Support Governor Youngkin’s RGGI Repeal 

by Colin M. Kelly

I can only laugh at the headlines and statements being made by the media and climate alarmists about Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s efforts to pull Virginia out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

The headline “Returning Millions to Virginia” really grates: The state takes money out of the consumer’s pocket with the RGGI tax, divides it up among cronies and supporters by issuing contracts for various studies, and then somehow claims a victory for the consumer! I guess the politicians assume you and I don’t need the money.

In the two years since former Gov. Ralph Northam implemented this tax, the state has collected over $500 million from consumers via this back-door tax embedded in our electric bills. Can you imagine the outrage if Dominion Energy had over-collected that much!

Further, the claims of reducing health costs and helping to weatherize homes are simply ridiculous. “Come on man,” I’ve been hearing these claims since the oil embargoes of the 1970’s. I would bet my dog that if you added up all the deaths supposedly avoided thanks to proposed government regulations over the last 50 years, the average John/Jane Doe’s lifespan would be 110. But sadly we are the only Western country with a declining life expectancy.

If our elected officials believe the projects to be funded by the RGGI tax have merit, then they should be funded through the state’s General Fund. However, the 5% overhead charge by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to manage RGGI is clearly outrageous.

I propose a straightforward solution to end these so-called “feel good” taxes (like RGGI) or legislation (like the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard or RPS).

Simply ask three questions:

1) How much will the global temperature be reduced by these taxes/laws?

2) How much will the water levels in the Chesapeake Bay be reduced by these taxes/laws? and

3) When will these reductions happen?

For too long these simple questions have been ignored and pushed aside by the climate alarmists and elitists who claim, “It’s too complex,” “it’s not that simple,” or (in their grand fallback position) “we must do something to save the world.” Honestly, I would be shocked if the climate alarmists would respond with anything in writing.

In my mind, if the state is collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in RGGI taxes each year and has created an RPS mandate that could double our electric rates, then I believe the “end results” must be quantified and tracked to measure any success or failure.

Better yet, just let the consumers keep their money in their own pockets and please support Governor Youngkin’s efforts to repeal RGGI.

Colin M. Kelly, PE, is an engineer in Norfolk.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

17 responses to “Support Governor Youngkin’s RGGI Repeal ”

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    Looks like the RGGI reversal is dead for this session of the General Assembly ….

    https://www.virginiamercury.com/2023/01/24/senate-bill-to-withdraw-virginia-from-carbon-cap-program-voted-down/

    And you are absolutely right about the “back door” manner in which this tax is collected.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The effort to repeal is proceeding in the regulatory arena and will probably end up in front of a court for final resolution. With the Dems in lockstep, passing a bill was never an option so not sure why they tried.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        not the only bill…. virtue signaling?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Another phrase for it: “brochure bill.” 🙂

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            “this is what we’re gonna do if we can win the Va Senate” bill……

  2. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    RGGI is just another way to adopt California regulatory requirements. Those who want that should move there and not try to force the rest of us to be like Californians. When it comes to energy and its use, California is hardly a model unless you are wealthy. The middle class and poor get shafted while listening to soothing rhetoric.

  3. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    I spoke on the record in the General Assembly against it. Not sure what else I can do. I provide materials.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    As you probably well understand, the primary purpose of the RGGI tax is not to promote energy efficiency in lower income homes and to fund flood mitigation projects. It is a carbon tax, intended to reduce the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. The state could have just deposited the revenues into the general fund. Instead, it chose to use those revenues to foster a reduction in the use of energy and to fund flood mitigation projects.

    Also, as you well know, this program will likely not contribute to a decrease in global temperatures nor reduce the water levels of the Chesapeake Bay. At this point, all we as a society can hope to do is mitigate any further increases. For many years, conservatives advocated using tax policy, rather than regulations, to decrease the use of carbon. Now that state governments are actually doing that, conservatives suddenly don’t like that approach.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      The author’s points are well taken. A back door tax collecting a quarter billion dollars per year where nobody can say anything quantitative about the results is a bad idea.

      And the best flood mitigation plan is to stop building in areas prone or likely to flood. Where is our vaunted government with that plan?

    2. At this point, all we as a society can hope to do is mitigate any further increases.

      Okay. Then we should ask: To what degree will these taxes mitigate further increases in global temperatures and sea levels?

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Last sentence, conservatives always wanted RGGI-style programs, really?
      RGGI is not really carbon tax, it is cap and trade, more what liberals like to mandate upon us, right?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73771344d0142800a0b79da5350b2bf8402ca9033824d4fc3a4d78c4aa88a029.jpg

        In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, noted MIT economics professor Richard Schmalensee and Harvard Kennedy School government professor Robert Stavins.

        In 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap and trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain, they wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed in 2010.

        https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/may/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz/cap-and-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Did it without any tax. The tax is just to raise $$$,

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Both RGGI and the Virginia Clean Economy Act involve dictates to the utilities to reduce fossil fuel emissions. The VCEA dictates are far stronger. RGGI is a) fully redundant and b) weaker. From day one, the companies had met the RGGI obligations on emissions easy peazy. Offer me a deal to repeal VCEA and keep RGGI and I’ll take that in a New York (or California) Minute. Even with the tax, because the VCEA compliance costs also dwarf the RGGI tax.

    News flash, Dominion is now seeking to return the RGGI direct tax to an adder on the bills.. Bigger than before. They are publicly claiming their new regulation scramble bill will remove some RACS to save money, while quietly pushing to put this one back. One of the flood of energy stories I haven’t gotten to…

  6. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    When Dominion and Charlottesville’s green aristocracy team up and say jump, a majority in the GA only ask how high. They know where their Air Jordan’s come from.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Correct no need to understand the 10000-page law before passed…TMac essentially said this when he was Gov too

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

    If emitting CO2 is a global external bad, it must be dealt with at the global level. Nations, regions, states or localities that attempt to solve the problem unilaterally won’t change future climate outcomes – they will just make themselves poorer.

Leave a Reply