SB 106-16: Energy Cost Reduction Act of 2021 (Failed)

[Joseph Cao]

AN ACT
To reduce energy costs for the average Atlasian

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ATLASIA

Energy Cost Reduction Act of 2021

Section 1. Purpose

1. This bill is to provide for a less costly energy grid because many areas of Atlasia precluded from benefiting from earlier efforts made by the federal government to invest in rural electrification throughout regions.

a) This bill will provide for interconnection of regional electrical grids are not interconnected to those in other states or territories, and many communities in the state have isolated microgrids.

b) This bill will fix the isolation of many electric systems throughout the regions. This means that consumers in communities served by those systems cannot benefit from a reduction in energy bills by utilizing lower-cost power from other areas of the state;

c) This bill is intended to lower the average retail price of electricity where in rural communities this is the highest. The average cost of electricity per capita is $3,891.

d) The bill, through the energy authority, will reduce high energy costs for heating, electricity, and transportation that have a multiplying effect, which increases the cost of all goods and services in rural communities.

e) Many residents in communities with the highest power costs are unable to shoulder the financial burden of developing large-scale power infrastructure without significant government investment;

d) The bill will establish for lower carbon emissions through the development of economically feasible renewable energy projects and investment in an electric vehicle charging network.

Section 2. Implementation

a. BE IT RESOLVED that the Congress of the Republic requests a creation of a regional Energy Authority, in coordination with utilities throughout the regions and with statewide power and electrical organizations.

b. This energy authority will develop a comprehensive 10-year infrastructure plan to reduce power costs by 25% in areas of the regions that endure extremely high electric and heating costs.

c. Be it FURTHER RESOLVED that Congress requests that the regional Energy Authority deliver a plan for the reduction of power costs in the region to the Senate by May 31, 2022, and notify the legislature that the plan is available.

d. The Congress hereby establishes a energy sustainability fund, this fund will be appropriated by  taxation on electric vehicles and tolls from federal highways to the amount of $50,000,000.

Section 3. Grant criteria

a. A "grant" shall be defined as a sum of money awarded for an energy related project in any of Atlasia's regions.

b. These grants shall be categorical in nature by funding upgrades to Atlasia's regional energy grids, for projects to reduce carbon emissions, increase electrical grid inter-connectivity.

b. Grants can only be made available for energy-related projects that will have substantial impact or effect upon the electrical grid in each region.

c. Eligible entities: Grants can be allotted for subsidies or incentives to regional energy companies, nonprofits, or independent contractors

Section 4. Funding

a. The Congress of the Republic of Atlasia will appropriate $25,000,000 in grants to each region for the establishment of a regional energy authority; these grants shall be up for renewal every 5 years.

b. Hereafter, the Congress shall appropriate monies to the amount of an additional $20,000,000 to establish electrical vehicle charging stations across Atlasia's regions.

Sponsor: Spark
Status: Debating

72 hours to debate.

[Senator-elect Spark]

This bill is proposed in an effort to defray electricity costs incurred by our grid and encourage the use of sustainable technologies. Currently, Atlasia lacks the necessary infrastructure to provide for electric vehicle charging. This bill is intended to revitalize our infrastructure by lowering the cost of electricity for consumers and to connect those in rural areas to power.

[S019]

This is better than most past Spark bills, but is still poorly written and does not pass the smell test.

[WD]

Motion to table.

[Joseph Cao]

This is better than most past Spark bills, but is still poorly written and does not pass the smell test.

Well, if you'd like to see better written bills, the least you could do is point out the objectionable parts so Spark can take them into consideration.

I’d like WD to justify his motion too.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion to table.

I object to this obstructionism.

[WD]

My motion is based on the fact that still, this bill is quite poorly written. First, of all the bill establishes a energy sustainability fund, but here is literally no elaboration beyond that. What will it do? How does it work? What is it’s purpose?

In addition, it states that such fund will be funded by “taxation of electric vehicles and tolls...to the amount of $50,000,000”. What exactly does this mean? This section is quite perplexing. Now, on first reading I took it to mean you want to actually tax tolls themselves, but I now take it as meaning that revenue from tolls will go to the fund? But how? There is no elaboration. If you mean $50 billion of toll revenue will go to the fund, that’s well and fine.

Next, are you claiming that each electric vehicle owner will pay a tax of $50 billion, or will they all be taxed in a way that total revenue equals $50 billion? I assume not, but that’s what it certainly sounds like in some interpretations. You lay out what (I think) your total revenue from this tax will be, but how exactly will this tax be implemented? What are the rates? You cannot just say “we’ll have a tax and it will generate x amount”. I could go on and on, but overall, this is just a bad piece of legislation.

[S019]

Motion to table.

Seconded

[S019]

This is better than most past Spark bills, but is still poorly written and does not pass the smell test.

Well, if you'd like to see better written bills, the least you could do is point out the objectionable parts so Spark can take them into consideration.

I’d like WD to justify his motion too.

Spark never provides these details when asked for. I’ve tried it numerous times and too many of his bills are beyond saving. I’d rather not waste the Senate’s time further.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I Object.

We should actually give people some sort of a break during the holidays.

[Joseph Cao]

This is better than most past Spark bills, but is still poorly written and does not pass the smell test.

Well, if you'd like to see better written bills, the least you could do is point out the objectionable parts so Spark can take them into consideration.

I’d like WD to justify his motion too.

Spark never provides these details when asked for. I’ve tried it numerous times and too many of his bills are beyond saving. I’d rather not waste the Senate’s time further.

The details that you find objectionable, Senator. Surely Spark's feedback is not necessary for that?

I Object.

We should actually give people some sort of a break during the holidays.

Unfortunately we are going to be moving to a vote either way, in this case a vote on whether to end debate and move to tabling. The vote is open for 72 hours, and since we have not passed the minimum debate period, this vote will require a three-fourths supermajority to pass. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[WD]

Aye

[S019]

AYE

[Saint Milei]

nay

[Continential]

aye

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nay

[If my soul was made of stone]

AYE

[OBD]

Ay

[Senator-elect Spark]

No

[Dr. MB]

Aye

[Pericles]

Aye

[Kuumo]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

abstain

[FrancoAgo]

Si

very strange this proposal

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Nay