such is the American Way.

  12. Andy Velwest says:

    I want this bill to be as agressive as possible, but I need help understanding the problems, so I can advocate effectively.

    Where did the EPA lose the ability to regulate C02? What section?

    Can someone point me to the part in the summary, or in the full bill, where $60B is given out for CCS?

    While we are at it, where do the allowances get handed to Coal or Oil companies for free (aside from about 2% of allowances to Oil refining, 5% for merchant coal, see below)? I see allowances going to Utilities (coal 32% and gas 9%), a fund for low-mid income families (15%), Energy intensive industries (like steel and paper production 15%), oil refineries 2%, merchant coal 5%, Green technologies 10%, CCS 2% (later to 5%), electric vehicles 3%, 2 domestic adaptation, 5% deforestation, 2% international assistance, and .5% for worker training.

    I know that making sure the Utilities use the money wisely is a problem, but it’s not going to Coal fired Electric Generating plants directly, right, they’ll have to buy them, right? Or is it the 5% for merchant coal that’s the problem?

    I’m just trying to get this straight. Thanks for any answer.

  13. JeandeBegles says:

    Hello Joe,
    I have got some homework this week end to summarize the WM bill and find out a way to link it with a carbon tax designed for individuals (and business not submitted to WB quota system). (as you should know in France and in EU there is some heat about a carbon tax complementary to the ongoing ETS carbon market)
    So I will study your “indispensable blog” to write this 3 pages summary.
    Any complementary advice from you would be welcome:
    .which companies are targeted by WM?
    .Are the quotas sold or given?
    .Is there a minimum and a maximum price for the CO2 ton?
    Thanks (if possible to send a mail to my adresse, it would be very helpfull)

  14. JeandeBegles says:

    Hello Joe
    I have a problem with this statement about consumer protection against electricity price:
    To mitigate these price increases, the regulated utilities that distribute electricity to consumers will receive 32% of allowances through 2025 under a formula that distributes half of the allowances based on emissions and half based on electricity generation. These utilities are directed to use these allowances exclusively to keep rates low and, to the extent they use rebates, to do so to the maximum extent practicable by reducing the fixed-rate portion of consumer electricity bills.
    Does this mean that a part of the allowance is given for free to the utility. Wouldn’t it be better to let the electricy price rise and give tha same amount of money to the middle and low income people (instead of giving money for the 5th cinquile?)