Roger Caiazza
Last week I gave an update on RGGI and posed the question whether the Auction 73 clearing price would exceed the Auction 72 price of $35. Today RGGI announced that the Auction 73 price did indeed exceed $35 closing $2.65 higher at $37.65. This post summarizes the impact of the auction.
The RGGI press release stated:
NEW YORK — The eleven participating states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nation’s first market-based regulatory effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, today announced the results of their 73rd auction of carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances. 28,537,847 CO2 allowances were sold at the auction at a clearing price of $37.65. This includes an initial offering of 27,389,847 allowances and 1,148,000 CCR allowances. The allowance offering included a supply of 5,740,000 allowances from Virginia, which resumed RGGI participation on July 1, 2026. Bids for the CO2 allowances ranged from $2.69 to $190 per allowance. Additional details are available in the Market Monitor Report for Auction 73, which is appended.
A quick summary of what I have documented since July
In my last post I summarized four things that happened in quick succession this summer. Two of them are relevant to this result.
In Hochul and RGGI Affordability I quantified the wholesale-market effect of RGGI allowance costs and showed that it contradicts Governor Hochul’s affordability messaging. New York’s electricity market pays every accepted generator the market-clearing price for a given interval. When an emitting generator sets that price, its RGGI allowance cost is embedded in the bid and gets paid to every resource dispatched in that interval — including non-emitting and imported resources that bear little or none of the underlying RGGI cost., I showed the RGGI allowance price has risen from $9.30 per ton in the first full auction of Hochul’s tenure to $35.00 at Auction 72 — a 276% increase. At the Auction 73 cost of $37.65 the increase is 296%. For a typical residential customer, the RGGI-attributable share of the bill was around 4.2% in 2024 but at $37.65 the share is 7.8%.
I also described the report by RGGI’s market monitor Potomac Economics. On August 21, 2026, RGGI, Inc. released an unprecedented special report — the Report on the Supply and Demand for RGGI CO2 Allowances: Second Quarter 2026 — timed roughly eleven weeks after the record $35 auction. I covered this in RGGI’s Market Monitor Confirms the Scarcity I’ve Been Tracking. I believe the intent of the release of the report was to calm the market. However, the report confirms 2026’s CCR allowances are fully exhausted, confirms compliance entities and investors are increasingly hoarding rather than selling allowances as the compliance deadline approaches, confirms Virginia’s return adds less new supply than the demand it brings, and — most importantly — declines to say anything about whether the steep post-2027 cap trajectory is sustainable, because that question was “beyond the scope” of the report. Given that the auction price still went up this attempt to keep prices stable failed.
Costs are not hypothetical
Put together, these my work tells a consistent story. RGGI’s own cost-containment mechanism — the CCR, which releases additional allowances once prices cross a trigger — was exhausted as soon as the allowances were available in 2026, months before the compliance deadline. The regional cap is scheduled to tighten by more than 10% of the 2025 budget each year from 2027 through 2033, a pace never sustained historically. Virginia’s re-entry adds demand faster than supply. And New York adopted its conforming rule in August without grappling with any of this, relying on cost-impact modeling that predates the price spike and a ratepayer-benefit claim that ignores the wholesale market cost adder.
None of this is abstract for consumers. My estimates put the total New York consumer impact of RGGI — direct allowance costs plus the wholesale market cost adder — at $1.1 to $3.4 billion annually at a sustained $37.65 allowance price, more than double the direct-allowance-cost figure that state messaging emphasizes. Scaled across all eleven RGGI states, the same mechanism plausibly adds several billion dollars more. That is the real price of a program whose defenders describe rising auction revenue as a “big opportunity” for new spending rather than a cost signal ratepayers are already absorbing.
Auction 73 results
When I posed the question whether the costs would exceed $35 I noted that several signals pointed toward continued upward pressure on the clearing price rather than relief. Secondary-market allowances have been trading well above the $35 auction price throughout August, with Argus Media reporting 2026-vintage RGGI allowances in the high-$30s to around $40 per short ton in mid-to-late August (Argus Carbon), with December 2026 futures trading even higher. The market monitor’s own Q2 2026 report shows the share of the allowance surplus held by compliance entities — as opposed to investors with no obligation to sell — has fallen, and that investors holding 68% of the surplus have little incentive to release allowances for anything less than what the market has already shown it will pay. The 2026 CCR is gone. Virginia is a net new claim on the bank, not a source of relief. The larger Auction 73 offering did not absorb that pressure. Instead, it simply confirmed how much latent demand exists because the price exceeded $35 despite the bigger offering.
Prior to the auction I said I would not be surprised it the price exceeded $35 a ton. I noted that if it did it would be real-time confirmation that the price trajectory regulators have not acknowledged is one more sign that the states’ own cost-containment tools — the mechanism they cite as evidence that consumer costs will be manageable — can no longer do the job they were designed to do. Given these cost impacts it is past time to pause RGGI.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. Dealing with the RGGI regulatory and political landscapes is challenging enough that affected entities seldom see value in speaking out about fundamental issues associated with the program. He has been involved in the RGGI program process since its inception and has no such restrictions when writing about the details of the RGGI program. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
The answer is for businesses to leave the northeast and Virginia. It does pose a dilemma for other states to invest in recruitment efforts and offices targeting the northeast or west coast. Maybe AI can sort out the factors instead of the traditional site location consultants. But leaving is the name of the game.
BTW, in auction markets such moves would be called externalities.
It seems to me that this gives standing to every consumer to claim they have been harmed but the state has no evidence of benefit or scientific evidence of for the rule that is causing them harm. There is no evidence of CO2 emissions causing harm. There is good evidence that our emissions do not materially raise atmospheric CO2 content. Start a class action suit.
Nice article above, except for two questiona left unanswered:
If RGGI raised the amount of money indicated by this statement for “Auction 73”
“None of this is abstract for consumers. My estimates put the total New York consumer impact of RGGI — direct allowance costs plus the wholesale market cost adder — at $1.1 to $3.4 billion annually at a sustained $37.65 allowance price.”
1) Where (i.e., to what purpose) is all this raised money going?
2) What percentage of this money goes to the “managers” and other bureaucrats behind this fleecing of consumers?
The press release describes the official position on the benefits of the investments of the raised money
“RGGI is an important tool that is proven to help states deliver clean, reliable, and affordable electricity across the region,” said Amanda Lefton, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Vice Chair of the RGGI, Inc. Board of Directors. “The proceeds generated from this auction will be reinvested by New York and other participating states to deliver meaningful benefits to families, businesses, and our shared environment.”
I disagree. RGGI is supposed to be a CO2 control program. What proponents don’t say is that the investments are not efficient. (https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/10/08/rggi-investment-proceeds-july-2025-update/) The percentage of the observed reductions that can be traced to RGGI is only 7.6%. The investments reduce emissions at a rate $849 per ton. Claims that RGGI is a successful emission reduction program are inconsistent with the following observations. The investment costs exceed the expected societal benefits. The amount raised falls far short of the funds necessary to reduce RGGI emissions in accordance with Third Program Review requirements. Investment priorities are inconsistent with the emission reduction objectives.
In New York administrative costs run just under 10% of the auction proceeds. It has been used as a slush fund to cover costs for all sorts of programs that should be funded from the general fund.
“… used as a slush fund to cover costs for all sorts of programs …”
Stealth taxes. 🙂
Washington State uses auto license fees in this manner even though voters tried to revoke the stealth carp. The politicians added a Carbon indulgence. Now they have a “millionaires’ tax” being implemented contrary to the State’s constitution. Citizens will vote to repeal this with Initiative 645. John Spellman (1981-84) was the last Republican governor with only the first two years of advantages in the Senate and House. During the last 41 years pending has become entrenched.
I should mention WA has the 3rd highest cost of gasoline of the states. Hydro-power has prevented the sort of higher electricity prices seen in many other states.
Meaningful benefits???
Once again I’ll ask the same question: “Where is all this raised money going?”
The money rised is being frittered away in ways that I do not think are of much value. https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/?p=18802
back in the ’00’s, I was tracking the Massachusetts 7.29 program, a precursor to RGGI. (It was replaced by RGGI soon after it was implemented.) After the first auction, the governing organization had a press release that said half of the income had been spent on solar heating for public swimming pools. I kid you not.
“Nothing is too unimportant to spend someone else’s money on.”
Thank you for this update. They kicked the can down the road with the revisions to the CLCPA requirements, but NY is still in big trouble as the wind + solar + batteries proliferation continues. This will hurt, as gas-fired generation will continue to be the marginal source for the foreseeable future.
The election in November is coming up soon!
I wonder how much is being made by the “financial industry” part of this scheme – those who run the “auctions” and generally make the markets?
It is a big pot of money. Politicians are involved in how it gets spent. As is often the case this is not a recipe for a good outcome.
And no one questions the lunacy of paying vast sums at auction for a forgery. None of the money prevents or even slows global warming. It’s just wealth redistribution. Actually it’s theft.
State governments steal from the electricity producers who provide real and measurable benefits to consumers using natural gas or coal to generate electricity. Those governments are supposed to use the money for energy efficiency initiatives, renewable (unreliable) energy development, subsidies for home weatherization and utility bills for low-income households, and for “greenhouse gas” abatement projects, whatever that means.
None of that has any measurable effect on global warming. But it does drive up the price of electricity for everyone, even the poor people that are supposed to benefit a little from this. And government is notorious for wasting money in wildly inventive ways with a large portion going to fraud. So the ultimate benefit of the RGGI is enriching the favored constituents of those government leaders, who then reelect them to dream up new ways to burden everyone with their crazy policies.
Stop electing leftist parasites. Their only purpose is to leech off of productive people.