This document analyzes carbon mitigation policies that could help the city of Austin achieve its goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It discusses cap-and-trade systems and carbon tax systems, providing case studies of jurisdictions that have implemented each approach. While both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, the document concludes that a carbon fee system is best suited for Austin's economic and industrial interests, as fees collected could fund initiatives to reduce emissions from transportation, electricity usage, and other sectors.

1. Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Implementation and Application of the Climate
Recovery Fund to Austin
December 2015
Samantha Abbott, Hussam Alorabi, Emily Arnold, Laura Engells, L. Megan Gunnells, Kurt
Kreusel, Jeremy Lacaze, Shadi Maleki, Joshua Newton, and David Vela
Acknowledgements
Our team would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals and municipal
offices for their the guidance and assistance throughout this report process: Dr. Ron Hagelman,

2. ii
Mr. Zach Baumer, Climate Program Manager for the City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability,
and the City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability.
Dr. Ron Hagelman, thank you for the opportunity to apply our knowledge, skills, and
creativity to a current issue affecting the Central Texas region. Your guidance throughout this
process was invaluable.
Mr. Zach Baumer, thank you for the opportunity to assist your office with this project and
your guidance throughout the process. Your expertise with city issues and city structures helped
us narrow down our grand ideas to applicable ideas for the city level. We believe you will be
very happy with the results of our best practices.
City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability, thank you for the opportunity to apply our
knowledge, skills, and creativity to the current and pressing issue of greenhouse gas emissions.
Your continued support and guidance helped us to create an appropriate system of best practices
for the City of Austin.
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 1
2. Purpose of Best Practice 2

3. iii
3. Site and Situation of Study 3
3.1 Physical Geography Context 3
3.2 Demographics 3
3.3 Resource Use Trends 3
3.4 Economic Trends 4
3.5 Cultural Settings and Trends 5
3.6 Current and Past Initiatives 5
4. Carbon Mitigation Policies 6
4.1 System for Carbon Mitigation 6
4.1.1 Cap-and-trade 6
4.1.2 Carbon Tax 6
4.1.3 Discussion 6
4.2 Case Studies: Cap-and-trade 7
4.2.1 European Union 7
4.2.2 Tokyo, Japan 8
4.3 Case Studies: Carbon Tax 8
4.3.1 British Columbia, Canada 8
4.3.2 Australia 9
4.3.3 Boulder, Colorado, United States 11
4.4 Advantages and Disadvantages 12
4.4.1 Cap-and-trade 12
4.4.1.1 European Union 12
4.4.1.2 Tokyo, Japan 12
4.4.2 Carbon Tax 13
4.4.2.1 British Columbia, Canada 13
4.4.2.2 Australia 14
4.4.2.3 Boulder, Colorado, United States 14
4.4.3 Best Practices for Austin 15
5. Model Practice for Austin 16
6. Conclusion 21
7. Bibliography 23
8. Appendix 1 27
9. Appendix 2 30

4. 1
Executive Summary
According to multiple scientific reports, research has strongly indicated that human
activities are a dominant cause of observed global warming; especially warming that has
occurred since the mid-20th century (EPA 2014; IPCC 2013). According to the EPA, human
activities release over 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Scientists believe
that the human activity responsible for the rate at which climate change is occurring is the
burning of fossil fuels (IPCC 2013).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in their 2014 Climate
Change Report that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be significantly reduced,
based on the 2005 levels, by 2050 in order to curb the most severe impacts resulting from climate
change. Meeting the goals set by the IPCC for GHG reductions is an effective way to curb the
rapid increase in global temperature that has been occurring since the industrial era. This goal is
especially important for central Texas, which has been plagued by increases in extreme drought,
dangerous flash flooding, and rising temperatures.
The current drought has brought unprecedented climatic conditions, which have greatly
diminished the water levels in both the Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan reservoirs. To put the
current drought into perspective, the top five lowest annual inflows of these two reservoirs have
occurred since 2007 (COA OS 2015). While this does show a decrease in precipitation over time,
there has also been an increase in flash floods and particularly in catastrophic flash floods. The
extreme weather events that have occurred in the past decade in central Texas have taken lives,
destroyed homes, and presented significant challenges for city managers and planners.
Due to the susceptibility of Central Texas to the effects of climate change coupled with a
forward-thinking municipality, the City of Austin’s Office of Sustainability has set forth the
Austin Community Climate Plan, which presents a goal for Austin to be a net-zero carbon
emitting community by 2050. This plan will target reducing GHG emissions in industrial sectors
such as electricity and natural gas, transportation, materials management, and industrial process
sources by 2050 with short-term goals set for 2020, 2030 and 2040. A community-wide effort
will be integral to achieving this goal, as household and consumer behaviors will also need to be

5. 2
altered through educational programs, financial incentives and better enforcement of policies
already in place.
Purpose of Best Practice Report
As the world’s attention turns to climate change, many localities have taken steps to
reduce their carbon footprints. Austin, Texas is one of these localities that have taken such steps.
In April 2014, the City Council of Austin unanimously approved the Austin Community Climate
Plan (ACCP), which goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and consumption by having
citywide net-zero consumption of GHGs by 2050 (COA OS 2015). For the city to meet this
goal, Austin must educate its population including businesses, industries, and residents, about the
importance of reducing emissions and offer incentives to promote carbon-reducing initiatives.
The city already has many initiatives in place to reduce its carbon footprint, but to succeed in
being net zero by 2050, the city will need to generate funds specifically for emissions reduction
initiatives.
If executed correctly, this net-zero goal will aid in addressing challenges that are
currently facing Austin such as traffic congestion and disaster preparedness, but will not further
current issues such as affordability and gentrification. According to the 2010 data used in the
ACCP, the sectors responsible for the largest amounts of GHG emissions are (in order of largest
to smallest): transportation and mobile sources, resident electricity, and commercial electricity
(COA OS 2015). The goal of this report is to assess how to properly target and reduce these
emission levels without hindering economic growth or furthering affordability issues in the
rapidly growing City of Austin.
This best practices report analyzes the successes and failures of funding and
implementation strategies that other cities, provinces, and countries have utilized to institute their
individual carbon reduction goals. Reviewing the carbon mitigation policies of cap-and-trade
systems and carbon tax systems, a carbon fee system is best suited for the industrial, economical
and residential interests of Austin. The fees collected from this program will be distributed to
fund various initiatives such as alternative transportation, green education, and renewable energy
programs.

6. 3
Site and Situation of the Study Area
Physical Geographic Context
The Austin area comprises 322.5 square miles along the Balcones Escarpment within the
Colorado River Basin. Along the I-35 corridor, the flat coastal plains from the east meet the cliff
side of the escarpment on the west. According to climate data from the City of Austin, the City is
situated between a subtropical humid climate and a subtropical sub-humid climate, which can
lead to colliding fronts that often result in severe thunderstorms and excessive amounts of rain.
Areas of the city are located above the Edward’s Aquifer, which is the source for the iconic
Barton Springs swimming pool, and one of the most prolific aquifers in the world.
Demographics
Austin is a diverse city with many social classes, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and
age ranges that call it home. It has a fast-growing Hispanic population (35 percent of total
population); more than half of citizens are younger than 35 years old (56 percent), with a rapidly
increasing population of children ages 5-14 (49 percent increase from 2000-2013). According to
the most recent census data, Austin has a population of 885,415 and it is expected to increase to
1.4 million residents by 2050 (United States Census Bureau 2010).
The Department of Planning and Zoning collects and maintains the city’s demographic
data, analyzes and compares it with previous years, and outlines significant trends. The most
relevant trends to this report are: an increasing imbalance of affluence between residents, a
prominent increase in urban sprawl, and a decreasing amount of families in the city core.
Resource Use Trends
With the projected population increase, carbon emissions are predicted to increase by 30
percent by 2050. According to their website, Austin Energy supplies about 50 percent (448,000+
customers) of the total electricity used by the city. The total energy generation is categorized into
two types: renewable and nonrenewable sources. About 23 percent of customers currently utilize
renewable sources and roughly 77 percent rely on nonrenewable energy. Austin Energy keeps a
daily record of the fluctuations in renewable and nonrenewable energy use on their website.

7. 4
Customers that choose renewable energy sources have the options of wind, solar, or bio
energy generation with varying prices and incentives for each choice. Since 1996, the City of
Austin has been constructing utility-scale renewable resources at a consistent rate. The total
capacity of currently installed renewable energy sources is 1482.4 megawatts (MW), with the
majority coming from wind power (1340.6 MW).
According to data from Austin Energy, wind power is the fastest growing renewable
resource within their entity, and they are one of the only utilities in Texas to be making
significant purchases of wind power energy. The first wind farm in Texas was constructed in
2005, and as of 2015 there are nine. Currently, all City of Austin facilities are powered with
renewable energy (Austin Energy 2015).
Of the accounted eligible drivers, 92.9 percent (448,827) commute to work and 73.7
percent (355,739) travel as sole-vehicle occupants. Ridesharing accounts for, 9.9 percent
(48,007) of commuters with only 4.2 percent (20,380) of the workforce using public
transportation. Individuals who work from home make up 7.1 percent (34,091) of the workforce
and individuals who walk to their place of employment consist of 2.4 percent (11,519) (United
States Census Bureau 2013).
Economic Trends
The expected population growth will expand the economic sector with raised
consumption and increased employment opportunities. These factors, as well as the ones
discussed below, will be very attractive to businesses looking for relocation or possible start up
opportunities.
Austin’s current business climate is accommodating and encouraging to economic growth
with a strong base of enterprises in technology, digital media, clean energy and life sciences,
advanced manufacturing and data centers. Austin Energy, proving the city’s capacity to keep up
with rapid growth, has some of the lowest rates in the country for outage duration and frequency
duration. The cost of living in Austin is 6 percent below the national average, and relative to
other business hubs, it provides some of the most affordable living. The State of Texas has
continuously had one of the lowest state and local tax rates in the country, ranking 41st out of 50
in taxes paid per $1,000 of income (Austin Chamber of Commerce 2013).

8. 5
According current data from the Chamber of Commerce, there are five main sectors that
employ the largest amount of workers. The sectors that employ 6,000 or more people are:
government, healthcare, higher public education, public education, and technology. Other sectors
that employ 1,000 or more include banking, community service organizations, insurance,
manufacturing, pharmaceutical, retail, real estate, telecommunications, and tourism.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate for Austin in 2015 is
3.3 percent, which is down from 4.1 percent in 2014, and lower than the 2015 national average
of 4.9 percent. In Appendix 1, Figure 1 from the Austin Chamber of Commerce shows the
growth of Austin’s economy in 2014. The economy grew a total of 6.1 percent in 2014, which is
ranked 3rd fastest growing metro economy out of the 50 largest metro economies for 2014
(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015).
Cultural Setting and Trends
The creative sector in Austin is a large part of what makes Austin so unique. Nicknamed
the “Live Music Capitol of the World”, there are numerous music venues and annual festivals
that serve as just one engine powering the creative sector. Along with a renowned music scene,
Austin is also home to many art galleries, gaming conventions and film conventions.
In 2009, the CreateAustin Cultural Master Plan was passed with the goal of establishing
recommendations for stimulating cultural creativity through 2017. The core values identified by
City Council for this plan are inclusion, collaboration and innovation. The CreateAustin Plan is a
demonstration of how important cultural diversity is to residents and local government in Austin
(COA CA 2009). In Appendix 1, Table 1 shows economic data gathered by the economic
consulting firm TXP. The firm is responsible for evaluating the economic influence of the
creative sector in Austin (TXP 2012).
Current and Past Initiatives
Austin is nationally recognized as a city with environmentally friendly aspirations, and
current and past legislation is what has built this image. In Appendix 1, Table 2 highlights a
handful of past and present environmental initiatives as well as recognitions.

9. 6
Carbon Mitigation Policies
Systems for Carbon Mitigation
Cap-and-trade
A cap sets a maximum allowable level of pollution and penalizes companies that exceed
their emission allowances (EDF 2015). The cap is gradually lowered over time to continually
reduce emissions. The trade creates a market for carbon allowances helping some companies
meet their allocated limit. The less a company emits, the less it pays, providing an economic
incentive to pollute less. Permits or allowances are distributed or auctioned to polluting entities.
The total amount of allowances will be equal to the cap. A company or utility may only emit as
much carbon as it has allowances for.
Carbon Tax
A carbon tax is a fee on fossil fuel emissions levied by federal, state, or city governments.
In specific, a carbon tax is assessed on the carbon dioxide portion of carbon emissions (CTC
2015). The idea is founded on the economic concept of negative externalities. In economics,
externalities are defined as costs or benefits generated by manufacturing goods and services.
Therefore, negative externalities are classified as unpaid costs of the pollution that is generated
from fossil fuels. Proponents of carbon tax argue that a tax on CO2 emissions would encourage
polluters to reduce their emissions. Moreover, a tax would make clean energy options such as
solar and wind become more cost competitive with energy gained from burning fossil fuels. The
revenue returns back to tax payers in different forms of tax reduction, or funds climate action
related plans.
Discussion
Under either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, the desired result is a level of CO2
abatement that equates the cost of abatement with the estimated benefits of abatement. However,
with cap-and-trade, the market price of CO2 allowances may be less or more than the estimated
benefits per ton of CO2 abatement. The amount of abatement generated by a carbon tax may be
less or more than the amount required equating the cost of abatement with the benefit of
abatement. Thus, both entail risks.

10. 7
Both cap-and-trade and a carbon tax are subject to uncertainty about costs. However, cap-
and-trade has the advantage of making clear, through a market price for emissions, the actual
cost of a stipulated quantity of emissions reductions. Furthermore, the market price for CO2
allowances under cap-and-trade automatically and continuously adjusts for changes in abatement
cost over time as changes take place in the prices of fossil fuels, the demand for electricity, and
the rate of technological change. Frequent changes in a carbon tax to adjust the tax level to the
changing cost of abatement are likely to be administratively difficult and politically divisive.
Clearly a carbon tax is easier to administer. Both cap-and-trade and a carbon tax need to
be enforced – emissions must be determined for various sources and penalties imposed if a
source does not have the requisite allowances or does not pay the required taxes. However, with
cap-and-trade there is an additional administrative requirement – the allocation of allowances.
Early attempts at allocation of allowances – for example, the sulfur dioxide emissions trading
system used by the United States in the 1990’s – allocated allowances on the basis of historical
emissions by source. The more modern approach is to auction allowances as done by the nine
eastern U.S. states comprising the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI 2015). Auctions
are easier to administer and more palatable politically.
Cap-and-trade would be expensive to administer if applied to automobile transportation
or residential heating and cooling. Thus a tax on fuels used for transportation, heating, and
cooling is the preferred way to promote CO2 emissions abatement in these sectors.
Case Studies: Cap-and-trade
European Union
In 2005, the European Union (EU) launched the first international cap-and-trade
program, European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS), to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (EU ETS 2015). It was comprised of three phases: Phase I, Pilot Phase, ran from 2005
to 2007, Phase II ran from 2008 to 2012, and Phase III ran from 2013 to 2020. Yet, the cap-and-
trade program only lasted until 2013 before needing reform. The main reasoning behind the
reform was the EU’s over-allocation of emission allowances (Brown et al. 2012). With the over-
allocation of emissions allowance, the price of carbon dropped significantly, the price per ton
had fallen from 20 Euros to 5 Euros. Essentially, it was cheap to pollute. To combat the low

11. 8
prices of carbon, the EU planned to postpone the auctioning of carbon allowances, the European
Parliament and Council agreed that 900 million tons of carbon allowance would be put on
reserve (EC CA 2015). This plan failed to pass in the European Parliament. The EU has now
reformed their cap and trade program, but many are not optimistic about its chances of success
and are calling for a carbon tax that would keep the price of emitting greenhouse gases stable.
Tokyo, Japan
In 2010, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) implemented a cap-and- trade
program focused on the industrial and commercial sectors. These sectors account for
approximately 40 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted in Tokyo (EDF 2015). Since the cap
applies to large-scale facilities such as buildings and factories, 1,400 of the highest energy using
buildings in the city are accountable to the cap. The cap and trade system has two phases
comprised of five- year compliance periods: the first phase is from 2010-2014 and the second
phase is from 2015 to 2019. According to the Bureau of the Environment, during the first
phase, businesses were required to reduce emissions by 6 to 8 percent. Additionally, the second
phase requires businesses to reduce emissions by 15 to 17 percent. Yet, there are penalties for
noncompliance. According to Kaneko, the penalty for not meeting the phase 1 goal was to pay a
fine of up to 500,000 yen, further reduce emissions by 1.3 times the required amount in phase 2,
and to have their names published for public shaming (EDF 2015).
The City of Tokyo has determined that the system was a success for their goals: building
owners who were targeted by the program have reduced their power consumption by 23 percent
below the baseline level (Kaneko 2014). Since Phase 1, there have only been 22 transactions for
carbon trade. Overall, Tokyo has had great success with their system.
Case Studies: Carbon Tax
British Columbia, Canada
When the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment on Climate Change Report was published in 2007,
the political climate of British Columbia was receptive to new climate change policies. The
government officials of British Columbia followed a series of implementation guidelines when
initiating their carbon tax policy: an easily administered policy, minimal exemptions, an initial
low tax price, and returnable tax revenue. Following these guidelines, British Columbia became

12. 9
the first North American country to implement an economy wide carbon pricing policy (Clean
Energy Canada 2015).
The implementation of an economy wide carbon pricing policy was a part of British
Columbia’s Climate Action Plan. The Climate Action Plan had goal of reducing greenhouse gas
emission by 33 percent by 2020. To achieve this goal, the carbon tax as tacked onto the existing
fuel tax based on the purchase or use of fuels within the province (Clean Energy Canada 2015).
There are selected carbon tax rates by fuel based on carbon content. According to the Ministry of
Finance, gas, diesel, jet fuel and propane are taxed per liter, natural gas is taxed per cubic meter,
and coal is taxed per ton. The tax began with a low initial price, but there were scheduled tax
increases planned for the following 4 years. The tax began with a $10 tax per metric ton in 2008
and then ramped up $5 each year until it reached $30 per ton by 2012 (Clean Energy Canada
2015). This tax nearly covered all of the carbon emissions of British Columbia. In terms of
fuel, the tax in 2008 was 0.02 cents per liter and in 2012 the tax was raised to 0.07 cents per
liter. The consumer did not truly feel the negative impacts of the carbon tax- the consumer only
felt the positive impacts of the carbon tax. The carbon tax policy of British Columbia is a
revenue neutral policy.
A revenue neutral policy a policy in which tax revenue is returned to the taxpayers and
businesses through tax cuts (Clean Energy Canada 2015). The revenue neutral tax has allowed
British Columbia to reduce taxes for individuals, families, and businesses. Upon reviewing the
tax, policymakers realized the burden the tax might have on low income and rural
communities. As a revenue neutral tax, the policy makers made the policy so a low income
climate action tax credit and the Northern and Rural homeowner benefit was made available to
low income and rural communities. Other uses of the revenue include: lower business tax,
personal income tax, low income tax credits, and direct grants to rural households (Murray and
Rivers 2015).
Australia
Australia had a short, but tumultuous history with initiating and implementing a carbon
tax policy. In 2012, the carbon tax policy was established through the Clean Energy Act of 2012
with a goal of reducing emissions 5 percent lower than 2000 levels by 2020 (Meng et al.
2013). With this goal in mind, the initial carbon tax price was as high as $24.15 per ton of

13. 10
CO2. The main sectors affected by this tax were the electricity, manufacturing, and mining
industries. The focus of the carbon tax was on the industrial sectors and the industrial sectors
had to pay the majority of the carbon tax.
In 2012, when government officials implemented the carbon tax, two types of carbon tax
were created: a carbon tax for industries and an equivalent carbon tax. Industries that emitted
more than 25,000 tons of CO2 were liable to the carbon tax and were required to report their
annual emissions to the Clean Energy Regulator (Clean Energy Regulator 2013). In addition to
the carbon tax, companies had to pay a fuel tax and a synthetic greenhouse gas
charge. According to the Department of the Environment, as an assistance measure to these
industrial companies, Australian government officials enabled the industries to eligible for
industrial assistance to remain competitive in international market. Yet, with these high costs of
operation and taxes, many of the companies passed on the cost of the tax to their customers.
By passing the cost of the tax onto the customer, the cost of electricity increased by 10
percent for the households and by 14.5 percent for industry (Robson 2014). The Australian
public within a year of the policy being enacted were in high opposition to the policy. The
Australian government did not truly evaluate the costs and benefits of the policy or they would
have realized this policy was not implemented fairly: industries were paying the majority of the
tax and had to pass on the costs of this tax to the household. The tax was supposed to generate
revenue, but not in this manner. With the high costs of the carbon tax and high public opposition
to the tax, the carbon tax policy was sent to the Australian Parliament to be repealed.
On July 17, 2014, the Australian Parliament repealed the legislation of the Clean Energy
Act of 2012 and abolished the carbon tax. By abolishing the carbon tax, the cost of living would
be reduced for households and operating costs for businesses would be reduced as
well. According to the Department of the Environment, through the abolishment of the policy,
“the cost of living was reduced by $550, electricity costs were reduced by 9 percent and gas
prices were reduced by around 7 percent “ (Clean Energy Regulator 2013). Usually, a policy is
better than no policy, but in the case of Australia, no policy is better than a policy.

14. 11
Boulder, Colorado, United States
The City of Boulder is located in north Denver with approximately 100,000 in 2013,
including the university students. Boulder’s community has always been attentively committed
to environmental protection and preservation of natural resources (Brouillard and Van Pelt
2007). The city embraced the goals of Kyoto protocol in 2002 in order to reduce the GHG
emissions by 22 percent below the current levels (Gichon et al. 2008), and introduced a tax for
carbon in 2006 that became effective in 2007. The tax was calculated based on the amount of
electricity (KWh) generated by burning fossil fuels. The Office of Environmental Affairs (OEA)
is responsible for the implementation of the majority of Boulder’s environmental programs. This
tax is levied on businesses, residents and industries. The extra on tax is not significantly high, but
it is very effective to help consumers understand how increasing or reducing their energy usage
or shifting to renewable energy sources reduces their bill.
According to the City of Boulder in 2009, the initial tax rate was $0.0022 per kWh for
residents, $0.0004 per kWh for commercial users, and $0.0002 per kWh for industries
(approximately $12–13 per ton of CO2) (Sumner et al. 2011). In August 2009, the carbon tax
increased to the maximum allowed by the ordinance: $0.0049 per kWh for residents, $0.0003 per
kWh for industries, and $0.0009 per kWh for commercial (Bhatt and Ryan 2013).
According to Bhatt and Ryan, the average carbon tax in Boulder is around $21 per year
for residents; $94 for commercial owners, and industries can pay up to $9,600 per year.
Renewable energy such as solar and wind energy users are exempt. In 2008, carbon taxes
generated approximately $860,000 (Gichon et al. 2008), and over the following years, taxes are
generating $1.8 million for the city annually (City of Boulder 2015). Utility Xcel Energy
collected carbon taxes, and the fund is used for the implementation of Boulder Climate Action
Plan and other mitigation programs that promote energy efficiency in buildings and
transportation improvement. The tax money funds also energy audits for businesses and houses.
Moreover, it funds the visit of experts who give advice to homeowners on how to save energy.
The tax revenues are expected to lower over years as businesses and residents reduce their
energy use and begin to use more renewable sources such as solar and wind power.
As a result of mitigation programs, Boulder avoided over 50,000 metric tons of GHG
emissions between 2007-2005, helping to keep the emissions almost constant despite the

15. 12
population and economic growth of the city (City of Boulder 2015). Boulder’s current goal is to
reach 80 percent of emission reduction by 2050. In March 2018, Boulder’s current carbon tax
expires and if it will be approved in Nov. 2015, the carbon tax would extend for 5 years and the
collection strategies would not change (City of Boulder 2015).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Studies Carbon Mitigation Policies
Cap-and-trade
European Union
Advantages
By far the largest example of carbon trading in operation, the scheme led to a 2-4 percent
decrease in emissions prior to the European Union’s financial collapse. This reduction is more
than the impact of many energy policy measures, which is impressive considering its scale.
Disadvantages
The scheme was poorly managed from the outset. During phase I, allowances were given
for free, but were intended to be less than the actual amount of emissions, requiring companies to
purchase extra allowances. This led to an over saturation in the carbon market, and the market
price for carbon fell. The EU reduced the number of allowances they gave out, but the market
never recovered, which means that most importantly, greenhouse gas emissions were not reduced
as much as expected. The main disadvantage of this model is that its emission reductions are too
vulnerable to economic unrest and market dealings.
Tokyo, Japan
Advantages
Building owners who were targeted by the program have reduced their power
consumption by 23 percent below the baseline level. Since Phase I, there have only been 22
transactions for carbon trade. Overall, Tokyo has had great success with their system- already 70
percent of the businesses have reached their Phase II target.
Disadvantages

16. 13
Since this system was tailored to Japan, it would likely not work anywhere else. Firstly,
40 percent of Tokyo’s emissions come from the commercial sector, roughly twice as much as
Austin. This means that most of the businesses involved in the emissions trading scheme are
office and commercial buildings, which have a relatively easier path to emissions reductions than
industrial buildings and plants. Secondly, the incentives simply would not work for American
businesses. The fine of 500,000 yen for not meeting the Phase I goal is worth only 4,071.50
USD. The main incentive of this system appears to be public shaming in the form of publishing
the name of the business and its failings in the press. Although, this tactic clearly works in Japan,
there is no reason to believe that it would work in the United States.
Carbon Tax
British Columbia, Canada
Advantages
Since the inception of British Columbia’s climate action plan in 2008, per person fuel
consumption has declined by 16 percent, while the rest of Canada’s consumption has increased
by 3 percent (PF 2014). The carbon tax has helped to guide environmental and economic gains
for the province, allowing British Columbia to maintain its status in comparison to other
provinces. Political support for the tax has continued throughout its legacy, 54 percent of British
Columbians supported the tax in 2008, and the public support rose to 58 percent in 2015. The
increase of the public’s approval reflects the tax’s positive influence on the province. The tax
revenue leads to a reduction in large and small business tax rates and a reduction in income tax
rates. Additionally, British Columbia offers a climate action tax credit for low-income citizens.
Disadvantages
After the last tax increase in 2012, the declines in fuel consumption remained at 16
percent and have not declined since. Further tax increases may not continue to facilitate overall
decreased consumption. The manufacturing and farming industries believe that they have been
harmed by the impacts of the carbon tax due to reduced competitiveness in the market place.
Cement manufacturers claim to have lost a third of their business to American and Asian
imports. Due to heavy regulations, farmers faced competition from non- carbon taxed
jurisdictions. To combat this competition, farmers requested rebates from the government to

17. 14
balance the market. Stephen Harper, the previous Prime Minister of Canada, is not in favor of the
tax; he believes that the tax is detrimental to job growth. However, there is limited evidence
stating correlation between the tax and jobs.
Australia
Advantages
The carbon tax lead to a clear reduction in carbon emissions. In the first year of the tax,
emissions were reduced by 0.8 percent. In the second year, reductions rose to 1.4 percent leading
to Australia’s largest annual reduction in a decade (Milman 2014). During the last year of the
tax, emissions from the electricity sector fell by 4 percent, the highest rate of any of Australia’s
industries.
Disadvantages
It only took a year for the public to distrust the tax policy due to rising costs of electricity.
The tax was not implemented correctly- it put a high burden on the consumer and businesses.
The cost of electricity increased by 10 percent for the households and by 14.5 percent for
industry (Robson 2014). Due to these rates, industries paid the majority of the tax resulting in
high costs for the consumer. With the overall discontent of the public, the tax was abolished in
July of 2014. By repealing the policy, the Department of the Environment estimates that they
will save the average household $550 million per year. Electricity costs are expected to reduce
by 9 percent and gas prices reduced by 7 percent.
Boulder, Colorado
Advantages
Boulder’s carbon tax has been remarkably successful in reducing carbon emissions. As a
result of this success, GHG emissions have remained almost constant despite the population and
economic growth of the City (City of Boulder 2015). The average carbon tax in Boulder was on
average $21 per year for residents and it generated about $1.8 million in revenue (Bhatt and
Ryan 2013). The collected funds from the tax are used for the implementation of the Boulder
Climate Action Plan goals. Additionally, funds from the tax are used for investments in
education initiatives, energy audits, and renewable energy rebates. The overall success of the tax

18. 15
has lead to the public’s positive view of the tax leading to the extension of the tax for another
five years.
Disadvantages
The true benefits of the tax have not been studied. Boulder has struggled with the
calculations of emission reductions in their study of the tax. There is a new challenge facing Xcel
Energy, the utility provider for Boulder, and the City of Boulder in the measurement of
greenhouse gas emissions. The sources and methods needed to do such measurements are not
available.
Best Practices: Applicability to Austin
From extensive literature review and in-depth analyses of case studies including cities,
provinces, and states with existing carbon mitigation policies, research indicates there are two
policy options available to Austin. Considering the physical site, the commercial situation, and
environmentally focused culture of Austin, a cap-and-trade system would not be beneficial to the
implementation of Austin Community Climate Plan goals projected for 2050. The carbon tax
systems found in British Columbia and Boulder, Colorado provide a potential carbon policy
design structure for Austin. These systems promote a phased achievement of climate goals, ease
of collecting funds, and assurance of sustainable industrial and commercial development.
Although much of the literature used carbon tax and carbon fee interchangeably, recent literature
proposes the utility of an alternative policy design, a carbon fee, at the city scale. Due to the
nature of the net-zero goals proposed in the City of Austin’s Community Climate Plan (ACCP),
this alternative policy design is best suited for the green culture and values of Austin. The final
goals of a carbon fee system go beyond revenue collection and include three core values:
transparency, democracy, and sustainable behavioral changes. Considering these goals and
values, the following section will provide a detailed model of how to implement the fee in
Austin.

19. 16
Model Practice for Austin
Proposal
Considering our best practices and the key factors of the site and situation of Austin, we
propose a carbon fee system for the achievement of sustainable growth and net-zero goals. A
three-phase model structures the design of the carbon fee system: Acceptance, Implementation,
and Advancement (Figure 2, Appendix 1). The Acceptance phase includes the strategies for
gaining the socio-political consent of community and city stakeholders. The Implementation
phase includes the components of the fee structure, incorporation of the fee in the city system,
and the distribution of funds to targeted existing and newly created programs. The Advancement
phase includes the future allocation of fee funds focusing on the promotion of education,
innovation, and efficiency.
Model Discussion
Acceptance
In 2014, the City of Austin passed the Austin Community Climate Plan with a goal to
achieve net-zero consumption of carbon by 2050. To achieve these goals, the City of Austin will
have to pass a carbon mitigation initiative. Through extensive research on model practices, the
team decided that a carbon fee would be the best suited for the City. Yet, only Austin
community members and stakeholders can decide if the carbon fee is best suited for the City.
The Acceptance phase’s purpose is to engage community members including residents,
commercial entities, and political entities in education and discourse regarding the carbon fee
mitigation policy. By having such education and discourse, the community members will be
able to answer the following questions: Can it be achieved in Austin? and If it can be achieved in
Austin, has it been done in the most efficient way?
Factors of Achievability
To gain the community’s acceptance, the City of Austin will need to focus their discourse
with the public in three areas of achievability: ease of incorporation, cost-effectiveness of the
initiative, and community impacts. Since this mitigation practice involves goals in the

20. 17
transportation and energy sectors, the collaboration with Department of Transportation and
Austin Energy would be recommended. The already existing sustainability programs of these
two city entities propose such collaboration. Tools, instruments, and partnerships already
utilized in these programs suggest this initiative take a cost-effectiveness route. With this route,
the carbon fee will be structured in a cost-effective manner based on the successes of other
carbon mitigation policies, i.e., Boulder’s Carbon Tax. This cost-effectiveness leads to greater
community acceptance of this fee. The perceptions of the fee begin to change with this cost-
effectiveness. The community will begin to perceive this fee as instructive and necessary for
Austin to maintain its position as a leader in sustainability. The policies identified through the
Acceptance phase will be reflected and utilized in the implementation as the core of the fee.
Implementation
After gaining the socio-political consent of community and city stakeholders, the City
Council would be able to propose an initiative to pass the incorporation of the carbon fee on
Austin Energy utility bills. The structure of the initiative will reflect three underlying core
values of the fee: transparency, democracy, and sustainable behavioral changes. Components of
this initiative would include: the fee title, rate structure, and distribution of collected funds.
Fee Title
Considering the site of Austin and the core values of community members, the team
proposed three possible titles for naming the carbon fee: Green Climate Fund, Green Living
Fund, and Climate Recovery Fund. After reviewing cities with already existing carbon fees and
taxes included on their electric bills such as Vancouver and Boulder (Appendix 2), the team
decided on a name for the fee: Climate Recovery Fund. The philosophy behind this decision is to
promote behaviors that care for the climate and reach net-zero goals.
Rate Structure
To determine the rate structure, the team evaluated cities having rate structures for
carbon/carbon content. The City of Boulder’s initial rates seem best suited for Austin’s
application. The fee is calculated for the three sectors of Austin’s population: residential,
commercial, and industrial based on current Austin Energy data. The structure of the fee rate is

21. 18
based on consumption of high carbon content electricity and rates vary per sector (Table 3,
Appendix 1).
Distribution of Funds
The Climate Recovery Fund will generate 11.4 million dollars for climate mitigation
spending. According to Austin’s Climate Action Plan, the major sectors responsible of emitting
green house gas pollution are the Transportation and Energy sectors. Remediation is needed for
climate recovery; therefore, the Climate Recovery Fund will contribute to City programs and
initiatives in these sectors. Based on a qualitative analysis of the needs of Austin, the team
proposed initial distribution percentages for the Austin community. The funds would be divided
between city programs and residents of Austin. Transportation being the largest emitter of
pollution will receive forty percent of the funds, 4.5 million dollars, to spend on current
programs such as Complete Street and Parking Benefit Districts. Additionally, the funds can be
used for new transportation initiatives. Energy being the second largest emitter of pollution will
receive thirty percent of the funds, 3.5 million dollars, to spend on current programs such as
Plug-in Austin, Solar Solutions, PowerSaver, and Austin Energy Green Building (AEGB).
Similar to the Transportation sector, energy funds can be dedicated to new energy initiatives. The
remaining thirty percent of funds will go to a coupon system whose funds promote a sustainable
living lifestyle.
Green Bucks Program
To administer the coupons at the city level, the team proposed the creation of the Green
Bucks Program. Green Bucks Program is a coupon system administered by the City whose
purpose is to educate the Austin community on sustainable living practices in connection to the
Austin Community Climate Action Plan goals. To encourage engagement in these living
practices, Green Bucks will partner with the following agencies, businesses, and stores:
CapMetro, B-Cycle, and Home Depot. Based on Austin Energy Accounts Quick Facts, there are
383,257 residential accounts and with the Green Bucks program receiving 3.5 million dollars,
residents will have the opportunity to redeem up to nine dollars worth of items. For the
promotion of alternative transportation, CapMetro and B-Cycle would be identified as potential
partners. Both have existing community outreach programs and projects to propose this kind of
partnership. For the promotion of sustainable residential improvements, Home Depot would be

22. 19
identified as a potential partner. Looking at the market presence of home improvement stores in
Austin, Home Depot is the most accessible to Austin residents.
The following is a proposed list of redeemable items divided by sector:
 Transportation
o Cap Metro Weekly Pass ($11.25)
o B-Cycle Monthly Membership ($11.00)
 Home Improvement
o Philips 3-Pack Efficiency Light Bulbs ($9.97)
o Clear Silicon Window and Door Caulking ($5.92) + Faucet Aerator
($3.69)
This list of items includes the current market prices of these items. With these
partnerships, the team foresees price reductions in these items enabling the Green Bucks to be
redeemable for nine dollars worth of items. Through the overall structuring of the Climate
Recovery Fund, the City of Austin will have the opportunity to educate the three sectors of the
community: residents, businesses, and industries on sustainable lifestyle and consumption
behaviors.
Advancement
Plans for advancement of Austin’s carbon fee can take several routes of progressive
action. While ensuring to maintain transparency, funding can be allocated to a variety of
programs and projects that will help the City of Austin achieve its carbon neutral goal. These
advancements can come in the form of coupons, grants, and other incentives for action.
Due to energy and transportation being such critical issues of carbon emissions in Austin,
they must be addressed through the advancement phase as well. Incentives for actions that will
contribute to mitigating the significant emissions of energy and transportation will have priority
in the advancement phase.
We propose an “Austin Energy Challenge Grant” that will resemble the “Boulder Energy
Challenge Grant”. We chose this model because it has been extremely successful in providing

23. 20
over $300,000 to the community for helping innovate and implement carbon reducing projects
and other green initiatives. These can include everything from new development of technology
and implementation of existing technologies to education and outreach. The objectives of this
grant will be:
 Provide funding for innovation and development of carbon reducing and other
green initiatives
 Support renewable energy methods and energy efficiency
 Encourage development of low carbon and carbon free innovation sectors within
the City of Austin
 Reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions within the City of Austin
Funding for such projects are available to all community members within Austin as well
as for external constituents who wish to contribute to the mission of Austin’s net-zero goal. This
includes individual residents, academic institutions, businesses, and nonprofits.
Local schools are also an effective target to distribute funds to due to the number of
people being served, as well as the ease of palatability to taxpayers. Targeting these schools and
providing them with the funding and resources to achieve a lower carbon footprint and more
effective green practices has the potential for great benefits for the future of Austin’s goals. This
helps to directly achieve concrete goals of net-zero emissions as well as providing education and
opportunities to the future generations of Austin’s leaders. We propose allocating funds
specifically for a grant program designated for local schools.
These funds can be used for, but not limited to:
 School gardens
 Extensive and effective composting programs
 Improvements to make school landscape less resource intensive
 Energy-efficient light bulbs and thermostats
 Rainwater harvesting systems
 Associated continuing support for these programs

24. 21
Also a potential for progressive action on green initiatives and behavioral change is the
use of a coupon system. Portions of the revenue from the carbon fee can be distributed directly
back to the residents and community members of Austin. Identifying and building relations with
community partners can help facilitate administration and support of these different coupons.
Such coupons may include:
 Solar panels
o Partner with solar energy manufacturers
 Residential rain harvesting systems
o Partner with agencies such as Hill Country Alliance
 “Cash for Clunkers” model
o Consists of trading in heavily polluting vehicles for hybrid or electric
models
o Partner with local car dealerships
Conclusion
As the United States’ attention turns to climate change, many states, regions, and cities
have begun to take steps to reduce their carbon footprints through carbon mitigation polices.
Austin, Texas is one of these localities that have begun to take such steps. In April 2014, the City
Council of Austin unanimously approved the Austin Community Climate Plan (ACCP), which
goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and consumption by having citywide net-zero
consumption of GHGs by 2050. For the City to meet the goals of this plan, Austin must educate
its population of businesses, industries, and residents, about the importance of reducing
emissions and offer incentives to promote carbon- reducing initiatives. The City already has
many initiatives in place to reduce its carbon footprint. However, to succeed in being net-zero
by 2050, the City will need to generate funds specifically for emissions reduction initiatives.
This best practices report analyzes the successes and failures of funding and
implementation strategies that other cities, provinces, and countries have utilized to meet their
individual carbon reduction goals. Reviewing the carbon mitigation policies of cap-and-trade
systems and carbon tax systems, the team found that the commercial and industrial sectors of
Austin could not support a cap-and-trade system. Additionally, the City of Austin could not

25. 22
implement a carbon tax immediately due to their level of governance. Therefore, our team
suggested an alternative carbon mitigation policy, a carbon fee. The carbon fee system is suitable
for Austin because it can be applied with ease at the city level and it is best suited for the
industrial, economic, and residential interests of Austin.
After much research and discussion, the team decided upon the name and structure of the
carbon fee system. Since the funds collected from the fee would go into a fund to help recover
the climate of Austin, the team decided to name our policy, the Climate Recovery Fund. The
fund is structured by three-phase model to allow for ease in the implementation and advancement
of this fund. The phases of the model are: Acceptance, Implementation, and Advancement.
Through the structuring of the fund, the City of Austin will have 11.4 million dollars for climate
mitigation spending. Transportation being the largest emitter of pollution will receive 40 percent
of the funds, 4.5 million dollars, to spend on current programs such as Complete Street and
Parking Benefit Districts. Energy being the second largest emitter of pollution will receive 30
percent of the funds, 3.5 million dollars, to spend on current programs such as Plug-in Austin,
Solar Solutions, PowerSaver, and Austin Energy Green Building (AEGB). The remaining 3.5
million dollars will be allocated the Green Bucks Program.
The Green Bucks Program is a coupon system administered by the City whose purpose is
to educate the Austin community on sustainable living practices in connection to the Austin
Community Climate Action Plan goals. To encourage engagement in these living practices,
Green Bucks Program will partner with the following agencies, businesses, and stores:
CapMetro, B-Cycle, and Home Depot. Overall, the Climate Recovery Fund will enable the City
of Austin to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, educate the population on sustainable
behaviors, and create funds for spending on city programs and on the community. With the
implementation of such fund, the City of Austin can maintain its national recognition as a city
with environmentally friendly aspirations.

26. 23
Bibliography
Austin Chamber of Commerce. 2013. 2013 Annual Report. http://www.austinchamber.com/the-
chamber/publications/annual-report/index.html (last accessed 7 December 2015).
Austin Energy. 2015. Austin Energy At-A-Glance.
https://austinenergy.com/wps/portal/ae/about/at-a-glance/austin-energy-at-a-glance/ (last
accessed 8 December 2015).
Bhatt, R, and M Ryan. 2013. Carbon Energy Tax, Boulder, CO. Smart Growth America, Local
Leaders Council, Model Policy.
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/Boulder-Carbon-Tax.pdf (last accessed 8
December 2015).
Brown, LM, A Hanafi, and A Petsonk. 2012. The EU Emissions Trading System. Results and
Lessons Learned. Environmental Defense Fund.
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EU_ETS_Lessons_Learned_Report_EDF.pdf (last
accessed 8 December 2015).
Brouillard, C, and S Van Pelt. 2007. A Community Takes Charge: Boulder’s Carbon Tax. Report
prepared for the City of Boulder. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. Austin Area Economic Summary.
http://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/summary/blssummary_austin.pdf (last accessed 8
December 2015).
Carbon Tax Center (CTC). 2015. What’s a carbon tax? http://www.carbontax.org/whats-a-
carbon-tax/ (last accessed 8 December 2015).
City of Austin Economic Development Office Cultural Arts Division (COA CA). 2009.
CreateAustin Cultural Master Plan.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Redevelopment/createaustin_cultural
_master_plan.pdf (last accessed 8 December 2015).
City of Austin Office of Sustainability (COA OS). 2015. Austin Community Climate Plan.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sustainability/FINAL_-
_OOS_AustinClimatePlan_061015.pdf (last accessed 7 December 2015).

27. 24
City of Boulder. 2015. Climate Action Tax. https://bouldercolorado.gov/climate/climate-action-
plan-cap-tax# (last accessed 8 December 2015).
Clean Energy Canada. 2015. http://cleanenergycanada.org/ (last accessed 8 December 2015).
Clean Energy Regulator. 2013. Annual Report 2012-2013. Commonwealth of Australia (Clean
Energy Regulator).
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2015. How cap and trade works.
https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works (last accessed 8 December 2015).
EDF. 2015. Tokyo: An Emissions Trading Case Study.
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/tokyo-case-study-may2015.pdf (last accessed 8
December 2015).
European Commission Climate Action (EC CA). 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/ (last accessed
8 December 2015).
European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). 2015.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm (last accessed 8 December 2015).
Gichon, Y, K Afflerbaugh, A Bascue, and S Van Pelt. 2008. Boulder’s Carbon Tax: Building a
Foundation for Community Climate Action. City of Boulder.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner,
M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kaneko, M. 2014. Tokyo carbon market for office buildings is all “cap” and not much “trade.”
Citiscope. http://citiscope.org/story/2014/tokyo-carbon-market-office-buildings-all-cap-
and-not-much-trade (last accessed 8 December 2015).
Meng, S, M Siriwardana, and J McNeill. 2013. The environmental and economic impact of the
carbon tax in Australia. Environmental and Resource Economics, 54(3), 313-332.

28. 25
Milman, Oliver. 2014. Australia records biggest emissions drop in a decade as carbon tax kicks
in. Guardian News. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/24/australia-
records-biggest-emissions-drop-in-a-decade-as-carbon-tax-kicks-in (last accessed 7
December 2015).
Murray, BC, and N Rivers. 2015. British Columbia’s Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Review of
the Latest “Grand Experiment”in Environmental Policy. NI WP 15-04. Durham, NC:
Duke University. http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications (last accessed 8 December
2015).
PF. 2014. British Columbia’s Carbon Tax: The evidence mounts. The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax
(last accessed 8 December 2015).
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). 2015. http://www.rggi.org/ (last accessed 8
December 2015).
Robson, A. 2014. Australia's carbon tax: An economic evaluation. Economic Affairs, 34(1), 35-
45.
Snider, L. 2011. Stay with Xcel, or form a utility? Boulder looks at future electricity costs. Daily
Camera News. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17649784. Accessed on December
7, 2015.
Sumner, J, L Bird, and H Dobos. 2011. Carbon taxes: a review of experience and policy design
considerations. Climate Policy, 11(2), 922-943.
TXP, Inc. 2012. The Economic Impact of the Creative Sector in Austin – 2012 UPDATE.
https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/creative_sector_impact2012.pdf (last
accessed 8 December 2015).
United States Census Bureau. 2013. American Community Survey Profile Report: 2013 (1-year
estimates), Austin city, Texas (16000US4805000).
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Demographics/CoA_ACS_
Profile_2013.pdf (last accessed 7 December 2015).

29. 26
United States Census Bureau. 2010. Austin (city), Texas.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html?cssp=SERP (last accessed 7
December 2015).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Climate change indicators in the
United States, 2014. Third edition. EPA 430-R-14-004.
www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators (last accessed 7 December 2015).

30. 27
Appendix 1: Tables and Figures
Table 1. 2010 Economic Impact of the Creativity Sector in Austin ($Million)
2010 Output Value-Added Earnings Jobs City Tax Rev.
Music $865.10 $325.63 $156.52 7,957 $9.66
Film $282.70 $187.96 $73.66 2,748 $1.08
Gaming $990.74 $256.27 $122.58 7,274 $1.21
Not-For-Profit $497.67 $303.45 $157.34 8,781 $5.66
Visual Arts $283.80 $143.92 $64.48 3,851 $3.23
Tourism/Music $806.25 $485.19 $244.65 10,191 $28.40
Tourism/Other $634.61 $381.90 $192.57 8,021 $22.35
Total Annual: $4,360.87 $2,084.32 $1,011.80 $48,823.00 $71.59
(TXP 2012)
Table 2. Selected Environmental Highlights in the City of Austin
(Source: City of Austin Department Websites)

31. 28
Table 3. Carbon Fee Calculations
Sector Fee Rate Est. Annual
Revenue
Average Cost Per
Entity
Residential $0.0022/kWh $9.152 M $24/household
Commercial $0.0004/kWh $1.1664 M $36/commercial
business
Industrial $0.0002/kWh $546 K $3,956/industrial
entity
Total --- $11.362 M ---
Figure 1. Sectors that saw job growth in 2014 in Austin compared to the 50 largest metro areas in
the United States (Austin Chamber of Commerce 2013)

32. 29
Figure 2. Carbon Fee Model System
CarbonFee
Acceptance
Political Realm
Social Realm
Implementation
Initiative
Fee Structure
Distribution of
Funds
Advancement
Grants
Advancement of
Green Initiatives

33. 30
Appendix 2: Example Bills
BC Hydro Residential Bill Details:
(https://www.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/bill-payment/bill-details/bill-details-
residential.html)

34. 31
Xcel Energy Residential Bill Details:
(Snider, 2011)