Environmental Policy Act of 2009 (Final Vote)

[Purple State]

We could have our first unanimous vote!

Only on the amendment. Not the bill yet. Let's hope we get some consensus though.

Consensus for the sake of consensus is useless.

True. I'd rather some of these repeals be tabled right off the bat than have you all trying to create compromises that gut useful legislation for the purpose of consensus.

[RI]

We could have our first unanimous vote!

Only on the amendment. Not the bill yet. Let's hope we get some consensus though.

Consensus for the sake of consensus is useless.

True. I'd rather some of these repeals be tabled right off the bat than have you all trying to create compromises that gut useful legislation for the purpose of consensus.

With one more vote, we could have tabled the HIV/AIDS bill, but alas, it was not to be.

[Franzl]

We could have our first unanimous vote!

Only on the amendment. Not the bill yet. Let's hope we get some consensus though.

Consensus for the sake of consensus is useless.

True. I'd rather some of these repeals be tabled right off the bat than have you all trying to create compromises that gut useful legislation for the purpose of consensus.

And there have been motions to table, one of them successful. There are also cases where compromises are legitimate, like this bill, in my opinion.

[HappyWarrior]

The amendment passes.  Is there anything else anyone would like to propose before I call for a vote?

[RI]

I'd like to propose that we retitle the bill, as it has mostly isn't a repeal anymore seeing as it keeps the majority of the original bill. As such, I move that we change the title to the Environmental Policy Act of 2009.

[Franzl]

I agree with the Senator from the Pacific.

But besides that....I think I'm ready for a final vote here.

[HappyWarrior]

What sort of name do you all propose?

[Franzl]

As such, I move that we change the title to the Environmental Policy Act of 2009.

I agree with realisticidealist.

[RI]

As such, I move that we change the title to the Environmental Policy Act of 2009.

I agree with realisticidealist.

Do we need a vote to rename the bill?

[Franzl]

I think we do need a vote unless SPC accepts the proposal as friendly.

[HappyWarrior]

Lets wait until SPC accepts or declines it as friendly and then if he declines we'll call for a vote.

[Smid]

Could someone post the Bill as Amended that we'll be voting on?

[Franzl]

Section 1:
a: Repeal of Sections 2, 4 and 5 is eliminated.

b: Section 3 is repealed entirely.

c: The minimum standards outlined in Section 1 will be reduced in all categories for 2009 by 3 mpg, for 2011 by 4 mpg, and the standards for 2014 will be eliminated entirely and discussed again when the need arises.

Section 2: The federal Atlasian gasoline tax will be raised by $0.25/gallon to encourage the operation of fuel efficient cars.

Section 2B: The gas tax increase of $0.25 will only apply to gasoline. The taxation of other energy forms will not be changed.

Section 3: The Atlasian government will prohibit the sale of incandescent lightbulbs effective January 1, 2010.

Section 3B:
(a) Any person or registered business may return incandescent lightbulbs to a government-approved recycling centre until 30 June 2010.

(b) If an incandescent lightbulb returned under section 1B(a) is sealed in its original packaging, the person or business returning the bulb shall be compensated $1. The recycling centre shall act as an agent on behalf of the Atlasian Government.

(c) To qualify for compensation, the lightbulb must have been produced no later than the date on which this Bill is signed by the President of Atlasia and may have been purchased by the person or registered business no later than 30 June 2009 as determined using a First In First Out (FIFO) inventory recording system.

(d) Any person found tampering with any lightbulb packaging or purchase records in order to receive compensation may be charged with fraud, at the discretion of the Office of the Attorney-General.

Section 4: All revenue from said tax will be reused as a subsidy for alternative energy usage.

(a) 50% of funds shall be allocated as a subsidy for the purchase of alternative energy vehicles.
*(i) Alternative energy shall be defined as non-gasoline consuming such as, but not limited, to ethanol, solar, and fuel cell technologies.
*(ii) Any person who seeks to purchase an alternative energy vehicle shall have up to one half of the cost of the vehicle reimbursed upon completion of the transaction.

(b) 25% of funds shall be allocated for the conversion of gasoline engines to ethanol usage.
*(i) Any person who seeks to convert a gasoline-powered vehicle to an ethanol-powered vehicle shall have up to one half of the cost of the conversion reimbursed upon completion.

(c) 25% of funds shall be allocated for the research of alternative energy technologies in vehicles.
*(i) Any person who seeks to research alternative energy technologies for their usage in vehicles may receive a grant of up to $100,000. Any money not used for alternative energy research will be recollected.


This is my summary of what the Senate has voted for.

[RI]

I think it looks better this way...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

Oh it certainly does, thanks

[Smid]

Thank you, Senators.

I think it looks better this way...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

One small thought - and it may be too late to do something about this...

Section 4(a)(ii) states that up to one half of the cost of the vehicle - one half is a pretty substantial amount, and the words "up to" are somewhat ambiguous. It may be best to set a specific subsidy amount in here of, say, $5,000 which would probably offset virtually any additional cost of purchasing an alternative-energy vehicle when compared to a similar conventional-fuel vehicle. This would make two comparable vehicles - one that uses conventional fuel and one that uses alternative fuels roughly comparable in price.

[SPC]

I'll accept the name change as friendly.

[RI]

One small thought - and it may be too late to do something about this...

Section 4(a)(ii) states that up to one half of the cost of the vehicle - one half is a pretty substantial amount, and the words "up to" are somewhat ambiguous. It may be best to set a specific subsidy amount in here of, say, $5,000 which would probably offset virtually any additional cost of purchasing an alternative-energy vehicle when compared to a similar conventional-fuel vehicle. This would make two comparable vehicles - one that uses conventional fuel and one that uses alternative fuels roughly comparable in price.

I was thinking that the individual regions could deal with the specifics of which vehicles would be subsidized which amount and whatnot. It seems, to me, a bit too much micromanagement on our part.

[Smid]

One small thought - and it may be too late to do something about this...

Section 4(a)(ii) states that up to one half of the cost of the vehicle - one half is a pretty substantial amount, and the words "up to" are somewhat ambiguous. It may be best to set a specific subsidy amount in here of, say, $5,000 which would probably offset virtually any additional cost of purchasing an alternative-energy vehicle when compared to a similar conventional-fuel vehicle. This would make two comparable vehicles - one that uses conventional fuel and one that uses alternative fuels roughly comparable in price.

I was thinking that the individual regions could deal with the specifics of which vehicles would be subsidized which amount and whatnot. It seems, to me, a bit too much micromanagement on our part.

That's fair enough.

[RI]

As SPC has accepted the name change, I don't believe that there are any other amendments, so I am calling for a final vote as soon as possible on this bill.

[Franzl]

I second the call for a final vote.

[SPC]

I third the call for a final vote.

[HappyWarrior]

The Act is called to a vote.

[RI]

Aye.