Virginia’s Final (Maybe) RGGI Tax Grab: $97M

Virginia’s final (maybe) sale of allowances for power plant carbon emissions produced a record $97.4 million. The price for each permit to emit one ton of carbon dioxide, which is passed to customers, has about doubled in four years.

by Steve Haner

Virginia has participated in its final (for a while anyway) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction and the proceeds on the carbon tax set a new record, with Virginia collecting more than $97 million in one swoop. The total carbon tax take for the state is just under $828 million in three years.

The clearing price on December 6 reached $14.88 per ton. It would have been higher but the demand for allowances was so high the RGGI organization released some of its “cost containment reserve” or CCR allowances to tamp down the price increase. The news release on the auction is here. A chart showing Virginia’s proceeds over the three years is attached.

Why the record price? Here’s a solid suggestion: Power producers fear another major winter stressing their systems and know full well that wind and solar are unpredictable and unreliable. They are stocking up on allowances to keep our lights on with fossil fuels.

Just four years ago when the Thomas Jefferson Institute of Public Policy produced this explainer on what RGGI was, the “carbon price” was $5.27 a ton and the prediction was Virginia would collect $150 million a year from electricity producers and eventually their customers. “There is no guarantee the price won’t rise,” we noted, and indeed a steadily rising price for carbon emissions is entirely the point of RGGI.

Pushed by Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) the Air Pollution Control Board voted earlier this year to rescind the state regulation that forces Virginia’s larger electric power plants to purchase allowances from RGGI for every ton of coal, natural gas or oil they burn. So far, efforts to reverse that decision in the courts have failed.

In Virginia the major consumer of RGGI carbon allowances, and thus the major payer of the carbon tax, is Dominion Energy Virginia. The monopoly utility is passing the cost of the allowances directly to its customers in a monthly special charge called “Rider RGGI.” All customers, even industrial customers, are paying $4.43 in RGGI tax for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of juice.

Dominion imposed, suspended, and then reimposed the charge and thus has not yet collected all the money is has paid out in RGGI carbon taxes to date. So, the rider on its customer bills will continue in place for the time being.

Environmental activists and the special interests which have been profiting off the RGGI tax proceeds are frantic to keep the tax in place, but their first effort at legal action ended with the case being rejected by a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge. In a decision handed down about a month ago, the judge rejected the petition on procedural grounds saying only one plaintiff had a valid reason to sue, and that plaintiff should be suing in its home county of Floyd.

The decision was reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch but largely ignored by the rest of Virginia’s media. So far there has been no report of an appeal or an effort to file again in another jurisdiction, but then Bacon’s Rebellion is not on the press release distribution lists for the net zero industrial complex.

The one plaintiff the judge indicated might have a case was a non-profit engaged in using RGGI money to weatherize or otherwise lower the energy costs for individual’s homes. When the General Assembly authorized Virginia’s membership in RGGI in 2020 on a narrow party-line vote, the majority Democrats also directed half of the tax take be spent on such programs.

It is unlikely supporters of RGGI will relent in their efforts to restore it. Absent a judge overturning the Air Board’s action, or absent a change of mind by Governor Youngkin, Virginia will now sit out the next three-year RGGI compliance cycle beginning in 2024. But Democrats are back in full control of the General Assembly and Virginia chooses a new governor in 2025.

In the meantime, RGGI will probably continue to maintain its status as a kind of climate magical charm, a powerful imaginary bulwark against the coming climate catastrophe feared by so many. A letter to the editor in the Richmond paper this morning is an excellent example of the drumbeat for the tax which has continued all year. It is utter nonsense from start to finish.

Phoenix, Arizona’s summer heat spell could have been prevented from happening again if we just keep paying this tax? Then there were those burning Canadian forests. Rising seas which will swamp Norfolk in just a few short decades can be held back by RGGI? And while the seas are rising, the climate catastrophe is instead causing the Mississippi River to suffer from low water? No river is ever depleted by humans sucking out more water upstream, it must be a climate catastrophe, and if we keep RGGI, the river will rise.

No appeal to a historical record of actual weather data which shows that Phoenix is a major urban heat island, that forest fires are less common than a century ago, that rivers always fluctuate, and the sea has been rising for thousands of years, will change the mind of the folks writing all these letters. RGGI will magically end the use of fossil fuels and save us from destruction. It is a religion. The carbon allowances are how this religion passes the plate and don’t be shocked when it reaches the traditional 10% tithe.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “Virginia’s Final (Maybe) RGGI Tax Grab: $97M”

  1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    Thanks for this. It is a little out of my bailiwick, but interesting. This GA will be one to keep an eye on. Too many left and right full stop players. I love the middle.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    I thought this interesting and did not entirely understand it:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85f9987a92b59c64d891f06f19a0542473cc078b54ca24ef7160bd106f58dddf.png

    https://cardinalnews.org/2023/12/06/appalachian-power-rate-increase-will-raise-bills-more-than-rggi-does/

    “Earlier this year, the governor led action to remove Virginia’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade partnership between 12 states and energy polluters, i.e., utility companies.

    Saying it cost the average residential customer $2.39 a month and industrial customers $1,554 a month, Youngkin puzzlingly said it was a “regressive” tax, which has generated hundreds of millions in new revenue for the Commonwealth in just the first couple years of participating. These funds were designated by the General Assembly to be split between energy conservation incentives for affordable housing to enable low income families to save on monthly operating costs, and on flood control initiatives in Tidewater Virginia from looming sea level increases due to climate change.

    Then last week, to make the situation worse, the independent State Corporation Commission approved a 10% rate increase for customers of Appalachian Power, to go into effect in the dead of winter this coming January. This will add $16 per month to the average residential bill. “

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Appalachian has no power plant in Virginia so it needs no RGGI allowances. This is a major reason why RGGI is a joke. WVA, PA, other major PJM states are exempt from RGGI. It therefore just moves the CO2 to other states.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Appalachian has no power plant in Virginia so it needs no RGGI allowances. This is a major reason why RGGI is a joke. WVA, PA, other major PJM states are exempt from RGGI. It therefore just moves the CO2 to other states.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so why do they have such a big bump in their prices?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Mainly because SWVA’s economy is in the toilet so fewer customers have to carry the load. It is not growing at all overall.

          And RGGI is regressive since its a flat tax, meaning it eats into a poor person’s budget more deeply. Hence regressive. What industrial customers pay is not relevant to that.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Mainly because SWVA’s economy is in the toilet so fewer customers have to carry the load. It is not growing at all overall.

          And RGGI is regressive since its a flat tax, meaning it eats into a poor person’s budget more deeply. Hence regressive. What industrial customers pay is not relevant to that.

  3. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Just another scam by the flat earthers, like Solyandra and other get quick rich schemes hatched by Gore and Kerry.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    I also saw this:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a90cdd5398b2336580c9b72baad0dae1ff6d23cb96ad907e265b377a608375c.png

    “Battery storage is an important part of our mission of delivering reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy to our customers,” said Ed Baine, President of Dominion Energy Virginia. “As our battery storage fleet grows, it means we can continue adding more clean energy to the grid while delivering the reliability our customers expect.”

    https://www.power-eng.com/energy-storage/batteries/dominion-energy-virginia-continues-to-expand-battery-fleet/#gref

    So it sorta sounds like when Dom builds a solar farm… it may well have a “battery” also?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It will need to increase that by many factors of ten to matter. So far it is virtue signaling.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        IF they put a battery at each place they have a solar farm – it could continue to supply power
        for some period of time when there is less solar. One issue is how long would the battery need
        to be able to supply power if the solar is “down”. I can see if this will be their approach, how
        they’d have a centralized network monitor and control so they’d know for each farm it’s current
        output, percent of nameplate capacity, how much battery capacity, etc… And the whole
        network would be managed from one central location, perhaps even largely automated.

        They’d have to also be able to “forecast” shortfalls from events like night and forecast
        storms/cloud cover. But the batteries ought to give them the buffer window they need to start
        up the backup power (gas).

        If they did this, they could potentially have even more solar and still maintain reliability.

        One or more technological breakthroughs for storage and other and the use/need for gas
        could steadily decline. with solar providing more and more power and batteries backing
        them up and if both “fail”, burn the gas! but less and less as more technology comes online

        ..

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          But it will still be cheaper, right? You guys will believe anything…..Lol

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            No. It will undoubtedly add substantially to the cost. Will it be cheaper than nukes? How about gas?
            I see where the SMRs went belly up primarily on cost. And would be curious about the levelized cost of solar + battery compared to gas.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            however….

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bed14958a059111e9ba8c269c27872da10238a1772c54504dd02c0ef7887d279.png

            “The combination of low-cost solar farms and lithium-ion batteries has produced a dynamic new hybrid resource capable of providing energy from the sun after dark and potentially reshaping America’s power mix in the 2020s. The spread of these hybrid facilities has been fueled largely by plummeting solar-plus-storage prices, which have begun undercutting conventional fossil-fueled generation in some regions.

            In recent months, though, those prices have stabilized, and in some cases reversed course, according to an S&P Global Market Intelligence review of state regulatory filings, independent analysis and interviews with parties on both sides of power purchase agreements, or PPAs.

            Levelized energy prices have dipped into the range of $30/MWh to $40/MWh, in nominal dollars, for many projects scheduled to come online in the next few years. Adjusted for inflation over the estimated 30-year lives of the projects, those contracts are in the $20/MWh to $30/MWh range, according to a recent report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, or LBNL.

            Just a few years ago, solar-plus-storage prices were more than triple today’s going rates. The subsequent price drop sparked a contracting surge centered in the West. Buyers include Arizona Public Service Co., Glendale Water & Power, Google LLC, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, NV Energy Inc. Portland General Electric Co., Salt River Project, Xcel Energy Inc., and numerous community choice aggregators, or CCAs, in California, along with several utilities in Hawaii.”

            https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/falling-us-solar-plus-storage-prices-start-to-level-as-batteries-supersize-56971432

            that $20/MWh to $30/MWh range, is pretty close to gas I think.

  5. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    I saw this on VPAP’s Virginia News yesterday:

    “Dominion Energy has flipped the switch on what’s so far its largest battery bank, the latest step in its increasingly fast-paced move to install electricity storage facilities on its grid. The now-operational Dry Bridge Battery Energy Storage System in Chesterfield County can store up to 20 megawatts of electricity for four hours. That’s enough to power 5,000 homes. Batteries have become a necessity as the utility adds solar and offshore wind turbines to its system.”

    A couple months ago I saw an article that a factory is being built in West Virginia to produce iron-air batteries. Apparently the lithium ion batteries that Dominion is using can only supply power for 4 hours but the iron-air batteries can supply power for a few days.

    Bedford buys it’s power from Appalachian, so I’m looking forward to a bump in my bills. I’m getting quotes to add some solar panels to help reduce the amount of electricity I have to buy.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Perfectly reasonable. In other parts of the world with more sun an even better idea. But the grid is there as backup so you are paying for redundancy.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Further reading, the batteries have uses beyond renewables. They will help grid reliability in general and in cases of storm and other cause outages.

        I just so happens they also further enable renewables.

        If storage batteries “work” and are cost-effective, the concept of “dispatchable” will change and the perceived shortcomings of wind/solar will largely go away and most important wind/solar can supplant more and more fossil fuels.

        This is an example of why we should be embracing technological advances in general not just for wind/solar.

        We’ll probably never get to “zero” for fossil fuels, certainly not in the short term but reducing them without sacrificing reliability sure seems more and more possible.

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

    Cheap, reliable chemical storage 0f electricity has been the holy grail for the electric power industry for 100 years. We are nowhere close now, are we? Utility scale hydro pump storage — a very old technology — provides economic system level storage for many utilities, past and present. More and very expensive system level storage makes sense only if the climate externality associated with fossil-fired generation is assigned a very, very high negative value – and there is sufficient non-dispatchable generation to store.

    For perspective note that PJM, these days, is about 160,000 MW peak. Va is about 30,000 MW, with Dom being about 22,000 and the Virginia balance coming from KU, APCo, cooperatives and municipals. Of the 160,000 MW PJM total, about 10,000 MW comes from utility scale solar and wind – less if we are talking about a winter peak. (numbers subject to check, please)

    Currently, wholesale electricity is cheap and apparently plentiful – but clouds are on the horizon. Up until now, technological change has served to damper electrical demand; so has thousands of roof-top solar net-metering applications, subsidized by the government and a homeowner willingness to make arguably uneconomic investments, the net cost of which will become even more clear when roofing work is required.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Battery technology in general has been the holy grail, rechargeable. The original electric cars used only disposable batteries and that’s what ultimately did the “original” EV’s in.

      We may not at this point have reached “holy grail” territory but we’ve made significant inroads , not just with EVs or the grid but all manner of applications such as cell phones that simply would not be possible without modern battery technology.

      We’re definitely NOT “going back” – it’s forward and the main question is not if but how fast, when, etc.

      Speaking in terms against it smacks of Luddite to me.

      Embrace the advance of technology , regardless of one’s views on climate or renewables… it’s what humans do since
      we have been here on earth.

      We MAY just back into a world that needs far less fossil fuels without even making technology a priority only for that purpose.

      I’m not going to begrudge all the benefits of technology that we enjoy today because I think it may help something I don’t support.

      geeze.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The Luddites are the ones who think we can run our economy with the same wind turbines the Dutch used to pump water over dikes 400 years ago, or Okies used on their arid farms for wells 200 years ago….Insanity.

        The Luddites are terrified of nuclear.

        The problems we face are just pure cost v benefit economics, and so far the batteries fail that badly and the physics is against them getting that much better.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The Luddites are the ones who think we can run our economy with the same wind turbines the Dutch used to pump water over dikes 400 years ago, or Okies used on their arid farms for wells 200 years ago….Insanity.

        The Luddites are terrified of nuclear.

        The problems we face are just pure cost v benefit economics, and so far the batteries fail that badly and the physics is against them getting that much better.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I think of Luddites as those afraid of technology going forward as opposed to embracing new
          technologies that are safe and reliable and no reason to fear them. Nukes do terrify some
          folks but even pro-Nuke folks will oppose a nuke near them regardless of their politics. Further,
          many who do embrace technology, also support Nukes that won’t melt down and essentially make the surrounding areas uninhabitable like Chernobyl and Fukushima. In due time, nukes, fusion and other technologies will meet that goal and need. The irony for the pro-nuke folks who espouse “economics” is that Nukes are NOT “economical”. They cost out the wazoo AND the govt has to subsidize the insurance! SMRs just went belly-up on economics! So, No, we do not embrace any/all technologies just because no matter what.

          At the same time, if we stopped advancing technologies that are still evolving and not yet mature, to be that’s Luddite. Imagine if we stopped developing cell phones because of their initial shortcomings with size, battery, connectivity, etc. It was a promising technology that needed more time on task to get to where it is today – AS IS wind, solar and storage – none of which have the issues that nukes have at this point.

          I continue to support the development of safer nukes the very same way I support advancing the
          battery storage technology. I see them as not dissimilar and not at all one versus the other.

          We move forward. We embrace developing technologies just as we do for cancer research, vaccines, genetics, the full range.

  7. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    If Dominion is committed to a certain reduction in CO2 emissions, it can petition the SCC and or the GA for the ability to impose a carbon tax. Participation in RGGI is simply a bureaucratic scheme that makes reductions more costly and complex.
    Advances in technology should not be specifically government driven as it has no special expertise. If the government wants to spur technology development and use, the tax code provides a simple and direct way to do that. Instead of picking winners, we would be a lot better off if the government simply supported more basic research.

Leave a Reply