Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:28 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 2 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

NextEra Energy, Inc. Message Board

  • ayscuew ayscuew Mar 7, 2009 5:50 PM Flag

    Cap and trade

    If it passes electric utility companies will join autos and banks and will be worthless. Last week I did not think that it would pass. I do now. Your home utility rates will also double over the next few years.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • On the Contrary, considering that FPL is well positioned with plenty of merchant plants, CAP and Trade will do nothing but aid in the profitability of these plants. Any Utilities that manage generation, other than Coal, will benefit from the Cap and Trade.

      That being said, so will the trading arms of all these companies due to the increased volatility in the market. Gas will go through the roof, volatility will increase as will trading profits, and your power bill will go up. FPL stock should be a buy.

    • sssullivan@rocketmail.com sssullivan Mar 26, 2009 10:08 AM Flag

      Got any more doom and gloom. Yeah were all gonna die someday too. Where the hell are your getting figures.."all utility bills are going to double". Wooooo here comes the boogie-man

    • cuttercampbell@prodigy.net cuttercampbell Mar 18, 2009 7:14 PM Flag

      oh bma promised industrial leaders he would work with utilities facing this coal problem
      & try to destroy the utility

    • Actually, cap and trade is now seen as a gift to utilities in Europe. They just passed on the cost to consumers. It has actually proven pretty effective too, at reducing emissions - turns out it's a lot cheaper to cut than initially thought. So the net result has been a small increase in consumer prices which has largely been captured by utilities (especially ones with large hydro and nuclear fleets). Cap and trade is likely to have similar effects here, so it would be great for FPL (not so much for its consumers).

      All this said, I think taxing carbon is more efficient - especially if they use the revenue to cut other taxes which are far more stupid (payroll taxes).

      • 2 Replies to fatty_mcknuckles
      • generally I agree with fatty mcknuckles.

        If you believe that carbon must be reduced the two best ways are cap and trade or even better: cap and dividend. Cap and dividend is a system that taxes all fuels based on carbon emissions say $100/ton (for example, say about $1.00/gallon of gasoline, other fuels would have different tax rates, coal would be the bad guy) and then uses all of the tax revenue generated to pay a per capital dividend to all adults/families at an equal rate (say $250 to $300/month).

        With tax and dividend, suddenly, all people will have a monetary incentive to stop emitting carbon from all sources, and it rewards the non-emitters the most. It would be both efficient and powerful and the problem could be solved without the extraordinary costs associated with other regulatory regimes.

        These approaches use the market system to get the right answer in terms of efficiently reducing this negative externality (i.e. carbon pollution, the cost of which is not currently priced into goods and services).

        The history of trading of SO2 permits ( and the consequent efficient reduction in SO2) is all the proof that is needed that cap and trade or cap and dividend will be the best answer, to a negative externality that policy makers decide to do something about. The existing market price system in our economy otherwise works pretty well.

        I am currently studying who I think will win when governments gets serious about GHG emissions. There will be major winners and losers. Haven't reached conclusions on winners, but FPL is my list of possible winners.

        Others in this post have said why not just get to clean coal and let that be the answer. Apparently it is not that easy. The beauty of cap and trade or cap and dividend is that if clean coal is to be, it will be. No one has to, ahead of time, make the judgment that clean coal is, or is not, the future. "Ahead of time" judgments can lead to extraordinarily costly mistakes and in the case of the environment, actually failing to solve the problem on a timely basis, which might make the ultimate costs pretty unbearable.

        I am pretty interested in all of this, and would really like to hear any and all thoughts people have on this.

      • europe also supports nuclear power in a big way, which is the best answer regardless of cap and trade from an independece standpoint. out government is adverse to nuclear

        nuclear can be built anywhere and proveds 24/7 baseload

        windmills and solar panels do neither

    • According to the DOE's Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov)in 2007 only 7% of the USA's consumed electric power came from renewables. Of the 7%, only 1% came from solar, and 5% wind. The only reason these sources are viable with technology today is because of the federal government incentives and subsidies. Otherwise they would not be viable, would not make money. So agreed. We will pay the state and federal taxes to back subsidies for these utilities and we will pay more expensive electric rates locally. The landscape mess - do you realize the land area required to produce 1 MW of solar or wind? And based on what? Why not spend money making coal more environmentally friendly, explore oil here, establish new refineries and make them environmentally sound, expand nuclear and learn from the French regarding spent rod recycling, maintain gas and expand hydrogen based sources for vehicles. This brings true energy independence and from sources that can provide the energy required here. This whole thing is a farce.

      • 3 Replies to coralgate58
      • "According to the DOE's Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov)in 2007 only 7% of the USA's consumed electric power came from renewables. Of the 7%, only 1% came from solar, and 5% wind. ".....Well, not exactly. 7% of the total energy consumption in the U.S. came from renewables. Total energy consumption includes all energy not just electric power (e.g. petroleum for transportation). It might not be clear to everyone that only 5% OF the 7% is from wind power and only 1% OF the 7% is from solar. In other words, only 0.35% of the total energy consumption in the U.S. during 2007 came from wind power generation. A rather pathetic portion of the total energy picture. Most people in this country have no idea how much they depend on fossil fuels.
        http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html

      • Remember that some of our biggest power plants are hydoelectric. Hoover dam. Columbia dam, Niagara Falls, St. Lawrence seaway are all major power sources.
        I am NOT recommending this stock, but Brookfield power has some purty (as it is pronounced in Georgia) pictures of their plants

        www.brookfieldpower.com/

      • i try not to be too political and want to support government efforts, but i think obama has totally left the reservation. the problem with dems is you dont know what they all stand for. buffett says this morning that obama is the best for country while disagreeing with all of his major policies.

        people are nuts for not seeing obama/pelosi for what they are

    • anybody know if captrade can be fillibustered in the senate

 
NEE
98.40-1.18(-1.18%)Jul 29 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.