1. Structure

The basic structure of Carbon Fee and Dividend is as follows:^[1]

1. A fee is levied on fuels at their point of origin into the economy, such as the well, mine, or port of entry. The fee is based upon the carbon content of a given fuel, with a commonly-proposed starting point being $10–$16 per ton of carbon that would be emitted once the fuel is burned.^[2][3]
2. The fee is progressively increased, providing a steady, predictable price signal and incentivizing early transition to low-carbon energy sources and products.
3. A border tax adjustment is levied on imports from nations that lack their own equivalent fee on carbon. To take one example, if the United States created a carbon fee-and-dividend system, China would face the choice of paying carbon fees to the United States or creating its own internal carbon pricing system. This would leverage American economic power to incentivize carbon pricing around the world.
4. Some or all of the fee is returned to households as an energy dividend. Returning 100% of net fees results in a revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend system; this revenue neutrality often appeals to conservatives, such as former Secretary of State George Shultz,^[4] who want to reduce emissions without increasing the size and funding of the federal government.

In order to maximize effectiveness, the amount of the fee would be regulated based on the scientific assessments from both economic and climate science in order to balance the size and speed of fee progression.

2. Analysis

2.1. Energy Modeling Forum Study 2012

In late-2012 the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), coordinated by Stanford University, released its EMF 29 study titled "The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy".^[5][6][7] It is well understood that unilateral climate policy can lead to emissions leakage. As one example, trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries may simply relocate to regions with laxer climate protection. A border carbon adjustment (BCA) program can help counter this and related effects. Under such a policy, tariffs are levied on the carbon embodied in imported goods from unregulated trading partners while the original climate protection payments for exported goods are rebated.^[5] The study finds that the BCA programs evaluated:^[7]

• can reduce emissions leakage
• yield modest gains in global economic efficiency
• shift substantial costs from abating OECD counties to non-abating non-OECD countries

In light of these findings, the study recommends care when designing and implementing BCA programs.^[7] Moreover, the regressive impact of shifting part of the abatement burden southward conflicts with the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities, which explicitly acknowledges that developing countries have less ability to shoulder climate protection measures.^[5]

2.2. Regional Economic Models Study 2014

A 2014 economic impact analysis by Regional Economic Models, Incorporated (REMI) concluded that a carbon fee that began at $10 per ton and increased by $10 per year, with all net revenue returned to households as an energy dividend, would carry substantial environmental, health, and economic benefits:^[8][9]

• CO2 emissions in the United States would decrease to 50% of 1990 levels in the first 20 years.
• Over the same timespan, reductions in airborne pollution that accompanies CO2 emissions would result in 230,000 fewer premature deaths.
• Regular dividend payments would stimulate the U.S. economy, leading to the creation of 2.8 million jobs over baseline during the program's first two decades.
• The stimulative effect was also found to positively affect national GDP, adding $70–85 billion per year for a cumulative 20-year increase of $1.375 trillion over baseline (the approximate equivalent of adding an additional year of growth during that span).

2.3. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Study 2016

A 2016 working paper from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) looked more narrowly at the impact of Carbon Fee and Dividend on American households during the first year.^[10] Due to the shorter window analyzed (which did not allow for considerations of changes to personal energy use under the policy) the paper found a smaller percentage of households benefiting from Carbon Fee and Dividend than the REMI report summarized above (53% versus approximately two-thirds in the REMI report). It also found that an additional 19% of households suffered a loss of less than 0.2% of annual income, an amount that might be experienced as effectively "breaking even" by households in the upper income quintiles most likely affected.

3. Implementation

The British Columbia carbon tax could be considered a "fee and dividend", although there are some differences.^[11] Rather than entirely or mostly being returned as a dividend to households, 73% of the carbon tax is used to reduce corporate and small business taxes. Unlike most governments, British Columbia's electricity portfolio largely consists of hydroelectric power and their energy costs, even with the tax, are lower than most countries.^[12][13]

4. Political Support

Carbon Fee and Dividend is the preferred climate solution of Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL).^[15] Citizens' Climate Lobby argues that a fee-and-dividend policy will be easier to adopt and adjust than relatively complicated cap-and-trade or regulatory approaches, enabling a smooth, economically-positive transition to a low-carbon energy economy.^[16] James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has frequently promoted awareness of Carbon Fee and Dividend through his writings ^[17][18] and frequent public appearances, as well as his position at Columbia University.^[19]

Inspired by the market-friendly structure of Carbon Fee and Dividend, Republican Congressman Bob Inglis introduced H.R. 2380 (the 'Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act of 2009')^[20][21] in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 13, 2009. Congressman Inglis considers Carbon Fee and Dividend to be a solution with great potential appeal for conservatives;^[22] concerned about energy infrastructure as an issue of national security, he supports Fee and Dividend as the a reliable means of reducing dependence on foreign oil.^[23]

Another bill partly inspired by the Fee and Dividend structure was introduced by Democratic Congressman John B. Larson on July 16, 2015.^[24] H.R. 3104, or the “America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2015" includes a steadily rising price on carbon but uses some revenue for job retraining, and returns the remainder of revenue via a payroll tax cut rather than direct dividend payments.

On September 1, 2016 the California Assembly Joint Resolution 43, "Williams. Greenhouse gases: climate change", was filed, having passed both houses.^[25] The measure urges the United States Congress to enact a tax on carbon-based fossil fuels. The proposal is revenue-neutral, with all money collected going to the bottom 2/3 of American households. It may have difficulty passing in Congress because it would be considered a tax, but if households were to receive an equal share in the form of a dividend then the legislation should properly class as a carbon fee. Thus California's recommendation for national legislation is perhaps close to being acceptable to Congress.