Democrats in Congress Propose "Carbon Tax"; GOP Responds

On March 12, Senators Waxman and Schatz and Representatives Waxman and Blumenauer introduced a “draft” bill that would require pollution emitters to pay a fee for each ton of pollution they release into the environment. The proposal by the four Democratic Congressman, referred to by some as a “carbon tax”, is described by its authors as a “discussion draft” and seeks input on the potential legislation from the public and potentially affected parties. Under the proposal, the amount of pollution subject to the fee would be determined using the EPA’s database, and collection of the fees would be the task of the Treasury Department.

In the draft bill, the legislators specifically request feedback on the following questions:

1. At what level should the per-ton payment be set? The draft describes possible per-ton price levels of $15, $25 and $35.
2. What annual escalator should be applied to the per-ton price levels? The draft contains a range of possible annual increases from 8% to 10%.
3. What should the revenues raised from the program be used for? The draft describes a number of possible uses for the new funds, including reducing the deficit and investing in other activities designed to reduce carbon pollution and its effects.
4. How should the carbon fee program interact with state programs that address carbon pollution?

Members of the public are invited to submit comments on the draft bill to cutcarbon@mail.house.gov. The comment period expires April 12, 2013. The full text of the “discussion draft” of the bill can be found here.

Promptly following release of the draft bill, GOP Representatives Scalise and Barton introduced a resolution opposing any fee imposed on carbon emissions or “carbon tax”. Arguments against such a fee include a general reluctance to impose new costs on business with the national economy in a fragile condition, and the idea that the environmental benefits of such a fee would be negligible due to increased pollution from other countries with less stringent environmental regulations such as China and India. It should be interesting to see what comments are submitted in response to the discussion draft, and whether an actual bill ends up being proposed during the current Congressional session.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.