A tax on carbon fuel would make more sense still. Polluters should pay for their pollution rather than foisting their externalities on others.

Except, how do you get to choose what type of power you buy? What if I live back east and would happily pay for wind or solar but my only option is coal or natural gas?

In many states back east (at leas Massachusetts and New Hampshire), you can choose who is your energy supplier, as the distributor and provider are separate items on the bill. There are several "green energy" suppliers vying for your business.

This is great but has the unfortunate side-effect of some energy suppliers telemarketing to try to get you to switch to their "lower rates", which inevitably increase again after a few months.

So check the system in your state, you may be pleasantly surprised.

The same way you've chosen to live in a (cheaper) house without all the earthquake resistance requirements.

Part of the decision-making basket you evaluate in deciding to live somewhere includes the cost of energy with the cost of its externalities.

As toss1 mentioned, some states let you choose your supplier.

Another way to do it is to tax it when the utility buys it. This moves the math around for where they source power from.

Solar is not pollution free.

And with emission tax this would be correctly reflected in price of solar as well.

Exactly. The energy required to manufacture, transport, install and maintain it would all be taxed.

Yeah because who cares about those poor people who need electric to live, right?

Most people don't realize that if you tax the externalities, that is basically a regressive tax on the poor.

That's why basically every carbon tax scheme ever proposed involves remitting the revenue back to people on a per capita basis.

Remitting on a per capita basis doesn't change the regressive nature. You can only fix the regressive nature if you return it based on income. And even then, the poorest people don't have the float necessary to pay for the bill now and get a tax refund later.

There seems to be some confusion.

Wealthy people typically have a larger carbon footprint than those who aren't well off. Think flights, buying a car more frequently, etc.

If everyone has the same carbon footprint, the tax is strictly neutral. If people have different footprints, money flows from polluters to non-polluters.

The tax not being regressive was already addressed, so I'll note that there's no need for float. The remit can be built into the energy bill.