Very similar in concept. There are some basic implementation differences--Canada uses thresholds based on fuel consumption to assign the fee or rebate, while California appears to be considering a sliding scale based on GHG emissions, and somehow factoring in the upstream emissions. But if the CA bill passes, and it gets signed, then ARB gets to figure out the mechanism and the rule.

A good way for califonia to partially get around the EPA issue should the federal governemnt get in the way of the waiver. use incentives and heavilly penalize the worst polluters.

I like this idea, the sliding scale is better than our stepped approch. But there are two problems that jump out at me;#1 - as mentioned you will be waiting until 2010, and #2 - read the line "The maximum amount of the rebates and surcharges is not to be less than $2,250 or more than $2,500." If I'm reading that right (and I know I could be wrong) these sums are too small. The worst emmitters are those big SUVs are high proformance sports cars. They can cost 50,000 - 100,000 easy any anyone buying one wont miss $2,500.

I would suggest a sliding scale tied to price AND emmissions. So those with the most money to spend on the worst offenders pay the most fees.

Of course they put it off until 2010 -
It's always best to plan your crusades so someone else has to pay for them. (Both politically and financially in this case.)

Scheduling it to start immediately would require the political dedication of one who truly believes in a cause rather than one who is merely seeking political gain with platitudes, nice press releases and photo-ops.

Two pitfalls of the feebate system.

1. I currently drive a bicycle instead of a car, mostly due to finances. I could afford a car, but it would wipe out most of my now disposable income.

Lower the price of a Prius by a few thousand bucks, and now I might buy one. End result: more fossil fuels burned, more carbon emissions.

2. I'm trying to decide between a sedan and a small SUV. The sedan gets 26 mpg, the SUV 23. Since the sedan gets low fuel mileage for its class, there's a surcharge. Since the SUV gets high mileage for its class, there's a rebate. That's a few thousand dollars differential to encourage me to buy the SUV instead of the sedan.

Those are two very real scenarios that get bad behavior from the perspective of the goals of the plan. Why? Because the "bate" part -- the rebate -- induces people to choose that product. The problem is that the system assumes that people won't change classes of vehicles, either from "no" vehicle to a [now cheaper due to rebate] vehicle, or from a class that's more efficient to one that's less fuel efficient due to a combination of fee and rebate.

Personally, I think you make it revenue positive, and reduce the rebates. Yank up the fees. Take the net revenue in California and roll it into their high speed rail line proposed from LA to SF and other major cities.

That's my two bits. P.S. Scenario (1) really is my scenario. A rebate might push me over the edge to buy a Prius or Civic hybrid, and the net result is more gasoline consumed. Huzzah!

Each of these steps adds awareness to the consumer base. As people start thinking about incentives to change vehicle classes and purchase lower emission products with rebates - the overall awareness increases. A net positive for any concerned with environment.

Stomy's scenario is curious. At what point does the necessity of fueled transportation outweigh the environmental concern? Many people must drive cars because they are physically unable to pedal bikes and have no mass transit options.

Participation in real world economies requires transportation - not always the greenest or most socially acceptable to some. The purpose of hybrids, bio-fuels, incentives etc. is to build the bridge to transportation systems with the least damaging impact to the earth. Not to eliminate the potential to live a productive, contributory life.

Economics, economics, economics!

Helping middle and low income people out of their gas guzzlers? Incentives to scrap old polluting vehicles?

Among chemical engineers I knew several years ago, it was common knowledge that fuel reformulation was expensive and a pain for the refineries, and that it was consequently expensive for the consumers as weel. Many of those chemical engineers pointes out that a greater reduction in pollution could be achieved by allowing refineries to spend the same amount of money purchasing older high polluting cars and junking them.

Of course, though they knew the chemistry and math, they struck out on the economics. That kind of action in the auto market creates a perverse incentive: high polluting old cars are then more valuable than low polluting old cars. Though this would act to remove high polluters from the market, it is far easier to tune an engine to have more emissions than to have less.