Ralph Northam And Tom Perriello Go All-In On McAuliffe’s Job-Killing Executive Order

Yesterday, Democrat governor Terry McAuliffe signed an executive order to open the door to job-killing cap-and-trade style regulations for Virginia, a move that could potentially cost billions of dollars and threaten thousands of Commonwealth jobs if enacted. Despite this, the two far left Democrats running to succeed McAuliffe, Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam, chose to quickly shout their support for McAuliffe’s EO moments after he signed the it.

Given Perriello and Northam’s long records of supporting radical environmentalist policies that would cost billions in taxpayer funds while eliminating vital jobs for hard-working Virginians, their support for McAuliffe’s executive order hardly comes as a surprise. While in Congress, Tom Perriello was a key supporter of failed cap-and-trade schemes which would have proven disastrous for Virginians if imposed, and Ralph Northam not only supported Obama’s catastrophic “Clean Power Plan” but served on then-governor Tim Kaine’s Commission for Climate Change, which backed federal cap-and-trade plans and pollution taxes that unnecessarily penalized businesses.

Here are just some examples of Northam and Perriello’s past support for radical, costly, and job-killing policies for the Commonwealth:

Ralph Northam:

In 2008, Northam was appointed by then-Gov. Kaine to the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. In 2008, Northam was appointed by then-Gov. Tim Kaine to the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. (Commission Members, Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, Accessed Feb. 8, 2017)

The Commission recommended studying the effectiveness of a pollution tax. “The Commonwealth should sponsor research to assess, from a Virginia perspective, the relative costs, benefits, and effectiveness of various mechanisms to place a price on carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade or a pollution tax on GHG emissions that is linked to reduction of other taxes.” (Final Report, Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, Dec. 4, 2008)

The Commission did not believe Virginia should develop its own cap-and-trade system and instead deferred to a federal cap-and-trade system over a statewide or regional system.“Given the global nature of climate change and current activities at the federal level, the Workgroup concluded that it was likely that the federal government will take action to mitigate carbon emissions economy-wide. It also appears that such action will be in the form of a cap-and trade program. Because of the likelihood of federal action, the workgroup did not believe Virginia should develop its own cap-and-trade program or join an existing regional program like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).” (Final Report,Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, Dec. 4, 2008)

The Commission recommended implementing electricity fees to fund climate change education. “Funding for the consumer education actions is to come from the surcharge electric utilities pay to fund the SCC operations. This fund was previously used for the electricity choice consumer education plan. Any new program must have sufficient funding to make a meaningful change in consumer knowledge and behavior…. There may be other opportunities to target energy conservation and efficiency training and education at specific targets. For example, there is potential for energy savings and greenhouse gas sequestration on farms. A farm audit program could be enacted to expand efficiency practices in the agricultural sector… These efforts could be funded from sources with a nexus to the target audience. For example, an effort targeted to fuel oil users or transportation efficiency could be funded through a small increase in the fee that now supports the state’s underground storage tank program.” (Final Report, Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, Dec. 4, 2008)

The Commission recommended establishing a centralized bureaucracy to hand out taxpayer money to fund private energy efficiency projects.  “Report, Dec. 4, 2008: “As noted above, two primary barriers to implementing energy efficiency improvements are lack of upfront funding and customer confusion. To overcome these barriers, the Commonwealth could work with localities and community groups to provide a central, publicly administered capital fund for energy efficiency investments, with the energy efficiency projects implemented through local organizations… “For example, a local government could work with community groups to form a low profit, limited-liability company (L3C) to deliver services to local homes and businesses. Other potential local service providers could include current Weatherization Assistance Program service providers, or other local non-governmental organizations. Capital funds could be made available through the Virginia Resources Authority. Consumers would have a greater level of trust when the service is affiliated with their local and state governments... The service should include an energy audit identifying savings potential, financing tied to energy savings, use of certified contractors to ensure quality control, and follow-up monitoring to ensure savings… A central administrative body (state government or a non-governmental organization) could provide central energy efficiency consumer education material, central administrative services such as account management, and technical assistance to local service providers.” (Final Report, Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, Dec. 4, 2008)

In 2015, Northam supported President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), saying the plan’s goal was “to reduce the harmful carbon pollution from power plants that is putting Virginia’s health and safety at risk.”The Clean Power Plan taking effect this week will create 21st century jobs and improve public health, making it a win-win for the commonwealth… The goal is simple: to reduce the harmful carbon pollution from power plants that is putting Virginia’s health and safety at risk. The good news is that Virginia is already 80 percent of the way toward meeting the EPA’s target… From an economic standpoint, the Clean Power Plan will help Virginia diversify and strengthen its economy by attracting the growing clean energy industry. By 2018, green construction-supported jobs are expected to reach 3.3 million nationwide. Recognizing the incredible potential, the governor introduced an energy plan last year with an emphasis on bringing those jobs to the commonwealth. As we build a clean power infrastructure in Virginia, we will also build a highly-qualified workforce ready to lead Virginia into a healthy, prosperous future… We have the chance to make Virginia a leader in clean power. The goals set out in the Clean Power Plan are not only achievable, but imperative. Focusing on clean energy will save and improve children’s lives in Virginia, support environmental justice for our most at-risk communities, and attract 21st century jobs… It is our responsibility to start this work now. Virginia is so close to achieving our goal, and I know we can go even further. We can change the trajectory of Virginia’s future for the better. We have the power; we have the resources; now all we need is the strength to work together to see it through.” (Ralph Northam opinion, “Clean Power for a Healthy Virginia,” The Virginian-Pilot, Dec. 20, 2015)

Tom Perriello:

In June of 2009, Perriello voted for H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the House’s cap-and-trade legislation to combat global warming On June 26, 2009, Perriello voted for passage of a bill that would create a cap-and-trade system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and set new requirements for electric utilities. The EPA would be allowed to auction emission allowances to permit the buyer to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Under the bill, three-quarters of emission allowances would be provided to polluters free of charge, based on formulas, when the cap-and-trade program would begin in 2012. Remaining allowances would be sold at auction. By 2030, 75 percent of the allowances would be sold to polluters by EPA. The bill would limit emissions at 17 percent below current levels in 2020, 42 percent in 2030 and 83 percent in 2050. Companies such as electric utilities, refineries and factories could buy and sell pollution allowances and get credit for funding special projects to reduce emissions on farms and in forests. It would require utilities to produce 15 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020, with another 5 percent energy savings from efficiency. States could petition to bring the renewable mandate down to 12 percent, with 8 percent from efficiency. It would set new emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, and new energy efficiency and water use standards for buildings and products. It would establish programs to assist energy consumers with higher utility bills as a result of the system. It also would create programs for electrical transmission lines, smart grid technologies, modernizing electricity infrastructure to respond to changing conditions, reduction of emissions, increased energy efficiency, and carbon capture and sequestration. (Passed 219-212: R: 8-168; D: 211-44) (Source: H.R. 2454, CQ Vote #477, June 26, 2009)

Perriello said the bill would “revitalize our economy by creating millions of new jobs” and “preserve our planet by reducing pollution.”“Perriello said the bill, officially called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would ‘revitalize our economy by creating millions of new jobs” and “preserve our planet by reducing pollution.’… The bill puts pressure on carbon emitters such as older factories and power plants, and would create a market for farm products that can be used as biofuels and clean energy, Perriello said. (Ray Reed, “Perriello backs climate change bill; Goodlatte doesn’t,” The News & Advance, June 27, 2009)

Virginia jobs would decline by between 41,400 and 56,400 by 2030 under H.R. 2454. Study co-sponsored by the Science Applications International Corporation, American Council for Capital Formation, and the National Association of Manufacturers, Aug. 12, 2009: “The jobs impact of W/M [Waxman-Markey] is delayed by the free allocation of permits and generous carbon offsets.  By 2030, as emission reduction targets tighten and other W/M provisions phase out, Virginia jobs decline by 41,400 under the low cost case and by 56,400 under the high cost case (Figure 2).  The primary cause of job losses is lower industrial output due to higher energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.” ( “Economic impact of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act,” Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Aug. 12, 2009)

The CBO said jobs in coal mining and at coal-fired power plants could decrease, and The National Mining Association reports Virginia had about 4,650 coal miners in 2009. PolitiFact, April 12, 2011: “The Congressional Budget Office, the independent research and analysis arm of Congress, notes in a report that cap-and-trade could shift demand away from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. The CBO said jobs in coal mining and at coal-fired power plants could decrease unless new technology is able to capture emissions… One potential problem, however, is the risk that job losses would be concentrated in small communities, such as those scattered across Virginia’s coal belt, where other job opportunities are limited. This could force workers to relocate to find new work. The National Mining Association reports Virginia had about 4,650 coal miners in 2009, compared with 21,665 in West Virginia and more than 18,000 in Kentucky.” (Source: Jaccob Geiger, Robert Hurt says cap and trade would cost 50,000 Virginia jobs…” (Jaccob Geiger, Robert Hurt says cap and trade would cost 50,000 Virginia jobs,” PolitiFact, April 12, 2011)

The Wall Street Journal said the cap-and-trade program will create higher prices for consumers, fewer jobs created or higher unemployment, and some companies will move their operations overseas. “The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.” (Editorial, “The Cap and Tax Fiction,” The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009)

At a recent town hall in Southwest Virginia, Perriello cited his support for cap-and-trade as a reason he has been a “climate hawk” for 20 years, calling it “no secret.” Tom Perriello at Abingdon town hall, April 7, 2017 “I’m a climate hawk, I’ve been a climate hawk for 20 years. People know that, I’ve run environmental groups, I voted for cap-and-trade. There’s no secret about that.” ( “VA Tom Perriello climate April 7 2017,” YouTube, April 12, 2017)