http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/03/05/energy-secretary-chu-pledges-to-work-with-congress-on-cap-and-trade-system/ Environmental Leader Fri, 25 May 2012 22:05:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/03/05/energy-secretary-chu-pledges-to-work-with-congress-on-cap-and-trade-system/comment-page-1/#comment-111986 Jack Pouchet Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:43:34 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=11316#comment-111986 So one just has to wonder if the "revenue" from this cap and trade program will ever payback the $13.5 Billion LOSS President Obama and Secretary Chu just handed the nation by stopping the use of Yucca Mountain as a storage site for nuclear waste and effectively eliminating the last hope of a renewed clean-energy future from advanced nuclear power plants. So one just has to wonder if the “revenue” from this cap and trade program will ever payback the $13.5 Billion LOSS President Obama and Secretary Chu just handed the nation by stopping the use of Yucca Mountain as a storage site for nuclear waste and effectively eliminating the last hope of a renewed clean-energy future from advanced nuclear power plants.

]]> http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/03/05/energy-secretary-chu-pledges-to-work-with-congress-on-cap-and-trade-system/comment-page-1/#comment-111977 Bill Shobe Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:51:25 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=11316#comment-111977 The next to last paragraph, as is often the case in articles like this, mistakenly conflates the issue of the level of the cap with the issue of how the allowances are allocated. It is time for reporters to learn to get this straight. PHase I of the EUETS has been criticized for 2 different things. First, the cap was set too high, which is why the price collapsed. Second, the allowances were given away rather than sold, which transferred a large chunk of wealth to the shareholders of power companies (and gave up some possible efficiency gains). These are two separate issues. The glut did not result from the decision to allocate the allowances for free. It occurred because there were too many allowances relative to the demand. If anything, auctioning allowances would have made the glut worse by resulting in the shut down of some marginal generators. The next to last paragraph, as is often the case in articles like this, mistakenly conflates the issue of the level of the cap with the issue of how the allowances are allocated. It is time for reporters to learn to get this straight. PHase I of the EUETS has been criticized for 2 different things. First, the cap was set too high, which is why the price collapsed. Second, the allowances were given away rather than sold, which transferred a large chunk of wealth to the shareholders of power companies (and gave up some possible efficiency gains). These are two separate issues. The glut did not result from the decision to allocate the allowances for free. It occurred because there were too many allowances relative to the demand. If anything, auctioning allowances would have made the glut worse by resulting in the shut down of some marginal generators.

]]>