Home » Opinion » Editorials
RGGI's ruse: It's not for the environment
Hassan's spokesman said later that she did not think RGGI was a tax, but an energy efficiency program. That's a shame, because she was right the first time, it is effectively a tax - which its supporters want to increase.
RGGI caps carbon emissions from power plants in the 9 states, including New Hampshire, that have signed onto the agreement. Energy companies can exceed those caps by buying emissions credits, which are sold on an open market. Last Thursday RGGI officials, including the two New Hampshire representatives, announced that they want to cut the allowable carbon emissions under the agreement by 45 percent by 2014. They say the reduction will bring cleaner air.
Yet there is a surplus of RGGI credits on the market. RGGI states are not producing enough power to reach the current emissions cap, so demand for the credits is low. Instead of declaring success (carbon emissions under RGGI were 30 percent lower in 2011 than in 2005), RGGI wants to lower the cap to stimulate demand for emissions credits. Why would it want to do that? For the money.
RGGI states pocket money from the sale of the credits. The estimated increase in RGGI revenue from the 45 percent reduction in allowable emissions is $2.2 billion. That is money taken from electricity ratepayers and delivered to politicians, who distribute it allegedly on behalf of the people from whom it was taken. In other words, it is a tax.
Rather than participate in this scam, New Hampshire should withdraw and save its ratepayers the unnecessary expense of giving politicians a few extra billion to play with.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- George Will: The benefits of prudence - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Paul and Cruz vie to become Reagan's heir - 0
- Thomas Sowell: Liberal education policies hurt minorities - 0
- Charles Arlinghaus: Yes, our paltry rainy day fund is a really big deal - 3
- Rep. Terie Norelli: New Hampshire workers deserve higher minimum wages - 2
- Les Bernal: Why don’t casino advocates and executives patronize casinos? - 5
- David Harsanyi: Do most Americans agree with Demsocrats? - 3
- Sam Cohen: ‘No compromise’ gun groups shoot themselves in the foot - 10
- Kathy Sullivan: Scott Brown’s prospects for a U.S. Senate win are poor - 18
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Sens. Shaheen, Ayotte slam latest push for online sales tax - 0
- Bedford girls basketball team spreads the scoring wealth - 0
- New Hampshire high school athletes on the run (and jumping) in NYC - 0
- Ian Clark's High School Hockey: Teams anxious to play - 0
- Manchester Mayor Gatsas: Vote tells me Hooksett is satisfied with Manchester schools - 0
- After Pinkerton rejection, what's next for Hooksett students? - 0
- Nashua aldermen approve pair of union contracts - 0
- Was a crime committed? Nashua police are not certain - 0
- Nashua must decide on parkway project's bridge aesthetics - 0
SCORE workshop offers social media tips
Minimum wages: Maximum spin
Hooksett votes down Pinkerton schools deal
Hooksett has five new school board members
A CIA bombshell: Feinstein and the Fourth