宪法人之图像,系以“兼具生态理性与经济理性”人之图像,以彰显“永续发展”之国家目标。能源税最主要的宪法界限在于绞杀税之禁止、寓禁于征之禁止,以及不得逾越比例原则。环境公课主要指规费、受益费及特别公课,虽与环境税同样具诱导管制目的,唯因其有对待给付,宪法上要求权限划分和基本权自与环境税不同。能源税宪法上的实质正当性,须有助于权衡诱导管制目的与量能原则,而在确保人性尊严之生存基准取得实质正当性。能源税制定首先须确立为中央税或地方税;若为中央税,立法之初宜予地方参与之权,其税捐收入宜予地方充分之保障。能源税之差别待遇,其节能减碳与手段间是否具实质关联,须具体判断,而不能以抽象之双重红利正当化。能源税如过苛致职业无法永续经营,有违职业自由。从财产权保障观点,亦要求课征能源税后,使企业仍得永续经营。 The image of the constitutional people is based on the image of people with both “ecological rationality and economic rationality” to demonstrate the national goal of “sustainable development.” The main constitutional limits on energy taxes lie in the prohibition of stranglehold taxes, the ban on imposition of permits, and the principle of not exceeding the percentage. Environmental class mainly refers to the regulatory fees, benefits and special lectures, though with the same environmental tax with the purpose of inducing control, only because they have to pay, the Constitution requires the division of powers and the fundamental rights and the environmental tax from different. The substantive legitimacy of the energy tax constitution should be weighed against the principle of inducing control and the principle of quantity and energy, and should be substantively justified in ensuring a living basis for human dignity. Energy tax must first be established as the central tax or local tax; if the central tax, the beginning of legislation should be given the right to local participation, the tax revenue should be fully protected by the place. Differentiation of energy taxes, energy conservation and carbon reduction and the means of whether there is a substantive correlation between the need to be specific judgments, and can not be justified by the double bonus of abstraction. If the energy tax is too harsh, a job can not be managed on a sustainable basis, which is against professional freedom. From the viewpoint of property rights protection, it also requires that after the energy tax is levied, the enterprises should still be allowed to continue their business.