The secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts makes the case for carbon permit auctions:
Auctions make sense. When Europe first tried regulating greenhouse gases under a cap-and-trade program, in 2005, it gave away, or “grandfathered,” emissions permits to its power generators, which made modest changes in their operations and then sold the permits to others at a premium. The result: windfall profits for the power companies. Europe is now switching to emissions auctions and plans to finance programs promoting climate protection, economic growth and energy security with the proceeds.
These Northeastern states, members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, stand to raise hundreds of millions of dollars annually that can be used to help residential and business customers make the equipment upgrades that will allow them to live and work with less electricity. This will be a welcome investment. But imagine how much more money such auctions could raise if they were conducted by the federal government, and how much we would help the environment if a big chunk of the proceeds were devoted to reducing energy use and curbing emissions in all 50 states.
Also, he argues for federal climate policy with implementation by the states:
The point is that these matters are under state, not federal, jurisdiction. As it looks to create a federal climate control program, Congress should take advantage of the federal-state relationship developed under environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act, whereby each state develops a strategy to curb pollution and then is given federal money to carry out that plan once approved. It is a model that recognizes that federal policy is sometimes most easily put into effect by the states.
Hat tip: TM.
