"Let's be clear about one fact regarding carbon taxes on electricity, it's not the 'dirty polluter paying the tax', it's us, the consumers of electricity that will pay the carbon tax."

Dick, the devil is in the details. When the tax is revenue-neutral, it's the fuel used to generate it that's being taxed, not the electricity. That means utilities have to ask for rate increases to cover the tax, and that means citizens get involved. They go to PUC hearings and say, "Why can't XYZ Amalgamated Power user cleaner sources? I don't want to pay more for their pollution!". With commissioners who actually care about fair prices for electricity, they might not grant rate increases on the entire cost of fuel. They might send part of the bill to XYZ, and its shareholders.

Then the shareholders get involved. They go to shareholder meetings and say, "That coal plant is putting a cap on profits, and driving the value of our stock down. We need to invest in natural gas, and maybe a little solar to make Greenpeace happy."
 

"A carbon tax will create enormous windfall profits for companies that generate electricity, at the consumers expense."

How would a fuel tax result in profits for utilities?
 

"There are much better, more effective solutions to reduce GHG's; incentivize investments in zero-emission generating resources."

Your source doesn't offer any support for the idea incentives would be more cost-effective than a carbon tax. In California, we offer incentives to build more sh#t, in the form of Return on Equity (ROE). The sh#t doesn't have to lower carbon emissions at all - it just has to cost a lot of money. Then, consumers not only have to pay for the cost of its depreciation, they have to pay for a percentage of its book value every year. The utility makes big profits, the consumer gets nothing of value in return. After it's fully depreciated, on the books it's worthless - without any equity, there is no ROE. So the utility tears it down and builds more sh#t. Rinse, repeat. It costs a lot of money, it accomplishes nothing.
 

You make it sound like there are no consumers who are dirty polluters. Ask Exxon, they will say, "Hey, climate change isn't our fault. We're just selling consumers a product that they want to buy." Ask consumers, they will say, "It's Exxon's fault! They're selling fuel that's dirty." Who do you think should pay for the cost of climate change? Saying no one should have to accept responsibility is equivalent to saying, "We should all have the right to use whatever fuel is cheapest, the environment be damned." That isn't what you believe, is it?

Great discussion - I would love to hear from someone who currently works at a utility on how this would affect them - the challenges and the opportunities. 

A couple of other thought points: 

1) Many times I think we forget about energy efficiency programs and the opportunities they present to reduce consumption.  It seems like we are always focusing on building vs reduction.  

20 How any of this is going to affect those who already struggle to pay their bills. One way or another all of this has to come out of someone's pocket; it always seems like it is the middle and lower class that get hit the hardest.