A report on the impact of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in New Hampshire does not show it to be as beneficial as supporters claim.

Under RGGI, utilities must buy carbon emissions permits at auction. The proceeds go to fund energy efficiency projects, subsidize renewable energy production and assist people with their energy bills. The annual RGGI report from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and the Public Utilities Commission claims $4.2 million in energy savings from projects funded by RGGI money. That figure has been touted as proof that RGGI is benefiting New Hampshire. But is it accurate? And what about the costs?

According to the report, RGGI has “saved NH residents and businesses $1.5 million in energy costs” during the first-year reporting period, which was from 2009-2010. That figure is from a UNH study of the projects funded by RGGI grants. The $4.2 million figure comes from adding projects “completed or scheduled to be completed during the second reporting period (July 2010 to June 2011).”

If that figure is correct, what were RGGI’s costs? According to the report, New Hampshire residential consumers paid an average of 46 cents a month more for their electricity. Sounds like a bargain. But what about businesses? Their costs are not separated out, and it’s easy to see why. Their costs can reach into the millions. According to the report, the total RGGI cost to New Hampshire is $33 million. Some deal. But there’s more.

The report bumps up the supposed benefit by using a multiplier to account for the “economic benefits” of reduced carbon emissions and jobs allegedly created by RGGI. Adding those, the benefit jumps to $60 million, almost double the cost. But the report uses no multiplier on the cost side. What about jobs lost and other investments not made because of the RGGI tax? They are conveniently ignored, and only the direct cost of the RGGI credits is included.

A report that estimates indirect benefits but lists only direct costs is no report; it’s a whitewash. DES and PUC officials should be ashamed of publishing such a document, and legislators should do their own analysis to find out what this is wealth-transfer scheme is really doing to the state’s economy.