A fair criticism of politicians is that they all lie, at least to the extent of engaging in extreme levels of spin and/or exaggeration to put the best face on their proposals and programs. But some political lies are worse than others, in that they go far beyond mere spin or exaggeration and get into the blatantly counter-factual. In that category are the claims of many of the governors of the Northeastern states that they are promoting energy “affordability.” These lies are particularly consequential in that they involve very large economic effects and vast waste of resources.
In late 2025, the talking point of energy “affordability” became a major theme of the successful candidacies of Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill for the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Elsewhere in the region, the governors’ offices were not up for election in the off year, but the sitting governors have equally been talking up their energy “affordability” agendas. See for example, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts here on March 16 (“Governor Maura Healey today is setting strong new targets for bringing more energy into Massachusetts and lowering energy bills.”); and Governor Kathy Hochul of New York here on May 7 (“[Governor Hochul] Tackles Energy Costs With Sweeping Affordability Package.”).
And yet somehow, it’s hard not to notice that the electricity rates in the Northeastern states are among the highest in the country. The federal government’s Energy Information Administration puts out regular reports of state-by-state comparisons of “Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers.” The latest such chart has data from February 2026. The national average rate for residential customers for that month (shown at the bottom of the chart) was 17.65 cents/kWh. Look through the list of average rates by state for residential customers, and it is readily apparent that the rates in the Northeastern states are uniformly above the national average, with many close to double: New York (29.99 cents/kWh); Connecticut (30.77 cents/kWh); Massachusetts (30.46 cents/kWh); Rhode Island (29.45 cents/kWh). Outside the Northeast, only a few outliers (California, Alaska, Hawaii) break the 25 cents/kWh level. Alaska and Hawaii have the excuse of being geographically remote. The Northeastern states and California do not have that excuse.
So what is the secret sauce of the Northeastern states that drives up their electricity rates even as their governors claim to be pursuing “affordability”? There are multiple factors, and I don’t mean to underemphasize the effects of the fantasy pursuit of the intermittent “renewables,” wind and solar. But there is a factor unique to the Northeast that stands out as being completely incompatible and irreconcilable with any claim of pursuing energy “affordability.” That factor is participation in something called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI.
Have you heard of RGGI? Here is a link to their website. RGGI describes itself on the site as follows:
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions. . . . RGGI is the first market-based, cap-and-invest regional initiative in the United States. Within the RGGI states, fossil-fuel-fired electric power generators with a capacity of 25 megawatts1 or greater (“regulated sources”) are required to hold allowances equal to their CO2 emissions over a three-year control period.
Although the website has apparently not been updated to reflect it, Virginia just (April 2026) re-joined RGGI under new Governor Spanberger, after previous Republican Governor Glen Youngkin had withdrawn. Thus every state along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia, with the sole exception of Pennsylvania, is now a member of this compact. Pennsylvania had been a member, but recently withdrew in late 2025 as a part of a budget deal pushed by the Republican-controlled legislature over the opposition of the Democratic Governor.
As the RGGI website frankly admits, the whole idea is to drive up the cost of electricity produced by fossil-fuel power plants. The fossil fuel power plants “are required to hold allowances equal to their CO2 emissions.” RGGI sets the amount of the allowances, and then they are auctioned off to the utilities (and others). Over time, the amount of allowances available intentionally decreases. The price that the utilities pay for the allowances then gets added into the consumer electricity bills.
Virginia’s rejoining the compact — under a new Governor supposedly promising “affordability” — has set off a market frenzy, apparently driven by the facts that the amount of CO2 allowances is limited, but Virginia is a main location for a large wave of new power-hungry data centers. From OPIS Insights, May 7 (OPIS is an affiliate of the WSJ):
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) carbon prices have rocketed to fresh record highs, as traders scramble to reassess compressed supply in the wake of Virginia’s decision to rejoin the program. During the week of April 27-May 4, V26 RGGI allowances for December 2026 delivery traded on ICE repeatedly above $40/short ton, with transactions reaching $58.50/st by midday Monday, May 4. On May 4, OPIS assessed RGGI V25/V26 December 2026 at $52.875/st. . . . By May 4, the OPIS RGGI V25/V26 December 2026 price had gained a total $24.115/st, or 83.85%, from an assessment of $28.876/st on Apr. 13.
So how much does the requirement to purchase RGGI CO2 allowances drive up the price of electricity for a residential consumer? Even though the whole idea is to drive the price up in order to force a decrease in consumption, the mechanism by which the additional cost gets included in your electric bill is structured to be as opaque as possible. You will not find a line item on your bill to tell you how much of what you must pay is attributable to the artificial added cost from RGGI. However, multiple people have done analyses to get a rough quantification of the cost impact at recent or current levels of price for RGGI allowances. Here is one done by my friend Roger Caiazza (the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York) with the assistance of Perplexity AI. That analysis goes as recently as the RGGI auction of March 2025, at which point the allowance price was $19.76 per short ton.
Roger’s conclusion at that time was that the RGGI auctions were adding about $8-11/MWh to the wholesale cost of electricity, for electricity produced by natural gas. That would mean an addition of about 1 cent/kWh on a consumer’s bill. A penny may not seem like much, except when you realize that the average price in the country is less than 18 cents/kWh, so the penny is about 6%. And now the allowance price has gone from about $20/st to over $50/st, which means that the effect on a consumer’s bill goes from about a penny/kWh to more like 2.5 cents. Now we are talking about an intentional 10-15%+ increase in consumer electricity prices.
And remember that the structure of the program is that the amount of allowances goes down every year and the price is intentionally driven up. And data centers are going in all over the place. And the Northeastern states have refused to build new power plants for a couple of decades now in the midst of the climate hysteria. So the 10-15% extra cost being experienced now is only the beginning of much worse to come.
The worst part of the RGGI “cap and invest” scheme is that the consumers get absolutely nothing for the increased cost. It is just a gratuitously inflicted injury brought about by completely artificial scarcity.
Keep this in mid when you hear a politician from an RGGI state talking about how they care about energy “affordability.”
Sounds every bit as crazy as mad Ed. Rachel from accounts is doing her authoritarian bit to make sure people shut up and lump it.
Rachel Reeves to protect ‘critical’ clean energy projects from legal challenges – Guardian
UKSSR
Climate alarmists don’t care about people at all. They are completely blinded by their bizarre ideology that they are “saving the planet”. Any side effects like making energy unaffordable for the average person is totally irrelevant. All of the climate alarmists I know personally think that the world is overpopulated and they are not bothered by people freezing to death because they can’t afford to heat their homes.
The RGGI is an illegal organization and violates Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 of the US constitution known as The Compact Clause which states: No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, enter into any agreement with another state or with a foreign power.
The Clean Energy States Alliance is also an illegal organization.
At his website I mentioned to Francis that his law firm should file a petition with the US Attorney General to have these illegal organizations disbanded and thus save the rate payers much money.
Good article. These are important points!
And about the impact on residential bills, there is a huge problem in cold-snap conditions when the real-time market prices go through the roof because of high electric heating demands. That pushed my all-in electric cost for the February bill to $0.37/kWh here in rural NY.
RGGI = Regional Governors Gone Insane.
Thank you for listening.
And don’t forget that the funds from the sale of the “allowances” are usually spent on pet projects of those in charge. Those projects are meant to reduce CO2 emissions, but they are usually on the margins of actual impact.
So, consumers of electricity pay extra so that “RGGI allowances” can be purchased. Who gets the money?? Is it really just a tax that winds up in the coffers of participating States? Or is there a “RGGI Bank” that collects the funds and sorts out payments to projects according to how “Green” the State is? Sounds like a lot of RiGGIng might be going on!
Yes, I’m sure rigging and outright graft is going on. Why isn’t some honest number-cruncher following the money?
I have followed the RGGI money. Not surprisingly it is not being spent well.
Here are some relevant examples
When I analyzed the 2023 RGGI investment proceeds report, I estimated that only about 7.6% of observed emission reductions could be attributed to RGGI funded projects despite RGGI auction proceeds of over $7 billion since 2021 https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/10/08/rggi-investment-proceeds-july-2025-update/
I have spent more time on NY proceeds.
My comments on the 2026 NYS plan: https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2026/01/06/my-new-york-state-2026-rggi-operating-plan-amendment-comments/
My comments on their final plan: https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2026/02/03/final-new-york-state-2026-rggi-operating-plan-amendment/
I estimate that RGGI investments produce a ton of CO2 reductions for about $600 far in excess of anyone’s social costs of carbon.
I agree with Francis that if NE politicians truly care about affordability it is time to bail out of RGGI.
Anything is affordable when compared to the imaginary costs of imaginary catastrophes of the imaginary global warming caused by an imaginary GHE.
RGGI (pronounced “Reggie”) should be called RCCI (pronounced “Archie”), which stands for Regional Climate Crap Insanity.
The skill of Dems at cementing down-is-up mentality is right out of Orwell.
My present word of the month is PUNISHMENT.
The adverse financial consequences of some of the “lies” that are described here are huge in comparison with what we are used to see in court cases of financial mismanagement. The fraud of a business person fiddling the books is typically tiny by comparison, yet the offender typically faces a few years turning large rocks to smaller rocks.
Perhaps we need a re-classification of what constitutes a criminal offence.
There are now many places on the Net where many people are commenting about the increasing incidence of stupid assertions being adopted and promoted as political policy. Net Zero is an example. Abundant talk is not translating into effective correction. A primary reason for this failure of process is the comparative lack of punishment of offenders.
It is almost like teenagers committing vicious crimes with punishment being good behaviour bonds instead of years in jail. Or not being taken to a Court at all.
The numbers of con men and women who say silly things about the eminence of protecting the environment will continue to expand until they fear the bite of punishment. We should, by now, have such matters adjudicated by competent assessors with the power to punish like Judges have in current criminal systems.
Geoff S
These are financial redistributon schemes, with high overhead, that never can have any effect on the non-problem climate.
I suspect, without proof, that the main result of such indulgence schemes (in WA State it is called the Climate Commitment Act) is to provide the controlling government a slush fund to support favored interest groups. Costs throughout the economy are spread widely and mostly not noticed, except for the cost of liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel. A person or family at the economic-margin can frequently access help with a variety of expenses. Names vary. In WA State, two such are the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Utility Discount Program (UDP). Utility providers also allow voluntary “extra” billing, the proceeds then going to agencies that low-income people can apply to. Helping Hands is the name of one. An agency that provide a broader array of help is called HopeSource.
Several from the eastern region of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) : Connecticut – Energy Assistance Program; New York – Home Energy Assistance Program; New Jersey – Universal Service Fund; Virginia – Low-Income Home EnergyAssistance.
Absolutely true. It gets worse in NY. The agency responsible for disbursing the funds used the proceeds for their agency slush fund. Many projects that should have been funded from the general budget were covered by RGGI funding. So the assistance programs for the low and middle income urban voters did not even get their full share. Investing to make emission reductions is only an after thought.
Acknowledge the demonstrated bogosity of the GHE & the entire alarmist shit show circus implodes + everybody in the great climate conversation is suddenly unemployed, ie you & me.
Perfectly applies to Schroeder’s comments at WUWT….
I apologize Nicholas for denigrating you….I prefer to use your bogus comments and graphics as a teaching and learning excercise for casual readers…
Only government is stupid enough to think this is a good idea. The only sane answer is to prohibit RGGI members from importing energy from outside their region. That way they can prove how much superior they are to the rest of us.