Key word silly: "Estimates".

As for the list of "polluters" examine MacQuarie Generation and consider these facts:

1 Annual net profit: ~ $180 million

2 CO2 emission ESTIMATE for 2010-2011, in tonnes, 20524177

3 % of NSW electricity supplied by MacGen, 40-45%

4 Price of CO2 per tonne, $23

5 Annual tax liability of Macgen, $472 million.

6 Tax credit availiability to MacGen if it closes it's doors, $472 million.

I suppose you've got your supply of candles in silly.

The more I learn about this the sillier it gets. (pun intended).
If the tax on a company is calculated on their electricity consumption
then unless the govt knows how much alternative supply such as wind was
part of the KWH used then the tax is in fact fraudulent.

If it was me that got the bill I would write back and ask how much
wind energy was in the period involved.
I would hazard a guess that they would not have a clue.
That being the case all wind generators must be shut down.
If that was refused I would lay a complaint with the fraud squad.

Why should I be taxed on something I did not generate ?

Bazza, valuable insights; this one needs qualifying:

"If it was me that got the bill I would write back and ask how much
wind energy was in the period involved.
I would hazard a guess that they would not have a clue."

I reckon they do have a clue and the answer is ziltch; and they don't want that known.

Bazz and Cohenhite,

A further clarification: we do know precisely how much energy comes from each generating plant at any point in time. The information is available on the AEMO site. However, what we don't know is how much CO2 was emitted. We can estimate crudely, as SillyFilly has pointed out using assumptions and factors such as provided by DCCEE, but the estimate is crude. My point is that that will not be good enough in the future.

What level of precision and accuracy will ultimately be required for measuring CO2-eq emissions? Will we need to measure all emissions caused by man to a level of precision of 1 t? If not what level will be required? And to what level of accuracy, e.g. +/- 1%, 5%, 10%? At 10% accuracy the total amount readily available for fraud would be 10% of 600 Mt/a @ $50/t = $3 billion per year.

I am influenced by recollection of past inquiries into petrol distribution. Petrol station owners and consumer groups were concerned they were being ‘ripped off’. For example, there was concern that the petrol delivered at the bowser was less dense (and therefore contained less energy per litre) than when it was loaded into the petrol tanker because it would warm up along the way. So people reckoned they were getting less than they were paying for. There were many inquiries over the years.

This suggests people will become concerned about the accuracy of measuring CO2-eq emissions once trading is underway. That implies we will be forever having to tighten the regulations on emissions monitoring. That suggests ever increasing cost of compliance at a rate well above inflation.

It strains credulity to believe some sources will have to participate in emissions trading while other sources of emissions will not. We can foresee the fuss if that situation is allowed. “Why me, but not him?” Eventually, emissions measurement and reporting will have to apply to all sources. How can this be done sufficiently accurately from all emissions sources? What will be the total compliance cost ultimately?

Sillyfilly said;
Total greenhouse emissions are calculated by summing the emissions of
each fuel type and each greenhouse gas"

This statement is a nonsense. How does it relate to the electricity
delivered to an individual organisation that has to pay the tax ?
How does the tax get adjusted for time of day, when wind or solar
may be a larger percentage of the supply ?

Coal supplied to power stations is measured by conveyor belt weighers.
These weighers are seldom better than 2% accurate because of the
dynamics of the system. Another way in which the coal is weighed is
by weighing each wagon on a weighbridge if the coal is delivered by
rail. This would be more accurate than conveyor belt weighers but
there is plenty of room for discrepancies.

However the thermal value of the coal varies continuously depending
where it is dug in the mine or which mine.
There are just too many process steps between the fuel and the meter
on the customers premises to achieve any sensible relationship.

As a result any tax charge calculated on the coal sample emission
would have no validity.

The government says that its $23 per tonne tax raises $9,000 million in the first year. That means it applies to 390 million tonnes of CO2
• The remaining 160 million tonnes are not yet covered but if the tax is to be comprehensive they must somehow be caught.

In addition we have the Renewable Energy Target under which 20 per cent of electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020. Twenty per cent is defined as 45,000 Megawatt hours. Wind is the cheapest eligible renewable. Assuming it were to cover all of the 45,0000 (and some will be reserved for the even more inefficient solar), this means a premium of $50 over the (carbon tax inclusive) coal alternative. This adds a further $2250 million by 2020.

Then there are direct disbursements from the budget that are not part of the taxation stream. This includes the Department of Energy’s R&D funds $730 million last year plus the funding of carbon restraining programs through other government departments CSIRO, BoM etc.

So the aggregate cost can be put at, say, $12-13 billion a year, escalated by the tax rate necessary to bring about the targeted reduction in emissions.

On top of all this there are regulatory measures like the 6 star requirement on housing.
One problem in estimating the costs is that they cannot simply be calculated by determining the tax rate and then multiplying this by the carbon dioxide tonnage. The tonnage has to fall by 2050 from present per capita levels of around 22 tonnes to a world average of 4 tonnes. Even at $150 per tonne (and the various modellers in Treasury and its consultants have higher numbers than this buried in their tables). Unlike conventional taxes the carbon tax is designed to depress production not to raise revenue.

The revenue raised by a tax even at $200 per tonne would, if the goal of approximately 100 million tonnes were to be met, would be only $20 billion. And according to Treasury, we will be little worse off by trashing the use of our most productive industries.