Challenging the Fact-Free Narrative on RGGI

The states still in the Regional Greenhous Gas Initiative. Lawsuits are pending to add Virginia and Pennsylvania.

By Steve Haner

The numerous falsehoods in a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch story about the carbon tax so loved by Virginia Democrats start right with the headline.  It states that Virginia’s decision to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative “is costing millions.”

The figure of $150 million per year is then mentioned, apparently simply quoting the Democratic legislators who held a news conference May 21 to pledge their continued fealty to the program. They had sought to order Virginia back into RGGI with a budget provision, which they then agreed to drop in the final compromise.

The $150 million amount they mentioned is blatantly false, far too small.  Were Virginia still part of the 11-state cap and trade compact, RGGI would be costing utility ratepayers as much as $350 million per year, based on the most recent carbon tax amount in the first 2024 RGGI allowance auction.

So, the decision to stay out is not “costing” money but will actually save utility ratepayers as much as $700 million over 2024 and 2025.  Dominion Energy Virginia was the largest Virginia buyer of RGGI carbon allowances under the regulatory regime, and it has been passing along those costs directly to customers on all its monthly bills.

This was the second time in days that the capital city newspaper gave Democrats access to its front page to complain about Governor Glenn Youngkin’s opposition to the carbon tax regulation, and to claim he broke the law in repealing it.  The May 18 story is just as fuzzy about who actually pays the carbon tax.

Two one-sided, fact-challenged stories with little effort to seek balance in three days is media bias, pure and simple.  A failure to state clearly that electricity customers provide all the money “received” by the state treasury rises to the level of fake news.

Both use the exact same phrase on that, reporting “(Governor) Youngkin said returning to RGGI would amount to an additional $500 million tax on Virginians’ electricity bills as utilities pass on the costs to customers.”  Would amount to?  It clearly is a tax on carbon-based fuels, no different than other state taxes on gasoline or alcohol. Use more, pay more.

There is a hidden agenda to this virtue signal theater.  A Virginia circuit court still has a lawsuit before it that seeks to reverse the decision to repeal RGGI.  That Democrats who pushed hard to reimpose RGGI by legislation, and failed, should tell a judge that the governance process is working as it should.

Similarly, the Democrats had every chance to use tax dollars from other sources to fund the projects that previously used RGGI tax proceeds.  They didn’t.  They did not even offer budget amendments to try.  This should all now become arguments for immediate dismissal of the lawsuit.

Democrats were quoted is the second story with another glaring falsehood, arguing that Virginia needs to remain in RGGI because it is “a permanent solution.”  The whole point of RGGI, and the more onerous Virginia Clean Economy Act, is to eventually end the use of coal and natural gas in power plants.  As they go away, the RGGI money must disappear.

Or perhaps that was the Democrats admitting they finally understand we will continue using those fuel sources long beyond the artificial deadlines they have imposed for ending them. Then the RGGI tax dollars could become permanent, as is the case with most new taxes.

Another whopper: “Environmental groups say power plants’ payments to RGGI are a potent incentive to power plants to cut carbon emissions, which in turn slows climate change.”  Since they just pass the cost along directly to customers, there is no pressure on the power companies.  What they can also do is buy carbon-based power from non-RGGI states, simply moving the carbon emissions around.

To claim RGGI “in turn slows climate change” is ridiculous in a world where energy production from coal and natural gas is exploding outside of the United States.  One new Chinese coal plant adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than a year of RGGI regulations will ever remove, and they are building far more than one.

CO2 concentration will not go down in our lifetimes.  It will only rise.  Four more decades of failed promises and political games on top of the last four decades of futility will not change that.  A rapid move to nuclear power might, might bend the curve.

The Democrats had one and possibly two paths to getting their budget language on RGGI adopted.  The choices they made kept it from happening. One path previously outlined was to accept many, perhaps most, of Youngkin’s long list of budget amendments but to reject his amendment on RGGI.   Would he still have vetoed the entire budget just over that? Doubtful.

Then, during the budget negotiations, a question came to me.  Who called is not important.  The question was: what if the RGGI set-up was amended so the carbon tax revenue was returned right back to ratepayers?  The utilities would still have the cap and trade rules in place, with less and less carbon fuel allowed over time, but the allowance costs imposed on ratepayers would be reimbursed.

The answer was, sure, that would really help.  That is exactly what former Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) proposed to do years ago when he first pushed to join the RGGI compact. It wasn’t until 2020 that the Democrats turned RGGI into a direct carbon tax funding specific programs.

But if that question came because there was a serious proposal along those lines, it never went anywhere.  And the reason is obvious.  The whole point of the RGGI scheme is to 1) raise a bunch of tax dollars that 2) Democrats can spend on constituency groups who vote for them.  Without the revenue, RGGI is even more obviously just a waste of time.

This policy win will be a highlight of Youngkin’s term, and if Republicans do not attack Democrats for this carbon tax scheme (and the rest of their unpopular anti-consumer green agenda), then they are missing their best opportunity for electoral victory in 2025.  This is a big fat tax that Abigail Spanberger will impose in a New York minute.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “Challenging the Fact-Free Narrative on RGGI”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    FYI, that lawsuit in Floyd County has been stalled because the original judge recused himself for some reason. I do not have access to the documents that might explain why. Another judge has taken over, but the change is likely to just delay things. No matter who gets a favorable ruling at that level, an appeal is likely.
    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/floyd-judge-ponders-order-to-return-rggi-tax/

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Didn’t cap and trade work well for acid rain?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Yes, but that didn’t involve backward states.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I actually thought cap & trade came from a conservative think tank, no?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I actually thought cap & trade came from a conservative think tank, no?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Cap and trade doesn’t require this tax. They were not selling SOx and NOx “allowances” to reap big bucks for state treasuries. You could do a CO2 cap and trade without the tax.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Cap and trade doesn’t require this tax. They were not selling SOx and NOx “allowances” to reap big bucks for state treasuries. You could do a CO2 cap and trade without the tax.

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Cap and trade doesn’t require this tax. They were not selling SOx and NOx “allowances” to reap big bucks for state treasuries. You could do a CO2 cap and trade without the tax.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the prior cap & trade did not work that way?

        4. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Depends on time. Before implementing? Or, after success?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Again, no associated tax, no “buying of allowances” feeding $$ into the public trough. Search all my posts and comments on this blog and you won’t find one complaint about the idea of using cap and trade mechanisms to reduce this or that fairly. The tax is what they are really after. In all the states over all the years, $7.55 billion total collected. They brag about it on the top of their website! It is about the money.

      If this was a pure cap and trade deal, Dominion would generate its own carbon allowances by reducing its fuel use, just like it generates renewable energy credits. It could then sell those to other power companies that needed them, and the proceeds would benefit Dominion ratepayers. Gee, why didn’t we do that? This is pure green grease, baby.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So I see this:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05d9a7c0915d9e1e304a81526caf6678baaf3302c80d03a74e421951fe5a51ae.png

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ab488092d2cf0bd5b1fe4c3802be2f7b672deaf70665e905003a358f3306b5bd.png

        I think this amounts to about $8 a month for average electricity user.

        I’d bet if you put this number in a poll, most of the majority who say they are concerned about the issue would be okay with it.

        The folks who would not are the folks already opposed and many of them are probably climate deniers to start with.

        Bottom line, the people who are concerned about climate will likely not find this level of tax unacceptable at all.

        And if the tax itself is dedicated only to specific things – like grid updating and flood mitigating – it would function like any other dedicated tax.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Who called is not important.”

    Which means it is…

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      yep!

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        If the Floyd County judge asks me, I’ll tell him! But the next election will settle this before the courts ever resolve it.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        If the Floyd County judge asks me, I’ll tell him! But the next election will settle this before the courts ever resolve it.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Works if you substitute “General Assembly” too.

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    RGGI and schemes like it are nothing more than a Trojan Horse hiding an extreme environmental ideology. The costs of the unintended consequences of pursuing anti-fossil fuel and emission suppression policies are never made explicit.
    The fact is that the US is one of the leading nations in reducing emissions and innovation in new energy technologies. However, as long as China, India, and developing nations are consuming coal, emissions are going to continue to rise.
    Actions to address climate change will always be more costly as long as they are tied to apocalyptic scenarios and ignore the plight of people in developing countries. A longer and more objective time perspective would serve the world much better than the arrogance of what is now being pursued domestically and globally.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      There is no climate crisis. There is very little actual climate change. Easy to defeat the imaginary, isn’t it?

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        It is not easy. The environmental apocolyptics are winning.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” The whole point of the RGGI scheme is to 1) raise a bunch of tax dollars that 2) Democrats can spend on constituency groups who vote for them. Without the revenue, RGGI is even more obviously just a waste of time.”

    talk about “spinning”.

    It’s as if the money can’t be dedicated for only certain things… like the gas tax is. If you believe Haner and company, taxes are collected by the Dems to redistribute to those that vote for them.

    talk about boogeyman politics!

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It can also work the other way with tax breaks for favored groups. Republicans do it that way. 😉

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It can also work the other way with tax breaks for favored groups. Republicans do it that way. 😉

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        It can also work just like the gas tax does for transportation or the tax collected to remediate fuel storage tanks or the tax collected for proper disposal of tires.

        Ya’ll just can’t seem to resist demonizing….even when it’s obvious there are dedicated taxes that do not “benefit favored groups” or get distributed to voters…

        just total bunk!

  6. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Discontinue allowing screen names and the trolls will crawl back into their caves.

Leave a Reply