Breakthrough: Investing in Our Future

The chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., Jim Rogers, just proposed a national use tax on every kilowatt of electricity sold across the nation. It would fund a massive federal clean-energy research project. From the Charlotte Observer:

Rogers has likened his idea to the Manhattan Project -- the urgent race to produce the atomic bomb and end World War II. Or the national fervor behind putting a man on the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik.
The CEO has suggested a tax of 0.3 cent per kilowatt -- more than $36 a year in the Carolinas on the average annual bill and more in other states where electricity is more expensive. That would raise about $11 billion a year.

A small tax on electricity could generate a lot of funding for clean energy -- that is, if it's handled correctly. Neither industry or consumers want to bear the brunt of higher energy prices, but framing can make a big difference. If the next president emphasizes that price increases are going towards investment in clean energy, the public will be more likely to support them:

"If I pay for it now, then there's the potential that I won't have to pay more later. I think we're at a state when everything's changing. I think the society we live in now is going to be different than this in 10 years."
- Kathryn Meyer, a 32-year-old senior account executive with a Charlotte special events and party-equipment rental company

There are a number of ways the next president could help Americans see this as a wise investment rather than an unfair burden. Why not call it a "fee" rather than a "tax"? Or shift the focus to energy independence and eventual stabilization of energy costs, which are much higher on the priority list of most Americans than than climate protection?

Making dirty energy more expensive is not a punishment for sins of excess, but a means to an end. If the next president can present an inspiring vision of the future, Americans will be more willing to invest to make it happen.

Post a comment