Romney is said to plan limits on polluter funds (Pollute but pay fee)

[papau]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/07/romney_is_said_to_plan_limits_on_polluter_funds

Environmentalists appear unhappy with Gov. Romney's plans to cap plant pollution in the Bay State with hiked up emission payments from corporations. LINK
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles... /

Romney is said to plan limits on polluter funds
Bid would aid power plants
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | December 7, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney will propose as soon as this week limits on how much the state's dirtiest power plants would pay to emit a key pollutant linked to global warming, according to a government official who has seen the document detailing the plan.

The approach of capping pollution payments is similar to one that Romney has proposed in a broader regional pact that would limit emissions of the same kind of greenhouse gas from power plants. Romney's request may end up excluding Massachusetts from a nine-state agreement; the other states disagree with Romney's proposal.

In 2001, the state was the first in the nation to announce limits on carbon dioxide releases into the atmosphere from power plants. Those restrictions, which take effect next month, target the state's six oldest and most polluting power plants.

But under Romney's proposal, power companies could pay into a fund, rather than lower their emissions once their allowed limit is reached. As early as January, power plants could pay $10 into the fund for every excess ton of carbon dioxide they emit, according to the government official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the discussions. It was unclear last night what the fund would be used for.

The plants would benefit by not having to make reductions in emissions if they opt to just pay the fee. Romney has expressed concern in recent weeks that the cost to power plants that comply with such programs could harm businesses, because the costs would be passed on to them.<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

1. It's a start, I guess

although this intrigues me: "It was unclear last night what the fund would be used for." Grants for insulation, public transport - even a boatload of low-energy lightbulbs would be useful...

$10 says it doesn't get spent on reducing emissions. Or am I being too cynical again?

[phantom power]

3. I can prove that it isn't possible to be too cynical.

My proof is as follows:

"Discussions might lead to negotiations."

QED.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Hmph. :-( nt

[phantom power]

2. Depending on who's evaluating...

the external costs of CO2 have been estimated at anywhere from $18/ton to $44/ton. That's just based on a very cursory google session.

So, at a bare minimum, a "correct" fee for CO2 would be $18 per ton, and that would be every ton of CO2 they emit, not just the tonnage over whatever their arbitrary limit is.

[Massacure]

5. 1 kwh of electricity release about 2.6 lbs of CO2

At least according to a article I was reading in a magazine at my dentist appointment yesterday. No cavities btw. :P

Anyways, if a power plant is rated at say 600 megawatts, then they are paying nearly 600 x 1000 x 2.6 / 2000 or for 780 tons of CO2 per hour. $7800 an hour is a pretty decent fee. That would cost a power plant 68 million dollars a year, assuming they never shut down for maintanance or anything.

In another way to look at it, this proposal adds about 1.3 cents per kilowatt hour of elecricity. That is very noticable on electricity that sells retail for 6 or 7 cents per kilowatt hour.

[rfkrfk]

6. Nice to see a state taking action

Masachusetts gets the money, not shrub,
that is the way to do it.