"New Hampshire's participation in programs like the regional greenhouse gas initiative (RGGI) programs that force customers to pay high prices in order to subsidize noncompetitive energy supplies and fund government programs, must come to an end," Lamatogne says in official campaign literature.
He also has sparred publicly with Hassan about the issue in debates. The New Hampshire branch of Americans for Prosperity, a group co-founded by oil billionaire David Koch, has weighed in with radio ads slamming Hassan for supporting the "RGGI tax." The group also named Lamatogne "conservative of the year" in 2011.
Hassan, who was instrumental in bringing the state into RGGI, has been outspoken about defending it.
Lamatogne's position is significant for two reasons, analysts say.
Last year, Lynch vetoed a bill that would have pulled the state out of the program. The state Senate failed to override Lynch by one vote.
If Lamatogne makes it into the governor's mansion, renewed attempts to pass a repeal bill could be successful.
"I have no doubt this will come up again" in the Legislature, said Michael Licata, a vice president of public policy at the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, adding that text of repeal bills already are floating around the statehouse.
RGGI decisions could reverberate beyond N.H.
Second, the regional program is undergoing its first major review in three years. Officials in nine states are examining whether to change the program's emissions limits and protocols via public meetings.
An incoming governor dedicated to pulling the state out, in the same way Gov. Chris Christie (R) did in New Jersey, could make it more difficult to make dramatic changes regionally. Even if Lamatagone were elected and failed in getting a legislative bill through, his rhetoric would be heard elsewhere, said Johnanna Neumann, regional director at Environment New Hampshire.
"The bully pulpit matters," Neumann said.
Critics have long said RGGI has a weak carbon cap and does little to cut emissions. They point to the fact that low natural gas prices and the recession helped push regional greenhouse gas output below emission limits before the program got started in 2009, leaving little incentive for utilities to do anything further (ClimateWire, Jan. 12).
But for supporters like Hassan, the program's carbon auctions have funded energy efficiency programs that have cut electricity usage and decreased emissions beyond where they would be otherwise. They point to a 2011 report from the Analysis Group finding that RGGI added $17 million in net economic benefits to the state.
In a Laconia Daily Sun editorial supporting Hassan, former New Hampshire Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Fernald noted that New Hampshire residents consume electricity from out of state, meaning that state taxpayers would still have to pay for the program via carbon fees on utilities bills if it left the program.
Climate change "may be the biggest issue we face in the world today. Ovide Lamontagne would let the rest of New England take our RGGI money," wrote Fernald.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentCompared to the Republican base, McKenna is a freaking communist!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf he were running in Texas, he wouldn't even be able to make the Democratic Party.
Like most polititalk, it's probably just rhetoric, but it's nice to see a Republican who isn't completely in thrall to Exxon-Mobil.
Furthermore, I think that cash incentives are way too soft on Big Business. Let's set up a socialist nation; it'll be a hell of alot better than the capitalist hell in which we now reside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[end political/economic/social/environmental rant]
Unfortunately Inslee's state and its hapless and so very stupid taxpayers are losing their shirt on "green" energy ie environmentally destructive, forest clear cutting, wind and firewood burners in Washington state. These morons voted in a state renewable energy standard (15%) and are losing their shirts on it, while rejecting every attempt at a reasonable mass transit system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately not being a complete idiot Inslee has endorsed nuke power as well.
Wind at a fixed must pay 10 - 12 cents/ kwh normally blows spring and fall and/or at night when it its not needed so has to be dumped on the grid regardless of cost. As a result BC Hydro with its massive network of dams gets paid by Wa state taxpayers to take that power off their hands, stores the power in its dams overnight by running the province on Wa wind power, then selling it back at premium rates daytime peak.
As well Washington dams have to release water all the time to keep proper levels for fish. Unfortunately, this energy free to the taxpayer has to be dumped as well as pride of place belongs to the politically connected Big Oil owned wind farm.
Two years ago for two weeks in the middle of a nasty cold snap in the middle of the peak power winter the Pacific Northwest lost all wind power. Tough when wind is 5% of load - deadly when it is 20%.
The other major source of green energy in the state is filthy deadly polluting worse than coal, GHG spewing, forest wrecking firewood burning - or Bioenergy for the politically correct. This form of not green energy is now universally rejected by Big Green but is accepted by the state due to purchasing of politicians by Big Timber operators.
Solar power of course is worthless in this far northern state, but subsidies are getting some of it build - a 100% waste of taxpayer's money.
Inslee's support of nukes is dependent on it being more economical after the Wppss fiasco, despite the fact that the one plant working - Columbia Generating station - is one of the lowest cost electricity producers in the country. The Pacific Northwest would have been in great shape for the future, if those WPPSS plants had been built. Instead they built coal plants that kill hundreds of citizens ever year from deadly toxic radioactive emissions.
The new zero environmental footprint nuke plants being built at VC Summer are 15% the cost of filthy new wind when backup and 5 times sized wind transmission builds are included.
That should satisfy Inslee.
No mention of work by hundreds here in #wa to get 6 science questions answered in gov race:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencedebate.org/wa2012/
One candidate (Inslee) answered but McKenna did not.
Bird:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read your responses to many of others' ignorant posts, and I generally agree with you regarding most of the issues at hand, but please cite proper sources when refuting claims. It would give you more credibility.
Good point. Sometimes, citations are unnecessary, though (I refer you to the ludicrous claims of julianpenrod).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this