Business
New York and Vermont Seek to Impose a Retroactive Climate Tax
From Heartland Daily News
By Joshua Loucks for the Cato Institute.
Energy producers will be subject to retroactive taxes in New York if the state assembly passes Senate Bill S2129A, known as the “Climate Change Superfund Act.” The superfund legislation seeks to impose a retroactive tax on energy companies that have emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) and operated within the state over the last seventy years.
If passed, the new law will impose $75 billion in repayment fees for “historical polluters,” who lawmakers assert are primarily responsible for climate change damages within the state. The state will “assign liability to and require compensation from companies commensurate with their emissions” over the last “70 years or more.” The bill would establish a standard of strict liability, stating that “companies are required to pay into the fund because the use of their products caused the pollution. No finding of wrongdoing is required.”
New York is not alone in this effort. Superfunds built on retroactive taxes on GHG emissions are becoming increasingly popular. Vermont recently enacted similar legislation, S.259 (Act 122), titled the “Climate Superfund Act,” in which the state also retroactively taxes energy producers for historic emissions. Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland and Massachusetts.
Climate superfund legislation seems to have one purpose: to raise revenue by taxing a politically unpopular industry. Under the New York law, fossil fuel‐producing energy companies would be taxed billions of dollars retroactively for engaging in legal and necessary behavior. For example, the seventy‐year retroactive tax would conceivably apply to any company—going back to 1954—that used fossil fuels to generate electricity or produced fuel for New York drivers.
The typical “economic efficiency” arguments for taxing an externality go out the window with the New York and Vermont approach, for at least two reasons. First, the goal of a blackboard or textbook approach to a carbon tax is to internalize the GHG externality. To apply such a tax accurately, the government would need to calculate the social cost of carbon (SCC).
Unfortunately, estimating the SCC is methodologically complex and open to wide ranges of estimates. As a result, the SCC is theoretically very useful but practically impossible to calculate with any reasonable degree of precision.
Second, the retroactive nature of these climate superfunds undermines the very incentives a textbook tax on externalities would promote. A carbon tax’s central feature is that it is intended to reduce externalities from current and future activity by changing incentives. However, by imposing retroactive taxes, the New York and Vermont legislation will not impact emitters’ future behavior in a way that mimics a textbook carbon tax or improves economic outcomes.
Arbitrary and retroactive taxes can, however, raise prices for consumers by increasing policy uncertainty, affecting firm profitability, and reducing investment (or causing investors to flee GHG‐emitting industries in the state altogether). Residents in both New York and Vermont already pay over 30 percent more than the US average in residential electricity prices, and this legislation will not lower these costs to consumers.
Climate superfunds are not a serious attempt to solve environmental challenges but rather a way to raise government revenue while unfairly punishing an entire industry (one whose actions the New York legislation claims “have been unconscionable, closely reflecting the strategy of denial, deflection, and delay used by the tobacco industry”).
Fossil fuel companies enabled GHG emissions, of course, but they also empowered significant growth, mobility, and prosperity. The punitive nature of the policy is laid bare by the fact that neither New York nor Vermont used a generic SCC or an evidentiary proceeding to calculate precise damages.
Finally, establishing a standard in which “no finding of wrongdoing is required” to levy fines against historical actions that were (and still are) legally permitted sets a dangerous precedent for what governments can do, not only to businesses that have produced fossil fuels but also to individuals who have consumed them.
Cato research associate Joshua Loucks contributed to this post.
Originally published by the Cato Institute. Republished with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.
The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.
For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).
And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.
In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.
This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.
Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.
Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.
Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.
When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.
According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.
Author:
Alberta maintains a balanced budget while ensuring pressures from population growth are being addressed.
Alberta faces rising risks, including ongoing resource volatility, geopolitical instability and rising pressures at home. With more than 450,000 people moving to Alberta in the last three years, the province has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to address these pressures and ensure Albertans continue to be supported. Alberta’s government is determined to make every dollar go further with targeted and responsible spending on the priorities of Albertans.
The province is forecasting a $4.6 billion surplus at the end of 2024-25, up from the $2.9 billion first quarter forecast and $355 million from budget, due mainly to higher revenue from personal income taxes and non-renewable resources.
Given the current significant uncertainty in global geopolitics and energy markets, Alberta’s government must continue to make prudent choices to meet its responsibilities, including ongoing bargaining for thousands of public sector workers, fast-tracking school construction, cutting personal income taxes and ensuring Alberta’s surging population has access to high-quality health care, education and other public services.
“These are challenging times, but I believe Alberta is up to the challenge. By being intentional with every dollar, we can boost our prosperity and quality of life now and in the future.”
Midway through 2024-25, the province has stepped up to boost support to Albertans this fiscal year through key investments, including:
- $716 million to Health for physician compensation incentives and to help Alberta Health Services provide services to a growing and aging population.
- $125 million to address enrollment growth pressures in Alberta schools.
- $847 million for disaster and emergency assistance, including:
- $647 million to fight the Jasper wildfires
- $163 million for the Wildfire Disaster Recovery Program
- $5 million to support the municipality of Jasper (half to help with tourism recovery)
- $12 million to match donations to the Canadian Red Cross
- $20 million for emergency evacuation payments to evacuees in communities impacted by wildfires
- $240 million more for Seniors, Community and Social Services to support social support programs.
Looking forward, the province has adjusted its forecast for the price of oil to US$74 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate. It expects to earn more for its crude oil, with a narrowing of the light-heavy differential around US$14 per barrel, higher demand for heavier crude grades and a growing export capacity through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Despite these changes, Alberta still risks running a deficit in the coming fiscal year should oil prices continue to drop below $70 per barrel.
After a 4.4 per cent surge in the 2024 census year, Alberta’s population growth is expected to slow to 2.5 per cent in 2025, lower than the first quarter forecast of 3.2 per cent growth because of reduced immigration and non-permanent residents targets by the federal government.
Revenue
Revenue for 2024-25 is forecast at $77.9 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion from Budget 2024, including:
- $16.6 billion forecast from personal income taxes, up from $15.6 billion at budget.
- $20.3 billion forecast from non-renewable resource revenue, up from $17.3 billion at budget.
Expense
Expense for 2024-25 is forecast at $73.3 billion, an increase of $143 million from Budget 2024.
Surplus cash
After calculations and adjustments, $2.9 billion in surplus cash is forecast.
- $1.4 billion or half will pay debt coming due.
- The other half, or $1.4 billion, will be put into the Alberta Fund, which can be spent on further debt repayment, deposited into the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and/or spent on one-time initiatives.
Contingency
Of the $2 billion contingency included in Budget 2024, a preliminary allocation of $1.7 billion is forecast.
Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund
The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund grew in the second quarter to a market value of $24.3 billion as of Sept. 30, 2024, up from $23.4 billion at the end of the first quarter.
- The fund earned a 3.7 per cent return from July to September with a net investment income of $616 million, up from the 2.1 per cent return during the first quarter.
Debt
Taxpayer-supported debt is forecast at $84 billion as of March 31, 2025, $3.8 billion less than estimated in the budget because the higher surplus has lowered borrowing requirements.
- Debt servicing costs are forecast at $3.2 billion, down $216 million from budget.
Related information
Alberta activates contingency mail delivery plan
“I know three families that have gone to Canada.”: Locals Say Haitians Are Hoofing It Out Of Springfield After Trump Win
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
ESG2 days ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
International1 day agoEuthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
-
armed forces20 hours agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Addictions1 day agoBC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Business2 days agoCarbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Alberta1 day agoEarly Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta