Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Environmental Quality
 
Board
Air Pollution Control Board
 
chapter
Regulation for Emissions Trading [9 VAC 5 ‑ 140]
Action Repeal CO 2 Budget Trading Program as required by Executive Order 9 (Revision A22)
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 3/31/2023
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
3/27/23  10:37 pm
Commenter: Jedi Kauanui

Keep RGGI
 

All in all, I think that staying in the RGGI would be a beneficial move, seeing how it has some great benefits. These including a push towards the advancement of renewable and alternative energy production, as well as receiving millions from auctions, which has helped low to middle income communities become more climate resilient, move more flow into the public health sector, as well as significantly decrease the emissions that Virginia produces. Virginia also has an ambitious bill in the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) that capitalizes on the potential RGGI has. However, the VCEA only impacts the two largest energy providers in the state. I think that the development of an additional bill that also promotes decentralization of energy would further increase the positive effect that RGGI has on communities, further decarbonize Virginias electrical grid in the coming decades, as well as lower the average residential electricity bill which will in turn greatly increase the support in favor of RGGI, and convince other states to follow Virginias lead. An example of this, while outdated, is the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (AEPS) in Pennsylvania which promotes the development of renewable energy as well as aims to create thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector. While RGGI is already positively impacting the commonwealth of Virginia as well as the environment of the state as a whole, the pure potential that RGGI has to increase the benefits it provides is reason enough for Virginia to stay within the RGGI. 

CommentID: 214223