HB 26.15 No Subsidies for Fossil Fuels Act

[Dr. MB]

SENATE BILL

To encourage the transition of the Atlasian economy towards a decarbonized future by discouraging the use of fossil fuels[/s]

Be it enacted in both houses of Congress Assembled,

No subsidies for Fossil Fuels Act

1. After the passage of this bill, the federal government of the Republic of Atlasia may not subsidize the extraction, usage or sale of any hydrocarbon based fuels, nor of coal. All currently existing federal subsidies on hydrocarbon fuels and coal shall be phased out.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 5-0 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

sponsor needed

[Joseph Cao]

I can sponsor.

[Dr. MB]

24 hours to object

[Joseph Cao]

I suppose I am recognized as sponsor.

Anyway, this is a good common-sense bill. Continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry runs counter to the government's lip service to "supporting renewable energy," and it's time we moved forward and let the free market take its course.

EDIT: Wow, that was unreadable. To the two of you who had the misfortune to read this byproduct of sleep deprivation, my apologies.

[Rep Jessica]

Mr. Speaker
I've got an objection to this bill and it has to do with our old and needy needing cheap energy that come from oil and gas. If we abolish all subsidies people will be harmed and there's no way renewables at this time can replace fossil fuels for this purpose.

Unless Atlasia is willing to give every needy and old person solar panels or special renewable energy benefits, I must object.  

I yield

[OBD]

Bumping this.

I support this bill - we need to stop payouts to Big Oil and pivot to renewable energy, for our younger generation. If there isn't any other objections, shall we move to vote?

[Mike Thick]

Thanks for bumping this. The motion is noted, and you all have 24 hours to object.

Given how much time has passed since we talked about this, I would like to see some more debate before we go to a vote.

[Rep Jessica]

Mr.Speaker
I will only support this bill if an amendment is added to pay for the added cost this will have on our poor and possibly more money for the poor to pay for solar panels as I noted in my earlier debate above. The left doesn't seem to care enough about the needy as it is always highest cost energy resources and to hell with the consideration of the suffering of the lower classes.

[OBD]

Well, SOMEONE has to have foresight!

Regarding what the gentlewoman from Mississippi referenced, I passed a "solar loans project" as part of a omnibus energy bill in Fremont:

Section IV (Solar Loans Project)

i. The Commonwealth of Fremont shall install solar panels on all public buildings by 2025, where feasible.
ii. The Commonwealth of Fremont will offer zero-interest loans to individual households, apartments, and legally-recognized small businesses to cover the cost of solar panel installation where feasible, with priority being given to residents of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Atlasian Samoa, Hawai’i, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado, or those residing in regions with more average sunny days per annum.
iii. These loans will be paid back through the withholding of solar power reimbursement in monthly energy bills. The loan will be required to have been paid back in full 20 years after the loan was issued.
iv. All households that are legally considered below the poverty line, and have a yearly income of below $43,000, will only be required to pay back 80% of the loan.
v. Landlords and employers are forbidden from increasing rent for tenants or decreasing pay for employees due to financial considerations related to Fremont solar loans. Any landlords or employers in violation will be required to reimburse their tenants and/or employees, and will be additionally fined no less than $20,000.
vi. Individual citizens, landlords and small businesses will be eligible for loans once every 15 years.

I think this could be a solution to the problem Rep. Jessica referenced, but it probably requires further input. I personally believe that the existential threat that climate change poses ultimately outweighs the marginal increase (if any) in energy costs that would result, but other Representatives might feel differently.

[Joseph Cao]

Oh, blast. How did I miss this?!

All of this has been seen and I'll try to have a response to these concerns when I can think more clearly.

[Poirot]

Maybe we could add to the bill that the amount of money from the abolished subsidies on hydrocarbon fuels should go to help low (and middle) income households pay for energy bills in the form of tax break or subsidy program on energy bills.

[Joseph Cao]

Poirot's suggestion is probably workable, and if anyone wants to write up an amendment based on some form of financial help given to lower-income households or households in areas where solar panels may not be the most appropriate or efficient form of renewables to switch to, I'd welcome it.

[S019]

Visiting from Lincoln to tell you that we did this a while back and then passed massive subsidies for renewable energies at the same.

[OBD]

I could get behind Poirot's idea, though I do believe that a significant portion of the subsidies for fossil fuels should go to renewable energy research and development - though cutting off fossil fuel subsidy is a win in itself.

That said, I'd like to ask a question that probably can't be answered without a Comptroller - what exact economic effect would this bill have on energy prices? That should determine how much assistance lower-income households require with energy bills.

[OBD]

Anyway, just to float a rough idea, would the membership here be content if we directed, say, 60% of the fossil fuel subsidy to lower-income families for energy bills, and 40% for renewable energy construction and research (the latter of which will also have positive effects on energy supply and price in the future)?

Of the 60% (potentially increased or decreased), I'd assume most of that go to tax breaks/reduction in energy bills for folks with income under ~$43,000/year.

[Rep Jessica]

Anyway, just to float a rough idea, would the membership here be content if we directed, say, 60% of the fossil fuel subsidy to lower-income families for energy bills, and 40% for renewable energy construction and research (the latter of which will also have positive effects on energy supply and price in the future)?

Of the 60% (potentially increased or decreased), I'd assume most of that go to tax breaks/reduction in energy bills for folks with income under ~$43,000/year.

I feel this is a good way to go about it and would support it.

[Joseph Cao]

In the absence of a Comptroller General, OBD's figure is probably about as reasonable as we can go policy-wise. Seems like a good two-pronged strategy for keeping the proposal economically sustainable.

I may take a stab at writing up the amendment if I have time, but feel absolutely free to write up your own.

[Mike Thick]

Would like to see some movement on this. I can write up a draft amendment for someone else to clean up, or vice versa

[OBD]

Would like to see some movement on this. I can write up a draft amendment for someone else to clean up, or vice versa

I can try to put something out tomorrow r.e. my previous proposal.

[Mike Thick]

Would like to see some movement on this. I can write up a draft amendment for someone else to clean up, or vice versa

I can try to put something out tomorrow r.e. my previous proposal.

Beast. Thanks

[OBD]

Proposing the following amendment. Apologies for the informal language, I hope one of the more senior Reps can help out with that.

SENATE BILL

To encourage the transition of the Atlasian economy towards a decarbonized future by discouraging the use of fossil fuels[/s]

Be it enacted in both houses of Congress Assembled,

No subsidies for Fossil Fuels Act

1. After the passage of this bill, the federal government of the Republic of Atlasia may not subsidize the extraction, usage or sale of any hydrocarbon based fuels, nor of coal. All currently existing federal subsidies on hydrocarbon fuels and coal shall be phased out.

2. Federal funding for fossil fuel subsidies shall be re-allocated in the following manner:
a. 60% to waivers for energy bills of families of combined income lower than $43,000 a year,
b. 20% to subsidies for renewable energy research, and
c. 20% to subsidies for renewable energy construction.

[Joseph Cao]

Thanks for the amendment. Happy to pass it for now, and if our new Comptroller General is confirmed I'll try to drop him a line and see what he thinks of this.

24 hours to object to this amendment.

[SevenEleven]

I object. Simply put, this seems like far too much money to use for subsidies.

[Mike Thick]

As someone has objected to the amendment, we will now vote on its adoption.

72 hours. Representatives, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[SevenEleven]

Nay.