I don't understand why republicans are so against this. They continually argue that conservation only has a place if it contributes to market competition.
This is merely an apparatus that allows competition to occur by opening new markets.
It allows entrepreneurs to open new efficient companies and gives incentive to change your behaviour.
The state has indicate by vote that it finds high carbon industries to be a nuisance and so has voted to essentially penalize people who don't make their companies less of a nuisance, and reward with incentives those that do.
Its the same thing as a government policy that fines companies who violate a clean water regulation, and rewarding with grants and tax breaks a company that goes above and beyond.
Except this allows the market to regulate the fines and incentives rather than the government itself.
If anything it seems like the most capital competition friendly, low government intrusion way of incentivizing proper behaviour.
Im sure these same type of people battled the regulations that forced factories to stop dumping chemicals in residential neighbourhoods and pouring chemical smoke into the town.
I just don't see how this is tax when the government doesn't seem to be making money from it, but other independent companies are. Actually seems pro-business in that lots o smaller companies probably hire more people than one fordist operation.