Another Blue State Bails on Tax-and-Cap TCI, VA Democrats Dig In to Protect Their Green Revolution

by Steve HanerFirst published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

The Governor of Connecticut has abandoned his efforts to enroll that state in the Transportation and Climate Initiative, an interstate compact which would impose a cap, tax and ration scheme on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Virginia remains a part of the planning group that developed the compact, which has now been under consideration for more than a decade but not implemented anywhere. In late 2020, Connecticut was one of four jurisdictions pledging to go forward in 2021, while Virginia remained on the sidelines.

As in Virginia, Connecticut’s participation in the compact required legislative blessing, which Governor Ned Lamont was unable to secure during 2021, even in a legislature controlled by his own party. In light of that failure, and the lack of any other signs of movement toward an agreement, Lamont announced Tuesday he would not try again in 2022. He was quoted in the Hartford Courant:

“Look, I couldn’t get that through when gas prices were at a historic low, so I think the legislature has been pretty clear that it’s going to be a pretty tough rock to push when gas prices are so high, so no,’’ Lamont said Tuesday, acknowledging that the cost of motor fuel was likely to rise under the initiative, known as TCI.

At a later appearance in East Hartford, Lamont said that gasoline prices had reached a seven-year high and there was not enough support in the legislature in 2022 — a year when both Lamont and the entire legislature are up for reelection.

The Rhode Island legislature also passed on the issue in 2021 despite its governor’s efforts. Only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia are poised to join TCI once enough states make it viable, and in Massachusetts opponents have put the issue in front of the voters in a 2022 referendum question.

Virginia Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin has made no pronouncements on TCI, which would first cap and then slowly reduce the total volume of gasoline and diesel fuels available for sale in Virginia. While they enjoyed full control of all branches of Virginia government, Democrats signed the state up for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and tax on fossil fuels used in electric power plants but failed to even introduce legislation on joining TCI.

They have now shifted to a defensive posture, promising their supporters that Democratic control of the Senate – and one key committee in particular – provides a firewall to protect various climate-fear-driven measures approved in 2020 and 2021.

Typical was a prediction made by Senator George Barker, D-Alexandria, at a meeting with the Alexandria City Council Monday, reported on Virginia Public Media outlets. He and other Democratic legislators who represent that city were asked about coming efforts to repeal or amend some of those earlier laws, efforts that now might be successful in a GOP-controlled House of Delegates.

“If the bill, a bill, does come over backing down on some of the climate change types of things from the House, and it’s certainly possible it will,” Barker says. “I think we have the ability to deal with it in the Senate and box it up and it’ll probably never get to the floor and have the bill basically defeated in the committee.”

The committee in question, Senate Commerce and Labor, has 12 Democrats and only three Republicans as voting members, and it takes only eight votes or even a tie to defeat a bill in committee.  That imbalance exists despite a 21-19 split in the body overall. Barker went on to claim that some of his Republican colleagues, when he speaks with them privately, express support for the bills which have passed.

A day later over at Virginia Mercury, an anti-fossil fuel advocate affiliated with the Sierra Club surveyed the new Virginia political landscape and was similarly encouraged, partly by the remaining Senate firewall and partly by Youngkin’s lack of specific statements on the various issues during the campaign.

Attorney Ivy Main pointed to the one candidate debate segment that touched on the issues, heartened by Youngkin’s statement he “wholly supported” the coming offshore wind project Dominion is set to build, but dismissive of his complaints about other elements of the Virginia Clean Economy Act and his advocacy of continued use of natural gas.

With Democrats still in charge of the Senate, Youngkin isn’t likely to find a RGGI or VCEA repeal on his desk. Creating an energy transition framework was one of the Democrats’ biggest successes in the past two years and protecting that success will be a party priority.

But there are many ways Republicans can undercut climate action. They might attract just enough Democratic votes with bills that, for example, grant exemptions for powerful industries that have friends among Senate Democrats. They could also use the budget process to undermine the transition by starving agencies and grant programs of funding.

The TCI idea failed in solidly Democratic Connecticut because it would clearly raise costs on every family and commodity in a time of inflation. For the same reason it has never even been pushed here in the Commonwealth. High consumer costs also result from every other aspect of Virginia’s misguided response to overblown threats of climate disaster. Making that clear is the first step toward a change in course.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

37 responses to “Another Blue State Bails on Tax-and-Cap TCI, VA Democrats Dig In to Protect Their Green Revolution”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Here’s the thing. If the new technology will allow the siting of a nuke plant on the outskirts of NoVa or Richmond – it will be a game-changer. But if it is no more safe than the 60-year old designs then there is nowhere in Virginia where you can put them except at the existing NA and Surrey sites and that’s pretty much true across the country. That’s the problem with nukes and it has almost nothing to do with”greenies”… it’s the very same people who say nukes should be used – but somewhere away from them.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      yep – it’s 4 billion for 345 megawatts. Compare that to Dominions offshore wind – 9.8 billion at 2640 megawatts.

      This is the problem with the pro nukes folks. At the core of it is ignorance, truly. A blind belief that nukes are better without paying attention to actual costs nor the comparative NIMBY between nukes, wind, solar.

      http://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/_Media/levelized-us-electric-costs_med_hr.png

      1. James Regimbal Avatar
        James Regimbal

        Terrapower plant is a demonstration plant and yes initially expensive, but with more adoption of the tech will get its costs down thru standardization. Nukes are the only reliable carbon free energy. Compare France to Germany in costs and clean energy. Nuclear is the only way. I’m all ears if you have another reliable carbon free idea.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It’s not only a demostration pilot, it’s heavy subsidized by the govt.

          Do you support subsidies for energy like wind and solar as well as Nukes?

          I’m all for Nukes – that are modern and safe, the sooner the better but right now the advocacy to “use” Nukes instead of wind/solar is either based on ignorance of the current availability of actual safe and practical (modulate) Nukes or blind allegiance to older nukes that are clearly not entirely safe and clearly most folks including those who say they support them, don’t want them near where they live.

          We need smaller, modern, safer nukes that can be sited nearer to urban centers or at least not relegated to be sited at only the few existing nuke sites.

          Again, I’m all for it. I want to see the advent of safe and practical nukes, as well as more wind/solar and the advent of cost-effective storage and a breakthrough in cracking hydrogen from water.

          And I’m not opposed to subsidies for any of them that are aimed at R&D.

          Can nukes be developed that meet the Conservative standard of being the least expensive of the choices to use? Would we rule out nukes if they cannot meet that standard, which some Conservatives assert is the correct and only standard?

          For those of us who do believe in global warming, is the lowest cost of electricity, the gold standard for approval of a technology – like nukes?

          Some/many opponents of wind/solar talk about how they don’t want wind/solar near them to mess up their scenery. Ask the same folks if they want a conventional Nuke near them – nope, far away but not go away.

          1. James Regimbal Avatar
            James Regimbal

            You’ve made all my points for me. This nuke plant is a new safer tech that will pave the way to smaller less costly plants that can be sited. The feds are helping because we need to continue developing nukes as a part of our mix of electricity. Nobody has a tech that can store wind and solar in quantities to cover when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. That’s obvious with Northern Europe right now. Do we want that future? Nothing wrong with renewables as part of the mix. Need nukes to complete the mix. This plant is a move to that future. And yes, the feds have subsidized renewables too.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Wait. Do we currently have safer, smaller, less costly nukes – right now?

            Do we have cost-effective storage right now?

            But in the former, you support govt subsidies to develop such technologies to deploy but not the latter?

            If neither of them are “ready” – and both need more R&D , wouldn’t you support BOTH getting supported and subsidized?

          3. James Regimbal Avatar
            James Regimbal

            Yes I support research and development on all clean sources of energy

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Then we do have similar views…

            If the day comes when BOTH are practical and operational – will both be in use or will one win out over the other?

            What I LIKE about the TerraPower idea is the use of molten salt as a heat exchanger.

            small world !

            https://www.man-es.com/energy-storage/solutions/energy-storage/mosas

          5. James Regimbal Avatar
            James Regimbal

            Read my June 2019 article on energy storage in the Virginia Municipal League Town and City magazine. Also, my father was one of principle inventors of the breeder reactor for GE which was nixed by Carter. I know a little about these subjects too.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            I hope you will continue to post in BR and share your knowledge AND opinion!

            I’ve been and continue to be a supporter of Nukes and ultimately think they will likely be the ultimate solution, but it’s been a long slog…..

            And we’ll KNOW when they ARE “ready” when we start to see them used on the world’s inhabited islands that currently use diesel oil for power generation.

      2. Robert Archer Avatar
        Robert Archer

        Both have their place in terms of system reliability which requires different characteristics with regard to capacity factor (how often the power plant is available). Nuclear in the U.S. has a capacity factor of 92% (2016) and offshore wind is between 40-50%. And both, for different reasons, require some subsidy.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Right and thanks for the info. But how will fossil fuels be replaced? Not with Nukes…right now, right? If natural gas continues to skyrocket in price – will it be acceptable to go back to coal like is apparently happening in Europe, Germany, England?

          How long will that continue?

          How long before we have next-generation nukes?

          Wind and solar is doeable and though there is nimby, nothing like nimby for nukes – even if we new ones…

          Let me say again. I support nukes but I’m also a pragmatist – not the lefty loons but also not the right wackadoodles who say “nuclear” and have no idea of the realities or just deny them.

          1. Robert Archer Avatar
            Robert Archer

            We are in a thirty year transition. For the short-medium term we balance least cost options with some subsidies for technologies on the path to being in the least cost mix (offshore wind, rooftop solar and some utility solar, etc.) For the medium-long term heavy R&D efforts on fourth generation nuclear, advanced batteries and other options is essential. Technology “push” or “stop” are poor policies.

            A carbon tax would be equally or more effective than most utility generation subsidies and allow reallocation of a lot of funding to other needed applications. The Clean Electricity Payment Plan plus clean energy (wind and solar) investment and production subsidies would have cost $350 billion (over 10 years) and a carbon tax would have generated $500 billion-$1 trillion depending upon the tax trajectory. This is only politically feasible if you recycle a large share of the revenue to a cashback household dividend to protect the bottom 70% of households.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            So , a tax, that is used as a credit for higher efficiency replacement equipment? or NOT? Just straight cash-back to low end?

            Keep talking! Seriously.

            Would be interested in hearing more.

            But some will say “social engineering”.

          3. Robert Archer Avatar
            Robert Archer

            A carbon tax applied “upstream” on coal, oil and gas raises the cost of fossil energy throughout the economy and particularly for utility generation options. The fixed trajectory makes it pretty clear that coal will increasingly be retired around $30-$40/ton/CO2 and natural gas likely around $50-$60/ton and replaced by wind, solar and other low carbon options–depending upon their cost/KWh. Start the tax at $15/ton and increase it at $10/ton/year and you have a predictable transition unlike now.

            Canada has a national carbon tax around $30/ton rising $10/year to $130/ton in 2030 with 90% of the revenues going back to households for equity purposes and to build a constituency to support the carbon tax over time against oil industry and conservatives efforts to reverse.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            and you have to have political support for that………… and don’t have enough yet and now going backwards…..

            maybe boils down to whether or not folks think coal/gas should be phased out – even if it means higher prices.

            I don’t see gas phasing out until something can replace it as the backup for wind/solar.

          5. Robert Archer Avatar
            Robert Archer

            Right. But very close. 49/50 Democratic Senators and silent consent of the House and Administration according to Senator Whitehouse’s press conference. One more Senator…an uphill battle, of course.

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Did you mention the record number of foreign leases to be let in the GoM by da gub’mint just after agreeing to reduce emissions?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      They don’t actually BELIEVE any of this stuff Nancy. Hence the hundreds of private jets to Glasgow, and the Obama home on the beach on the Vineyard or wherever.

      And yes, Jim, very interesting. Glad to see it. But it makes the offshore wind look cheap. Don’t tell Larry, he’ll dismiss it as 1960s technology….

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Nope. I WANT – MODERN nuke technology and i wonder why Dominion has not proffered it yet.

        This is going to happen.

        Then we’ll hear the pro-fossil fuel folks claim they supported transitioning to “clean” all along like they often do on these issues….

        If nat gas keeps going up in price, will the pro nat-gas folks sign on to “expensive” off-shore wind?

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I wasn’t clear. We ARE going to reduce OUR emissions. We will do this by using less fossil fuel… which, of course, we will sell to someone else.

        I suspect there *could be* some hope that the customer will replace dirty oil (coal, meant coal) with clean(er) oil.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Therein lies the biggest problem: How someone with a little money is to position his investment buckets to catch the dribs and drabs of the vast amounts of taxpayer dollars being tossed at those with money and and exactly who they are.

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Well, TCI would have been a problem for McAuliffe to moderate the Dems ambitions to mandate. Now looks like a no-brainer for Youngkin.
    Funny free country we live in, but people do not want to be forced to do things against their will; eg; COVID vax. That means Dems do not want to use gaso against their will, and want to be able to buy highly subsidized EVs. Repubs not so much. If it was me, I would encourage hybrids, but not force it down throats.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I remember the angst when cars went “unleaded” You woulda thought our govt had become Nazi Germany… according to some folks… It’s the same crew!

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar

        The MWCOG did a series of focus groups on climate change and transportation. The effort was weighted toward groups that may not normally participate in this type of process. A majority of people across the board believed climate change was real, that human behavior contributed to warming, and that they wanted to do things that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. But the people surveyed also noted that the cost of being green, most especially in a period of high inflation, often makes it too expensive to do the green thing.

        Raise prices; add taxes and the cost of emission credits; shut down fossil fuel operations in the United States. Sounds like a plan to me.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          The question is how much more are some willing to pay for “green” but one of the assumptions has been that gas will remain cheap and if that changes and is no longer true – it may actually cost LESS to go green.

          This is going to happen. The naysayers are going to disappear like a fart in a wind gust.

          1. tmtfairfax Avatar

            Larry, we’ve been hearing that green energy will lower costs for consumers — but just not now — for years. It’s time to deliver or to tell the truth. It’s all about appearing woke and skimming money off the top.

            Contrast competition in telecom. In the late 70s and early 80s, long distance prices started dropping. In late 90s and early 00s, prices for local service, including VoIP, and wireless service began dropping. AOL’s limited minutes disappeared in favor of unlimited access. Speeds and capacity increased. Voice services went from costly to a virtual giveaway. Remember when you had to pay ten cents a text and Y dollars for a gig of data? Cell phones went from a luxury to every ten-year-old kid has a smart phone. Cable TV bills kept rising and now cable companies are loosing market share to streaming services.

            Competition delivered in telecom. But we have alternative, non-fossil fuel energy sources. But prices for electricity keep jumping. As Walter Mondale asked “Where’s the beef”? On the path we are on, we will see fighting climate change result in the largest transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the uber rich. But at least the winners will see themselves as woke.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            No. What we’ve heard is that fossil fuels pollute can screw up clean air and health and we need to go to cleaner fuels that may cost more at first but will, as most technology advances. reduce in cost – as you well know with communications technologies.

            What we have right now is not apples to apples competition for energy. We allow dirty fuels to be cheaper by being subsidized by a polluted environment.

            remember the “WHO HA” over incandescent, then compact florescents and now LEDs… where are the naysayers now? Hiding?

            “Woke” is old news for naysayers…

            It’s gonna get blown away like a fart in a windstorm …. count on it.

          3. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            LEDs are far better than compact fluorescents, especially in cold temperatures.

            However, they do not belong in headlight assemblies designed for halogen bulbs. That’s a recipe for blinding everyone else on the road, and is in fact against Federal and state laws. Not that it’s ever enforced.

          4. tmtfairfax Avatar

            Come on, Larry. We read over and over on this blog that renewable energy will be lower priced than fossil-fuel or nuclear energy. But it never is. There are two possibilities. One, it’s a lie designed to suck people into believing that renewables will lower the cost of living. Or, two, that some people have figured out how to mark up renewables above their economic cost and sell it under government mandates. It’s time to confront the renewable crowd with put up or shut up.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            It actually is TMT. But the big hit is that it is not “dispatchable”.

            Renewables are cost-competitive to other forms of energy and if gas continues up in price, it will be no contest.

            comparing renewables to nukes is not a reasonable comparison if you can’t build more nukes because all we have operational are 60-year old designs and no one – even the “pro” folks want one next to them. I be you would not want one next to your new house either – right?

            So what do you choose? Old Design nukes far away from you?

            Finally, renewables are an evolving technology – that have not yet achieved their optimal designs.

            But you don’t even want to give them a chance to do that – at the same time you will give that chance to nukes.

            apples to apples TMT…

            I’m in favor of BOTH new-design nukes, energy storage AND renewables…

            I’m in favor of moving forward not arguing about inane culture war crap.

        2. Robert Archer Avatar
          Robert Archer

          Your last paragraph captures the problem and reflects a gap in the policy debates. The rising prices through a carbon tax can be more than offset by a monthly cashback household dividend to households with the carbon tax revenues. Carbon tax critics and advocates of subsidies/regulations and standards like to ignore the dividend policy because they think the Government will make better use by spending it.

          Canada has such a policy in place now. A lot of conservatives (true conservatives) support it. See the industry led Climate Leadership Council approach to carbon dividends at
          https://clcouncil.org/

      2. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        I imagine some were quite pissed to find out that the check engine light came on after the catalytic converter deletion modification.

      3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Not true from my perspective. Industry realized lead(Pb) had to go, and might have pushed for a lower allowable level of lead, but even low levels of lead was poison for the cat converters. Therefore lead had to go for multiple reasons. And don’t forget, the first function of a refinery is to increase octane, so that was “easy” (but probably a massive multi-year investment needed to comply).

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          not really an “industry” thing – more revisionist history here;

          Effective January 1, 1996, leaded gasoline was banned by the Clean Air Act for use in new vehicles other than aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines.

          We do these laws, the deed is done, and then later the story is that “industry” made the change.

          nope.

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    The fate of TCI in Connecticut should be an important lesson the Commonwealth. Actions that raise energy costs have always produced a backlash. And, it is unnecessary. As MPGs have increased, ghg emissions from tailpipes have gone down. With a new governor, there is an opportunity to reexamine prior climate policies in the cold light of what makes sense as well as being cost-effective.

Leave a Reply