Comments on: Boxer considers modified ‘price collar’ for climate bill http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/10/boxer-considering-price-collar-reserve-climate-bill/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:11:44 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Mike#22 http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/10/boxer-considering-price-collar-reserve-climate-bill/#comment-102175 Mike#22 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:00:47 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=10018#comment-102175 "A Boxer aide later clarified that the EPW panel’s chairwoman is weighing a reserve fund that can control volatile prices without destroying the environmental integrity of the climate legislation." Doesn't HR 2454 as passed by the House include a "Strategic Allowance Reserve" already? http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/execsummary.html “A Boxer aide later clarified that the EPW panel’s chairwoman is weighing a reserve fund that can control volatile prices without destroying the environmental integrity of the climate legislation.”

Doesn’t HR 2454 as passed by the House include a “Strategic Allowance Reserve” already?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ oiaf/ servicerpt/ hr2454/ execsummary.html

]]> By: Marcus http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/10/boxer-considering-price-collar-reserve-climate-bill/#comment-102164 Marcus Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:18:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=10018#comment-102164 I have always been a little confused as to why people who claim that "reductions will be cheap!" object to any form of safety valve. For example, if there had been a safety valve on the SO2 cap-and-trade program in the 1990s, set at, say three times the expected permit price - the price would never have come anywhere near that point. The key part of a safety valve, of course, is that it does need to increase over time at inflation plus at least 4%. I care more about making sure that a price floor is included in cap-and-trade, since there is some historical precedent that these programs get over-allocated in early periods (or maybe it isn't overallocation, it is that reductions are just that much cheaper than anyone expected). Pretty much, I just want a carbon price in the US as soon as possible. And it has to be one that increases exponentially over time. After that, I don't sweat the details so much - cap and trade vs. tax, with all gases or without, with international offsets or not. I figure that once a price is in place, other details can be worked out later. And in addition to the price mechanism, I also want to see provisions to deal with some of the non-market barriers like efficiency requirements for buildings and continuing funding of R&D for energy technologies. And internationally, a deforestation program of some kind. Okay, maybe it isn't just as simple as just wanting a carbon price, but my point is that I'd pay the price of including a reasonable safety valve for passage of a climate bill any day. I have always been a little confused as to why people who claim that “reductions will be cheap!” object to any form of safety valve. For example, if there had been a safety valve on the SO2 cap-and-trade program in the 1990s, set at, say three times the expected permit price – the price would never have come anywhere near that point. The key part of a safety valve, of course, is that it does need to increase over time at inflation plus at least 4%. I care more about making sure that a price floor is included in cap-and-trade, since there is some historical precedent that these programs get over-allocated in early periods (or maybe it isn’t overallocation, it is that reductions are just that much cheaper than anyone expected).

Pretty much, I just want a carbon price in the US as soon as possible. And it has to be one that increases exponentially over time. After that, I don’t sweat the details so much – cap and trade vs. tax, with all gases or without, with international offsets or not. I figure that once a price is in place, other details can be worked out later.

And in addition to the price mechanism, I also want to see provisions to deal with some of the non-market barriers like efficiency requirements for buildings and continuing funding of R&D for energy technologies. And internationally, a deforestation program of some kind. Okay, maybe it isn’t just as simple as just wanting a carbon price, but my point is that I’d pay the price of including a reasonable safety valve for passage of a climate bill any day.

]]>