Comment Log Display

I urge the Board to give more than perfunctory consideration to a
fee & dividend plan as a means of implementing AB 32.  There are
many reasons, but I will note just two, neither of which was
considered in the Supplement to the Scoping Plan.

Unlike a cap and trade plan, fee and dividend will not have a
negative impact on the state's economy.  Cap and trade acts like a
tax on energy and could have a depressive effect on an economy that
is already in a precarious state.  A fee and dividend plan that
rebates all of the fees collected to the people avoids this
problem, and gives consumers the freedom to spend their dividends
as they wish.  We can expect that many will opt for alternative
forms of energy that will become more affordable as investors
direct their funds to less expensive alternative technologies.  The
advantages of fee and dividend over cap and trade to the economy
are compelling and should not be ignored in a state with high
unemployment and uncertain economic prospects.

The second point is that fee and dividend is far more politically
viable than cap and trade.  Because it is revenue neutral and
rebates the fees to the people, politicians who on principle oppose
a cap and trade tax, will be open to a plan that will put a check
in every voter's mailbox.  Cap and trade has failed in Congress,
and there is no reason to believe its future chances are any
brighter. By adopting fee and dividend, California could be a model
for other states, and, eventually, the nation. We all understand
that AB 32 will not work if the idea does not spread to other
states and countries. Fee and dividend has the best chance of being
adopted elsewhere, and therefore, of achieving our goal.

Unfortunately, it appears CARB has not seriously considered a fee
and dividend approach where gradually increasing fees on fossil
fuels are rebated, 100%, to the people of California .  It deserves
that consideration.