RGGI Repeal Debate Rages on Comment Portal

The states currently in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative tax compact.

by Steve Haner

Virginia’s Air Pollution Control Board is continuing through the necessary steps to repeal Virginia’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional compact that imposes an allowance cost (carbon tax) on fossil fuels used in generating electricity.

During 2021 and 2022, the tax collected about half a billion dollars from power producers, most if not all of that cost passed on to customers. Almost 70 percent of the allowances for 2021 were used by Dominion Energy Virginia, which is in the process of adding that cost back to its monthly customer bills. The next allowance auction, number nine for Virginia, is March 8.

RGGI also imposes caps to slowly ramp down the maximum amount of fossil fuels allowed to big generators within the region, but other Virginia laws actually require a more rapid retirement in the state. RGGI does not prohibit or tax electricity imported from outside the member states, even if generated from fossil fuels.

It was a regulation adopted by an earlier Air Board that entered Virginia into RGGI, so a regulatory process is underway to repeal that. One requirement is a public comment period, open until March 31. So far, the comments have been dominated by supporters of the carbon tax. Today the Thomas Jefferson Institute commented in support of repeal.

If so inclined, file your own comment here.  Then see what you wrote and read what others have filed here. The Jefferson Institute comment also linked to a longer document on our website, which follows:  

2021 CO2 emissions from Virginia energy companies required to purchase RGGI carbon allowances, cited by Department of Planning and Budget.

The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy is an independent public policy organization focusing on crafting and promoting public policy solutions that advance prosperity and opportunity for all Virginians. Our goal is to ensure a Commonwealth with a thriving economy where Virginians have the opportunity to succeed because economic and regulatory barriers are low, and individuals and parents are empowered to make informed choices for themselves and their families.

The Thomas Jefferson Institute supports Virginia’s proposed withdrawal from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The program is just a carbon tax, which has cost Virginia energy generators and their customers half a billion dollars in two years with more costs to come for 2023.

The makeup of Virginia’s atmosphere has not been changed by one molecule because the state belongs to RGGI and collects this tax. It has thus had zero impact on the world’s atmosphere, which continues to see rising levels of carbon dioxide and other targeted emissions from fossil fuels. In the United States, the market was moving away from coal and other fossil fuels long before RGGI came to Virginia, but worldwide demand for coal set a record in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency.

Absent any impact on the air we breathe, or the level of greenhouse gases it contains, RGGI remains simply a tax to fund two spending programs important to large constituency groups. The beneficiaries include, and in fact may be dominated by, the government bureaucracies and private contracting entities that actually get to spend the tax dollars.

About half of the money is to be spent on public works projects to improve flood control or coastal storm resilience, addressing long standing needs in that area. The proceeds from RGGI dedicated to these purposes represent a small amount of the total program spending – state, federal and local — and the 2023 General Assembly just approved additional dollars toward those purposes from the state’s general fund. The work will continue if RGGI goes away.

The rest of the money is to be spent on various programs to improve energy efficiency or conservation in buildings, mainly in homes. Again, such programs have been supported by the taxpayers for decades and indeed the electricity ratepayers of Virginia’s two largest electric companies pay another monthly surcharge to subsidize such programs.

A body of contractors make their living doing this work and the individual recipients often do see substantially lower personal costs. But the utility-run programs have a long history of failing broader cost-benefit analyses, especially tests of any benefit to general ratepayers. There is no evidence the RGGI-funded programs are even evaluated or measured on these tests. Regardless, with billions being spent just in Virginia on new wind, solar and battery assets, claims that such programs reduce the need for new generation are without foundation.

The General Assembly likely will continue to impose that other “energy efficiency tax” on customers. One tax to subsidize those questionable activities is enough. The work will continue if RGGI goes away. The RGGI tax for that purpose is just adding insult to injury.

At some point the courts will likely be asked to rule on whether the Air Pollution Control Board, which adopted RGGI through regulatory action, has the ability to repeal it through the same grant of authority. We believe such a step is lawful. Chapter 1219 of the 2020 Acts of Assembly dictated certain elements of that regulation (overriding the normal Administrative Process Act) and directed which programs would benefit from RGGI tax proceeds, but then merely authorized the executive branch to proceed. No language indicated that this regulation, unlike others, could not be repealed later.

Thank you for this opportunity to enter these comments on your record.

First published by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

26 responses to “RGGI Repeal Debate Rages on Comment Portal”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    If value can be taxed, if electrons can be coinage, then carbon can be the commodity in a commodity-based monetary system which imposes taxes.

    Cheer up, the goal of this tax is to tax the target of the tax until it’s gone. The objective of golf is to play the least amount of golf.

    Just thought you needed ONE comment before I go justice-warring with the culture warriors on next article.

  2. What is the correct level for CO2? How is that number determined? Until we know that, this tax could go on forever as lying politicians use scare tactics to keep claiming that the end is near. We need to know what the right level is, and we need to know now before we agree to something that may be useless.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, if your goal is to have what you have, or had not more than 150 years ago, then less is better than more. You may not know the exact number, but you do know the sign.

      1. Is that a Bill Engvall routine? Or is it the new left? You will have less, pay more for it, and be happy – or else.

      1. 14% of all the manmade CO2 in the atmosphere was done in the last 10 years, yet the temperature has declined (NOAA figures). That 50 gigatons of added CO2 produced cooling, not warming. If the link between CO2 and temperature is as strong as your theory predicts, that can’t happen. How is that explained?

        CO2 cannot absorb more energy than the sun puts out. Currently, CO2 absorbs 99% of the available sunlight, with the additional 1% projected to add < .5 degree C to the average temp. Therefore we could double the current CO2 level without a large change in life on earth. Where's the crisis that justifies the panic?

        50 million years ago, CO2 levels were over 1,000 ppm and life on earth flourished. In fact, most of the Carbon in coal that produces CO2 when burned, was in the air then and was trapped in the coal when it was buried. Plant life flourishes at the higher CO2 levels and we can more easily feed ourselves with less fertilizer and man made chemicals entering the environment. Perhaps the low levels we see today are the result of plants overfeeding on their food supply (CO2) just like all animal species do. There's evolving evidence of this.

        True science is always open to discussion, yet the climate police try to silence those who question the orthodox view, just like the Covid police silence any dissenting view. We now know that the Covid police were wrong and that follolwing the advice of their experts caused great harm to our economy, children and society. The predictions of the warming believers have been proven wrong over the last 20 years. Why rush to make the same mistakes we made during Covid?

        Political science shouts down your opposition, natural science offers evidence that goes beyond 'this is the way its always been' and 'the sky is falling'.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          have you got a cite for the temperature decline? is “true science” what you believe and not most science? “Natural science”? So not really interested in what CO2 levels should be but rather what you want to believe instead? MOST “science” around the world ?

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            NOAA data and the satellite data compiled by the University of Alabama Huntsville certainly show a pause for several years, but too soon to claim a downward trend. But why believe the data when the myth is so useful?

            The comments portal has gone from about 25-1 to maybe more like 12 to 1, so progress. 🙂 I’m sure the anti’s will ramp it back up.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Larry, that chart shows EXACTLY what I was talking about. EXACTLY. Are you blind? It peaked 6-8 years ago. One eye closed. Always.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            When you look at the years AFTER The peak and compare them back to many years before?

            trend over decades?

            what do you WANT to “believe”? versus what ALL the facts do show over the last few decades.

          4. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            So what? Nobody disputes that. The statement was that in the last few years it has leveled or even started to reverse. I do see it leveled for now.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You can’t seriously not be disturbed/concerned about the trend…. it’s not the temporary declines – it’s the long term huge changes… and you rule out 100% that there is anything to be concerned about?
            doesn’t sound at all like a conservative approach!

          6. True science as opposed to fake science. Real, true science is always questioning and knows that consensus is frequently wrong.
            Natural science (the study of the natural world) as opposed to political science.
            Now could you explain how your theory explains the cooling, etc?

    2. The site JunkScience.com has an interesting chat between a climate skeptic and ChatCPT. It sounds eerily familiar somehow:

      https://junkscience.com/2023/02/chaptgpt-admits-there-has-been-no-warming-since-2015/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Steven J. Milloy is a lawyer, lobbyist, author and former Fox News commentator. Milloy is the founder and editor of junkscience.com.[1][2]

        Milloy’s career has been spent disputing the science government agencies rely on for protecting the public.[3] His close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism, as Milloy has consistently disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and the health risks of second-hand smoke.[4][5]

        Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes are false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, second-hand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease.[citation needed]

        From the 1990s until the end of 2005, Milloy was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He was an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute from 2005 to 2009.[6]

        He operated The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC)[7] established by Philip Morris Companies Inc. to counter legislation against second-hand smoke.

        Since 2020 Milloy has served on the board of the Heartland Institute.[2] As of 2013 Milloy is a Senior Policy Fellow with the Energy & Environment Legal Institute.[8]

        1. Can you provide a cite to the nonpartisan source for the cut and paste job?
          The sun doesn’t rise in the east because the person who said so is not to your liking?
          “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” – Richard Feynman

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    If imported electricity is not taxed, why not ship VA-generated electricity outstate and import an equal amount from another state?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I’m sure that’s been considered!

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      If I worked 40 hours a week I could fill my time with energy stories out of SCC cases. Not going to do this 4o hours a week, or even 20. The rate hike flows from an appeal the utility filed over its last review, an appeal it won.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        sounds much bigger than Dominion and could not understand what caused it? the price of coal/gas?

    2. William Chambliss Avatar
      William Chambliss

      This is Apco’s fuel factor case. Gas and coal costs rose dramatically since 2021 and the company had an under-recovery balance on its books and also has to pay higher prices for current purchases than it did years ago. It proposed, and the Commission accepted, to recoup the under-recovery over 2 years, reducing what would otherwise have been a $33/month increase to its average customer to “only” $20. I expect proportionately the customer impact is higher for Apco, which obtains nearly all its power from fossil generation. It has no nuclear units.

  4. Dr. Havel nos Spine' Avatar
    Dr. Havel nos Spine’

    The amount of GHG emissions at play in VA RGGI or total RGGI is microscopic compared to what really counts – total global GHG emissions. Human nature, being what it is, ensures that total GHG will continue to rise though time. The centrally planned ‘energy efficiency’ programs RGGI funds in VA are sub optimal. All VA RGGI does is makes VA poorer – while enriching a select few. The best way to deal with potential costly ‘bads’ is to address them from a position of economic strength – not $33 trillion in debt.

Leave a Reply