Ethically this strategy is questionable because a flat tax above the designated load would disproportionally affect those people with lower income. Determining how much energy allotment each household or business received would be the primary factor with this. This cap could be established using a combination of relative household income (be that on a geographic average or using actual data), and the number of occupants in a household (understanding that dependents would be counted differently than independent adults). However, issues that are faced by those with lower income are exacerbated by factors in their homes such as poor insulation that can lead to drafts, and thus higher heating bills. Additionally, you then would have to find a way to determine how much energy is allowed during each season for different regions of the country. Businesses could work on a sliding scale, the local mom-and-pop shop would not pay the same overages as an Amazon warehouse, for example. The list of externalities to energy production is extensive, and while there isn’t a direct path to abate all of them, one key tool to doing so is ensuring the funds are available. Using the additional funds generated by this plan, we can begin to invest in projects that benefit the consumer on a fundamental level (Reference 2). Better, more reliable distribution, availability of grants for higher efficiency furnaces, replacing windows in homes, and even employ energy auditors to visit homes and industry to identify places for improvement (Reference 3). The funds could also in part be delegated to environmental justice groups who advocate for those living next to the coal plant, or the oil field, or those affected by contaminated drinking water due to hydraulic fracturing. Too often the excuse is made that the funds just aren’t available, when in reality, they are.>