The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Duke Energy CEO: Ogabe's Cap-and-Trade Plan Would Raise Electric Rates 40%
Zhang Fei    2/27/2009 8:17:09 PM
(Quote)
WASHINGTON -- The chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., one of the nation's biggest power companies and a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, said Friday that a proposal by President Obama to place a price on carbon emissions would drive up electricity rates in some areas of the U.S. by 40% and warned that it could also lead to "a redistribution of wealth" from Midwestern industrial states to coastal states.

Duke Energy CEO James Rogers said he was also concerned that some of the roughly $646 billion that Mr. Obama hopes to raise by making companies pay for the right to pollute would be diverted to causes unrelated to fighting climate change.

"My view is they'll try to use the money from Ohio and Indiana to subsidize the West coast and the Northeast and to use it for purposes that are different from addressing the climate issue," Mr. Rogers said Friday in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Rogers was referring to a provision in Mr. Obama's budget proposal that calls for the adoption of a cap-and-trade system in which the government would set limits on the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that industries can emit. Under such a system, companies would have to buy and sell rights to emit those gases.

Mr. Obama's proposal, which was released Thursday, projects that the U.S. government could raise roughly $645 billion from auctioning off emissions credits between 2012, when the system would kick in, and 2019. Mr. Obama's proposal calls for using about $120 billion of that revenue to pay for new spending on various low-carbon technologies. His proposal calls for returning the rest of the money "to the people, especially vulnerable families, communities and businesses to help the transition to a clean energy economy."

Mr. Obama's aides say his plan would provide a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and $800 for working families, with credits phasing out between $150,000 and $200,000 for a married couple, and between $75,000 and $100,000 for an individual.

The cap-and-trade system is a key part of Mr. Obama's broader strategy to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide by roughly 80% from 2005 levels by 2050. His proposal assumes a starting price of $20 per ton for carbon emissions, an amount that his aides says is conservative and would likely rise.

Mr. Rogers, whose North Carolina-based company is the third-largest coal user in the country and the third largest source of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, said that even at $20 per ton, electric rates in Indiana would rise 40 percent, and in Ohio by as much as 25 percent. In contrast to California, which relies on coal for just 1% of its electricity supply, Indiana and Ohio states rely on coal for more than 80% of their electricity supply.

Mr. Rogers suggested that rather than return money to consumers on a per-capita basis, the government should give the vast majority of auction revenue back to the states through public utility regulators.

"Let the local regulator, who understands the system and who approves our prices -- let them make the determination" on how the money should be returned to customers, Mr. Rogers said. "I know how Washington works -- when the money comes in, at the end of the day, there will be a fight over that money. And it won't be used to reduce emission in this country."
(Unquote)
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Zhang Fei       2/27/2009 10:28:53 PM
Duke Energy CEO James Rogers said he was also concerned that some of the roughly $646 billion that Mr. Obama hopes to raise by making companies pay for the right to pollute would be diverted to causes unrelated to fighting climate change.

What's it really all about? A $646b tax hike so Ogabe can feed his shiftless supporters at our expense.
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       2/28/2009 9:57:02 AM

This is a the biggest con game ever played. Someone come up with this theory and everyone seems to have jumped on board without reservation. Even the perpetrators of this say the chances of reversing the process is roll of the dice. I say unless it is certain things can be changed there is no need going through all the motions if it's in vain.  And unless the 3rd world and China, embraces this, which they are not, it is doomed to fail anyway. The whole emmisions trading scheme is just another scheme to make money from nothing, or more like siphon it from real wealth. I oppose Obama on this.

 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       2/28/2009 12:45:59 PM
You have it spot on Xylene. This is a huge scam which is all about control. I've read some on this, and it's amazing how they can simply allocate carbon credits and such to favored constituencies like handing out money. Because it actually isn't money, it avoids all the graft rules.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/28/2009 3:18:36 PM
Well yeah, this is one campaign promise he intends to keep.
 
 
 
He claims that this is to act as a carrot-and-stick approach, to motivate the American people to move toward cleaner and more efficient forms of power generation. That is, of course, complete bullshit.
 
We already have a clean, carbon-free power source in nuclear power plants. Reforming the legislation surrounding them to make them easier to build would lead to cheaper electricity and more employment. If those were his goals, that is what he would do; instead, he's already taking steps to destroy the nuclear power industry.  By de-funding the project without funding research into an alternative, he makes it much more difficult to build new nuclear plants or even to keep operating current ones.

Why does he want this? Because a fearful electorate is more easily manipulated than a contented one. The best time to pass ill-considered legislation is in time of crisis, when people want decisive action instead of protracted debate. The stimulus bill is a great example of this; it's a way of enacting Democrat pet projects by bundling them together and passing them off as something that "addresses" the economic crisis. The more crises we have, the more legislation he can get crammed through congress.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/28/2009 3:21:37 PM
That first youtube link should have been
 
link
 
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy