College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 09:04:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Topic 6 and price/quantity based incentives  (Read 3286 times)
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« on: June 03, 2012, 10:17:10 PM »

I am hopeful that the committee will leave price and quantity based restrictions in Topic 6 tomorrow morning. The wording paper that advocates price/quantity based incentives articulated several reasons that these would be good:

1. These are the primary mechanisms that states (especially states in Europe) use to promote renewable energy markets. Given that this is one of the 2 ballot options that includes renewable energy (rather than solar wind), it seems would should keep this option alive.

2. There are numerous articles cited in that wording paper that cite these renewable markets as being essential debates taking place in the literature over renewable energy markets. It's worth noting that this ballot option is the only one that makes RPS topical - given the number of states that have already adopted RPS and the sheer volume of lit discussing it, it seems ludicrous to me that we would not have a single ballot option that would include it. This is what would happen if these incentive mechanisms were eliminated.

3. "price-based, quantity-based, and/or financial incentives" was advocated in this wording paper under the assumption that "financial incentives" only means loan guarantees. If the committee has determined that "financial incentives" means much more than loan guarantees and, therefore, the  topic will be far too broad with all of these mechanisms, then simply substitute "loan guarantees" in place of "financial incentives." This was clearly the intent of the wording paper.

Separately, I would conclude by saying "let the people choose." We already have a ton of limited topics on the ballot. Fear of this particular option being expansive seems especially unfounded given that the wording paper lays out arguments in the literature for why this segment of renewables would only provide about 5 major affs for renewable market creation. This is especially true in light of #3 above.

Thanks for reading.
Logged
cramhelwich
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 67


« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 10:36:16 PM »

I agree with Adam--there are plenty of narrow options on the ballot, and I see little downside to giving the voters two broader options.

dch
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!