Feedback on Fair Price Energy
• September 2, 2006.  After appearing on metafilter, there was a lively discussion, including suggestions that Fair Price Energy might be unconstitutional!
• September 1, 2006.  Jason D Scorse mentioned Fair Price Energy at the GristmIll Blog with some helpful suggestions.
• August 31, 2006. Dan Rhoads posted a nice discussion of Fair Price Energy on his blog Migrations.
• August 31, 2006. Daniel Simon posted a nice discussion of Fair Price Energy on his blog Time-Is-Energy.
• August 30, 2006.  David M., in a comment on sustainablog
I like the two-tax approach. The problem with carbon emissions taxes is that they ignore the non-carbon problems of nuclear power. The security tax builds that in.
The rebate is also a smart idea. I think a lot of people like the idea of penalizing pollution but don't want their overall tax burden to increase.
Although this scheme would do that month to month, you could get a rebate at the year end.
I can see retailers looking forward to rebate month!
• August 28, 2006.  Daniel Simon, via email
1. I'd call the "fees" deposits.  People intuitively understand that you get your deposit back later. 
2. Don't make people wait for the end of the year to get it all back, allow them to take a credit against quarterly income taxes (or payroll taxes) equal to 60-70% of the estimated annual deposit.  (Don't do 100% b/c the estimate could be off.)
3. You might impose the fee (oops I mean deposit!) in stages (i.e 20% each year for 5 years; or 10% for 10 years) to give the marketplace time to adjust.
    All good ideas Daniel.  Deposits might be a better name than fees, though its important for people to realize they wouldn’t get their own money back.  I think that periodic refunds would make more sense (we wouldn’t want the government to earn all the interest) and that any fes would have to be phased in.
• August 27, 2006.  At sustainablog, Jeff McIntire-Strasburg posted a nice review of Fair Price Energy.  A number of comments followed his posting.