Something Peter Lang wrote triggered this thought.
If a company receives an emission bill in which electricity is part
of the amount, why should not that company ask the government to
specify what proportion of the electricity they used comes from which
power station ?
After all the emissions from each power station will be different.
Until the government supplies the answer do not pay the bill.

The weights and measures laws require anyone demanding payment on
quantities to use calibrated and certified measuring equipment to
support their demand for payment.
Unless the government can support their demand with such evidence
then the demand is illegal.

Bazz,

That is an excellent point. That very topic is being discussed on Jenifer Marohasy’s web site right now. Perhaps you could post that same point there too. It would be appreciated.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/legal-challenge-to-mandated-renewable-energy-in-the-eu/?cp=all

To clarify my position I think the compliance problem will be with net emissions which will be gross emissions minus allowed offsets. The problem being that many offsets are inflated, temporary or misconceived. Thus the carbon penalty that should apply to say 10 tonnes of CO2 will in practice apply to 5 or 6 tonnes through evasion... claiming worthless offsets.

This is akin to a footy umpire consistently awarding free kicks to one side. The actions of the government don't inspire confidence. For example they have given $1bn to Victorian brown coal generators for loss of asset value. We have been talking about carbon taxes for a decade so this should have already been factored into asset values. The government is playing Santa by dishing out freebies left, right and centre. I agree with the principle of carbon pricing but not unless it is done in a thorough and uncompromising way.

Taswegian,

Thank you for your thought provoking points. I agree with much of what you say. Without detailing our points of agreement, I’ll take you up on two points you believe but I am not persuaded are correct.

You say: “To clarify my position I think the compliance problem will be with net emissions which will be gross emissions minus allowed offsets.”

But, to calculate net emissions we must measure both gross emissions and allowable offsets accurately and precisely. There is no possibility of doing either, IMO.

Possibly our main point of disagreement is that I am not persuaded “the principle of CO2 pricing” is sound policy. Here are my reasons:

1. For CO2 pricing to work the whole world, or at least initially all the major emitters, have to implement it in unison. And it has to be economically efficient. That is virtually impossible.

2. CO2 pricing should be based on consumption of embodied emissions, not production. But that is virtually impossible.

3. Most of the growth in emissions will come from the developing countries, but they will not implement CO2 pricing. They cannot implement it. Can you imagine countries like Eretria, Mogadishu and Somalia implementing a CO2 pricing regime? It’s not going to happen, IMO. We can’t even do it in USA, EU or Australia (see my comment @4:32 pm).

4. I am not persuaded that economists are correct that pricing CO2 is the least cost way to reduce emissions. I suspect they are wrong because they do not allow for the fact that we are not removing the massive distortions of the energy market - distortions we've imposed by regulation over many decades. In fact, we are implementing more distortions, such as the RET and the $10 billion renewable energy Greens' slush fund. The ETS cannot operate efficiently and cannot produce least cost emissions reductions while the least cost alternatives are prevented from operating freely in the market.

5. Lastly, and most important of all, the benefit versus the cost of CO2 pricing. I’ve reached my posting limit for today, so I’ll post on this tomorrow.

Peter,
The companies that will be subject to the tax already have a substantial reporting system, in case you aren't aware. It's all available here: How the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory works:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions/how-gas-inventory-works.aspx

So the systems are all in place. If you aren't liable for the carbon price then there is a 'null' reporting requirement, so that scare tactic about the EPA is rather insipid. Indeed, there are already a number of carbon markets already operating, albeit with similar problems to any share market)

The Carbon Farming Initiative is an opt in scheme and for approved projects only, it's already administered by the Clean Energy Regulator.

I think that your expectations are slightly exaggerated.

Here's Christopher Monckton reporting on similar events in the UK:

'When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.

'There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.

'Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”

'They still haven’t done the calculations – or, rather, I suspect they have done them but have kept the results very quiet indeed.'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/huhne-is-no-loss/