by Steve Haner

Virginia has collected its first wave of carbon taxes from the state’s electricity generators, costs which will eventually show up on future bills. The $43.6 million take just about doubles the revenue estimates used when participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was being approved by the Virginia General Assembly last year. Surprise!  

You wouldn’t know this is a new carbon tax from coverage in The Virginia Mercury, which cites a press release from the RGGI organization. What the electricity generators are buying is an allowance, in effect a state-granted license to emit a ton of CO2. The words “proceeds” or “revenue” get used by the Mercury and RGGI, but never “tax.” But the cash flows directly to the state, which will spend it as directed by the General Assembly.

Which Virginia firms used this recent auction to buy permission to use coal or natural gas were not listed in detail, but the largest is likely Dominion Energy Virginia. Now that Dominion needs such allowances to operate its plants, the State Corporation Commission can move forward and decide how much will be added to customer bills later this year to pass along the carbon tax.

Late in 2020, Dominion proposed about a 2% increase in residential electricity costs to cover RGGI. But those estimates seem to be based on lower auction clearing prices than the $7.60 per ton of emitted carbon dioxide just paid. If that price holds through the other three RGGI auctions this year and the expected total 28 million allowances are sold, the state’s annual revenue could exceed $212 million and Dominion’s add-on charge go even higher.

The carbon price (tax) could of course go higher than $7.60 in future auctions, and likely will because the amount of CO2 allowances for sale will continually shrink. That’s the point – shrinking CO2. It is a regional auction among about a dozen states, with bidders in other states able to buy Virginia allowances and vice versa. Buyers who don’t actually own power plants can buy allowances as speculative investments.

When the Northam Administration issued a fiscal impact statement in 2020 predicting $104 to $109 million in RGGI carbon tax revenue, less than $4 a ton, it was fiction. Auction prices were already well above that. An analysis I wrote for the Thomas Jefferson Institute noted the March 2019 price (two years ago) was $5.27 a ton and would produce about $150 million in Virginia tax revenue.

Where would the $200 million plus go? Legislation in 2020 dedicated 4% of the Virginia tax proceeds to coastal mitigation efforts against rising seas, land subsidence, and storm risk. More than half will go to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for energy efficiency projects for low-income recipients. In the words of David Paylor, director of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality, it will “apply badly needed upgrades to new and existing residential buildings.”

It is hardly the first tax on your electric bill to pay for somebody else’s ceiling insulation, efficient windows, and LED lightbulbs, and it won’t be the last one.

When Dominion filed last year to create a separate rate adjustment clause on its billing for the RGGI tax, it had already begun to buy allowances. The case, reported on earlier, will now push on to conclusion in time for a summer decision. The SCC issued an order Thursday for hearings to begin April 27.

Dominion estimated last year it would need to collect $168 million from its Virginia jurisdictional customers (about 80% of its load) in the 12 months starting with July 2021. That would include reimbursement for allowances already purchased. It proposed the add-on charge would be $2.39 per 1,000 kilowatt hours, a flat rate for all classes of customers.

The other major investor-owned utility, Appalachian Power, serves the western part of the state with most of its generation outside of Virginia. It has not requested a separate charge on its bills to compensate for its much-smaller RGGI taxes paid to Virginia. Independent generators now having to buy CO2 allowances to continue operating simply pass the cost along as they can.

The Dominion request to the SCC is drawing opposition. The Office of the Attorney General has filed testimony complaining about the company’s request to charge ratepayers interest on the money it uses to buy allowances. Even more strenuous objections have been raised by an expert brought in by Appalachian Voices, an environmental group. Wrote Karl Rábago on his client’s behalf:

The Company has failed to justify that it is purchasing the necessary amount of allowances and failed to establish that they are planning to procure such allowances in a least-cost, optimal way. Moreover, the Company proposes procuring 10 to 20 percent more allowances than it purportedly needs but has done no economic analysis to support this approach. Importantly, the Company proposes an incentive to over-procure allowances—rather than accurately project need—as it seeks to earn a rate of return on unused allowances.

…Such over-procurement may even affect the entire RGGI market, driving up RGGI allowance market prices, which could once again increase Company earnings while unnecessarily increasing customer costs.

What, Dominion seeking to add a bit of extra profit on the side? Again, surprise! This is not just a simple pass-through charge, and as that carbon tax continues to grow (count on it), so will the stakes for customers. This case bears watching, if only because it lays the groundwork for the next carbon tax battle, this one over motor fuels.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

40 responses to “Surprise! State Underestimated Carbon Tax Cost”

  1. Once upon a time, Virginia newspapers covered tax increases and utility rate hikes. Apparently, they don’t see that as a priority anymore. Wouldn’t want to rile up the peasants!

  2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    On the fuel taxes, we could soon see automatic gasoline tax increases. Recall a few years ago, the gasoline tax was indexed to the wholesale price of gasoline, but we’ve been sitting below floor price all this time. Market direction may be changing as the crude oil supply glut hurt the producers so bad, they’ve wised up and started cutting back, and claim the cut-back was for eco-reasons to solve climate change. Win-Win?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The state’s tax is no longer tied to the wholesale price as of the 2020 legislation…..Guess it was inevitable that if they cut that connection, the price would rise again!

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Thank you for the update Steve!
        interesting change…sounds like, in order to get gaso tax increases in 2020, Dems had to agree to taxing hybrids extra (re: my fav new HUF tax discussed earlier) and skipping price “inflation” coverage.

    2. rivahmitch Avatar
      rivahmitch

      Biden regulations aren’t helping either.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    gasoline prices up our way are out the wazoo… I bet we top $3 soon.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Recession over! Let the traveling begin! Traffic around here appears to be pre-pandemic level. Even school buses are back.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “Even school buses are back.”

        Maybe they’re just holograms taking kids to their virtual classes. Test that theory the next time you’re on the road. Step in front of one.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Gas prices are still well below 1980 prices ($3.80/gallon in 2021 dollars).

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        yes, but it was so nice to fill up for “cheap” and now the dang pump just keeps on adding dollars…

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    $2.39 a megawatt hour, eh? You can get paid up to $75 a megawatt hour for energy you generate at your home by Dominion through SRECs. Quite the offset.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      How this interacts with some of those special tariffs, with net metering, might be worth diving into.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Pretty BAD, when you BLAME – ALL the rest of the media that exists for not “covering” , no?

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        My understanding is the SRECs are earned at a rate of 1 per mWh generated period and are sold on an open market. The effective cap (for now) is $75 each as that is what the penalty will be for Dominion for each SREC they are short. Net metering is an additional credit benefit.

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    It appears that potheads and pot growers add significantly to GHG emissions. Another revision of RGGI will be due in a few years.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00691-w

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I reread Sarah Vogelsong’s story in the Mercury and found it to be straight forward and informative. I don’t get the criticism of splitting hairs of what is a “tax” as if it is a dirty word. The Mercury piece lays out what is going on. This will eventually add the cost of half a pack of cigarettes each month to electricity bills (BIG WHOOP!) RGGI is actually a market based way to reduce carbon pollution. A similar approach worked well in reducing pollutants that promoted acid rain back in the 1990s.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      There are those who would rather have the 1/2 pack of cigarettes which, of course, defeats all kinds of reasons for other taxes, but gives money to Sherlock’s favorite subject.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      She did indeed cover the basics. Missed the point that the clearing price per ton was about twice the one predicted in the impact statement. Had any other media picked up her story I might have ignored, but nobody did.

      1. Dan McGraw Avatar
        Dan McGraw

        This article makes an assumption about revenues generated by the state and compliance costs passed to consumers. The revenues — allowances sold — aren’t all purchased by compliance entities, meaning the revenue isn’t a 1:1 pass through cost. Utilities purchases 10.3 mln allowances out of the 23.5 mln auctioned so there is a mismatch there.

    3. rivahmitch Avatar
      rivahmitch

      Sorry to disagree but, IMHO, it’s always important to know who’s taking our money, the business or the state.

      BTW, now that the planet has been cooling for a score of years why is CO2 a concern? Perhaps we should increase it to deter the next glacial period?

  7. ” The words “proceeds” or “revenue” get used by the Mercury and RGGI, but never “tax.””

    Anyone who talks about tax cuts in terms of how much they will “cost” the government is probably not going to use the word “tax” to describe the collection of money by the government from the governed.

  8. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    I’m glad that after 35 years living in Virginia, my wife and I put money down on a lot in Wake Forest, N.C.

    I recently read two article on Climate Change and responses thereto in the University of Minnesota alumni magazine. While one contains a glaring error (the Paris Accord is a binding international treaty), the articles recognized the difficulty of eliminating greenhouse gases from the air and the economy and the negative impacts of doing so on some people.

    Here, everything is wonderful. Even the people who will get crushed financially by ideological public policies that will shift wealth to the wealthy will be blissful.

    1. tmtfairfax Avatar
      tmtfairfax

      I also read this morning where the town of Avon, N.C. has proposed to raise some real estate taxes by as much as 50% to fund measures to protect the town and its infrastructure from rising sea levels. This is the kind of government action that should be occurring everywhere there is a threat of flooding due to climate change.

      Of course, benefited landowners want someone else to pay.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Of course we were already seeing rising sea levels in the base case, so any manmade rise is additive to the background. The background sea level “rise” is also impacted by groundwater extraction and subsidence.

        I recently learned that the subsidence issue is worse in some places like Southeast Asia/China where many population centers are located on river deltas at the ocean. The deltas tend to be sinking worse than Va Beach apparently. I knew from TV documentaries that Asian countries were doing some massive water-rise adaptation projects, but my impression was that was totally climate change driven.

        1. tmtfairfax Avatar
          tmtfairfax

          I don’t get your point. Mine is that property owners of land subject to flooding due to rising seas levels need to pay much of the costs for protecting their own land. Better yet, state and local government should grandfather existing structures and prevent their reconstruction as well as prohibiting any new construction in the areas likely to be flooded.

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Uh, barrier islands are just shifting sands. Erosion at Avon may have nothing to do with sea level.

          2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            I saw the Avon article too and they were suggesting climate change. Other factors at play too. As far as who should pay for sea level rise/land subsidence mitigation, I am not sure. Seems like FEMA plays a role to subsidize damage, which is controversial, but could be considered part of mitigation step. The other thing I am trying to point out is globally, actions are being taken to protect shore areas from sinking/rising sea levels. In our Country we like to blame it 200% on climate change which tends to make the fixes more politically heated, rather than just realizing there is natural sinking/rise trend to deal with somehow.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The National Flood Insurance program subsidizes flood insurance but they also do what TMT was talking about. They produce flood maps – and they don’t care if the reason is subsistence or higher sea levels – the result is the same in terms of what happens to the property.

            FEMA will not offer flood insurance to anyone in a locality where the local or state government has not changed their building codes to prevent new building in flood zones. They also will provide benefits to flooded properties ONCE but not again. So your choice is to take the money and move elsewhere or fix the property and take the full loss on the next flood.

            So, they’re doing what TMT advocates. If you take a look at New Jersey when flooded from Hurricane Sandy, you will see that the government will not allow the buildings to be occupied again unless they are put on stilts that raise the property above the projected FEMA flood heights.

            The local/state governments STILL have the issues of what to do about infrastructure like roads, water,sewer if they gradually become under water much or most of the time. At that point, if they say they can no longer maintain – then the properties will no longer have road or water/sewer, etc.

            All of this will play out in the coming years and decades no matter how one believes what is causing the flooding.

          4. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            If we could have this discussion that looked at all factors, both on the cause/effect and payers/beneficiaries sides, I think the national discussion would tend to move to more common ground and a better chance to get fair and acceptable policies.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Perhaps. BUt if you take away the FEMA insurance subsidies – then many banks would not finance… only the uber rich could afford to build and then replace if flooded.

            Everyone else would have to find places to build that were not at risk of flooding.

            It’s ironic that we have all this talk about the free market and government regs – but if the government pulled out of subsidizing flood insurance, – then it would not matter what the reason was that a property flooded – no culture war – no global warming skeptics – just pure and simple basic economics.

          6. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            It’s the inconsistency that is insane. If we are afraid of rising sea levels and are willing to increase the cost of living and decrease the quality of life for most Americans, why would we also allow the costs of flooding to remain, much less increase? Phase out the flood insurance subsidies over five years. Deny any federal housing and road money to any state or local government that doesn’t change its laws to stop new building in the areas expected to be flooded. Prohibit reconstruction of existing buildings or new buildings on the same sites.

            Would people scream? Yes. But if we believed that Climate Change as as serious as many say, we should be listening to the screaming.

            Since we aren’t willing to go there, I suspect that one the main purposes of carbon taxes and carbon credits is to get ahold of other people’s money.

          7. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            It’s the inconsistency that is insane. If we are afraid of rising sea levels and are willing to increase the cost of living and decrease the quality of life for most Americans, why would we also allow the costs of flooding to remain, much less increase? Phase out the flood insurance subsidies over five years. Deny any federal housing and road money to any state or local government that doesn’t change its laws to stop new building in the areas expected to be flooded. Prohibit reconstruction of existing buildings or new buildings on the same sites.

            Would people scream? Yes. But if we believed that Climate Change as as serious as many say, we should be listening to the screaming.

            Since we aren’t willing to go there, I suspect that one the main purposes of carbon taxes and carbon credits is to get ahold of other people’s money.

          8. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            It’s the inconsistency that is insane. If we are afraid of rising sea levels and are willing to increase the cost of living and decrease the quality of life for most Americans, why would we also allow the costs of flooding to remain, much less increase? Phase out the flood insurance subsidies over five years. Deny any federal housing and road money to any state or local government that doesn’t change its laws to stop new building in the areas expected to be flooded. Prohibit reconstruction of existing buildings or new buildings on the same sites.

            Would people scream? Yes. But if we believed that Climate Change as as serious as many say, we should be listening to the screaming.

            Since we aren’t willing to go there, I suspect that one the main purposes of carbon taxes and carbon credits is to get ahold of other people’s money.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            take away the subsidized flood insurance and the problem goes away.

            The banks won’t give mortgages and most would not gamble their own savings on a house that could be destroyed by flooding.

            It’s the subsidy that is not letting the market work as it should.

            we probably agree way more that not on this issue! 😉

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            take away the subsidized flood insurance and the problem goes away.

            The banks won’t give mortgages and most would not gamble their own savings on a house that could be destroyed by flooding.

            It’s the subsidy that is not letting the market work as it should.

            we probably agree way more that not on this issue! 😉

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Perhaps. BUt if you take away the FEMA insurance subsidies – then many banks would not finance… only the uber rich could afford to build and then replace if flooded.

            Everyone else would have to find places to build that were not at risk of flooding.

            It’s ironic that we have all this talk about the free market and government regs – but if the government pulled out of subsidizing flood insurance, – then it would not matter what the reason was that a property flooded – no culture war – no global warming skeptics – just pure and simple basic economics.

          12. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            If we could have this discussion that looked at all factors, both on the cause/effect and payers/beneficiaries sides, I think the national discussion would tend to move to more common ground and a better chance to get fair and acceptable policies.

  9. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    By the way, what is the smoke-stack picture lead-in?
    Coal plants or what? That is steam/water vapor of course coming out.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Bacon has gotten touchy about art that might be copyrighted and has cleaned out much of the choices in his archive. 🙂 Probably right, probably steam.

  10. PassTheBuckBureaucrat Avatar
    PassTheBuckBureaucrat

    I’m sure it will be spent on things to protect the environment, like African safari trips, closing down the interstate rest stops, and
    land subsidence of our assembly members beach houses.

Leave a Reply