SCC Oversight Restored, Don’t Expect Lower Bills

What Dominion is promoting as how to “save” you money while paying off its old fuel bills, with ten years of Tuesdays to pay. With interest.

by Steve Haner

The final version of a regulatory revision for Dominion Energy Virginia restores State Corporation Commission authority over the utility’s profit margin and rates, a major goal for Governor Glenn Youngkin (R). It was also the highest priority in a detailed energy policy put forward by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

Of the aggressive goals set out in Dominion’s initial legislation, few were accomplished in the end. The General Assembly did agree to directly legislate a profit margin for the utility for two years, and it is an increase.  Come 2025 the SCC will be free to set the next profit rate without any reference to the peer group of other utilities now required by law.

Setting a directly stated return on equity of 9.7 percent, right in the text of Virginia law, has never been done. The promise is the General Assembly and utility won’t ever do it again.  Past promises in prior utility legislative deals have not always held for long.  In this case, Governor Youngkin should still be around to prevent any backsliding, but precedents are precedents.

The bill as passed also mirrors separate legislation restoring the SCC’s full authority to raise or lower rates, an accounting process that is interrelated with determining the allowed profit margin.  It will depend on economic conditions in 2025, but the profit margin set by the SCC may or may not be lower than 9.7%.  Having the SCC decide that, however, is a return to proper regulatory policy.

Also gone for the future is the unique-to-Virginia return on equity “collar” which added another 70 basis points (0.7%) to the allowed profit margin.  With the increase in the official return on equity from 9.35 to 9.7%, Dominion is getting half of it back, at least.  The collar didn’t apply to all of its operations, but this higher base profit margin will, so it is largely a wash.

The profit margin on the massive Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, for example, is now 9.35% with no collar.  This legislation increases that to 9.7%, an extra $3.5 million in annual profit on every $1 billion of equity capital.

The peer group for return on equity decisions, and the rate collar allowing utilities to keep excess profits, also go away in approved legislation changing the rules for the state’s second largest electric provider, Appalachian Power Company.  The two companies will be operating under different regulatory regimes if both become law, a step backward to counteract some of these steps forward.

The one area where the General Assembly, or at least the Democrats who control the Virginia Senate, refused to return power to the SCC was over the generation mix for Virginia utilities.  There, a future SCC is still bound by numerous dictates imposed by past Assemblies to rapidly retire fossil fuel generators and replace them with a massive investment in wind, solar and batteries.

The best element of Dominion’s initial bill was that it gave the SCC a stronger hand in controlling the pace and nature of that conversion, directing it to make system reliability the key to its decisions.  That was a complete reversal of the approach laid out in Governor Ralph Northam’s (D) Virginia Clean Economy Act.  The idea survived in House versions of the Dominion bill but disappeared immediately in Senate versions.  It didn’t make the cut in the conference report.

Democrats claim that the Virginia Clean Economy Act will allow the SCC to keep a fossil fuel plant open, or reject a renewable investment, on the basis of reliability.  The SCC itself, in a report late last year, warned that it lacked the power to keep Virginia’s reliability high.  Concerns are going to grow, not fade.

The legislation as it heads to the Governor still includes Dominion’s proposal to take several of its stand-alone rate adjustment clauses (RACs), now billed individually, and merge them into the lump base rates.  The claim is that will “save” consumers $350 million, which it will not, but the disappearance of those monthly charges could create an appearance of lower bills.

Using base rate dollars to replace the dollars collected by those RACs means any excess profit that otherwise might occur will disappear, preventing any refunds to customers.  They could save $350 million on the bills but lose $350 million in refunds.

That’s why claims that this legislation will reduce electric bills are slippery.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch, in its report February 26, mirrored Dominion’s advertising claims and stated it will produce an “immediate” reduction of $6-7 for many residential customers, based on the RAC conversion.  In his victory press release, Governor Youngkin was more careful, stating the legislation will “save customers money on their monthly bills.”

Comparing this bill to what Dominion introduced weeks ago, the Governor’s statement is correct.  Dominion was seeking a much higher legislated profit margin with no sunset on the peer group.  But there are so many moving pieces in the electric bill, so many expensive projects like the offshore wind complex and nuclear reactor upgrades are soon to be added, it is impossible to predict where a family’s cost will be in one year or two.

Another major cost element that remains impossible to predict is the price of fuel.  This conference report includes Dominion’s proposal to allow the SCC to spread that cost over multiple years, with interest.  Basically it would create a bond to cover part or all of the $1.6 billion in fuel costs it ran up when prices spiked after Russia attacked Ukraine.

Those fuel costs, mainly natural gas, have since dropped substantially.  If the unpaid backlog is amortized over a long period, in the short run the customer bill will be lower but in the long run the total cost is far higher.  As the time period lengthens, the total interest paid starts to pile up, just like with a credit card when you make only the minimum payment.

In written arguments for the bill, Dominion provided some examples from other states.  In one, a big fuel bill would have added $39 to monthly bills if paid off over a year ($468 total), but only $5.64 per month if paid out over ten years ($676.80 in total).  That extra $209 (45% more) will be collected by some lender.  Is that saving customers money?  No, but it will sure look like it has between now and the next election.

The final Dominion and Appalachian bills both include provisions where the state’s largest users can just pay off the fuel arrearage in twelve months, avoiding those years of interest costs.  The option is only granted to the largest customers, those with lobbyists watching out for them.  When they opt out of something, the smaller customers should beware.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

20 responses to “SCC Oversight Restored, Don’t Expect Lower Bills”

  1. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    Even in engineering, everything is a tradeoff. I believe that continuing to publish more facts about the pursuit of “renewable energy” sources, will lead to a voter discontent toward paying for the stuff like windmills and cheaply (foreign) made solar panels, vs. U.S. natural gas, and perhaps the forthcoming small nuc reactors. Great report, and Kudos for your past efforts in laying out the facts.

  2. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Prior to its latest amendment, the SCC could relieve the electrics from retirement of units needed to maintain reliability. But only if the utilities proposed the delay. If the utility decided to retire the unit, the SCC could not step in and order its continued operation. However, I really don’t think either Apco or Dom wants to tempt fate by operating unreliably. A great deal hinges on successful license extensions for Dom’s nuclear units and (hopefully) successful development of new modular nuclear OR successful carbon capture. Neither of those is at all imminent, to my knowledge.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The climate alarmists care nothing about reliabilty and they run the Democratic party from Joe Biden down to the precinct captains. The solution for them is always to build more wind and solar.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Much of Corporate American subscribe to the climate concerns.

        It’s not a small group of activists.

        It’s both govt and corporate and extends worldwide.

      2. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        I can’t agree with that Steve, any more than I believe all Republicans are wholly indifferent to the harms of burning fossil fuels. Likewise, I can’t accept that all these utilities planning to increase renewables are indifferent to whether their systems collapse. There’s going to be a reasonable balance struck somewhere between “none” and “all.”

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I agree. If SMRs or hydrogen or something else goes forward, wind/solar might recede but I don’t see us stopping this evolution and I also don’t understand anyone who is a skeptic not allowing for SOME potential possibility that climate IS changing. Who denies something/anything as a possibility 100%? I’m from the safe but sorry school myself. No one can reasonably be so sure the science is 100% wrong, not even a slim chance it is right.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Often it depends on from where YOUR money comes and/or to where goes.

          There are those who will sacrifice all to attain little.

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Believe it or not, Mr. Chambliss, few elected Democrats dare speak the truth that we will need substantial baseload to go along with their sacred wind and solar. Joe Biden says all fossil fuels gone in 10 years? Nope. I agree the utilities get it.

          1. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            I’ll certainly defer to you on the elected Ds, Steve. I generally steer clear of all electees….

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/an-energy-reform-agenda-for-virginia/

    The energy agenda actually first appeared here on Bacon’s Rebellion in August of 2021, well before Youngkin’s victory. And, of course, it built on what was three years of columns here up to that point. But I am very appreciative that the Thomas Jefferson Institute provided its platform for that message, too. That was a way to reach a wider audience.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    From what I read, nukes, even SMRs will be much more expensive to operate. The existing conventional nukes (like North Anna) are baseload generators that cannot quickly ramp up or down in response to wind/solar variations, they take hours/days. SMRs can ramp but they are years away and are equally or more expensive than conventional nukes. There are very few commercial SMRs even though their kin are the 30+ year old US Navy ship reactors technology.

    The proof of this is the 10,000+ inhabited islands, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico that has not a single SMR and primarily use diesel fuel for electricity at 30 cents kwh.

    There’s no easy way to move away from gas and the least efficient, more consumptive are “peaker” units that can quickly ramp up and down (as opposed to baseload gas plants).

    These dynamics would seem to motivate more wind/solar because it is cheaper than gas and if gas goes
    up in price in the next decade, pretty much pre-ordained, even if SMRs come online because of cost.

    Even if Dominion does not build more wind/solar, other places in the PJM region will and will be available and likely be the lowest cost and that will be true even when SMRs come online.

    Whether the GA should actually dictate the mix or picking one technology over another goes back to coal which the GA and the US have discouraged using because of pollution – both conventional and GHG.

    What we do know is that no matter what happens on the fuel mix issue and other related issues is that Dominion will strongly advocate for and likely get a hansom profit.

  5. Dr. Havel nos Spine' Avatar
    Dr. Havel nos Spine’

    This new legislation apparently sends money issues back to the SCC — after some sort of two year ‘transition’ period. After two decades of the General Assembly being the de facto money regulator, most folks seem happy with restoring SCC authority over the dollars and cents. But we appear to want to continue to battle it out before the General Assembly as to when fossil-fueled generators can safely retire or otherwise be pushed aside. Note that even more so than regarding money issues, one really has to know what one is doing when making decisions about the reliability, stability and security of the Eastern Interconnection – what novices call the ‘grid’.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Govt does get involved on the fuel mix over pollution issues. If the govt had not gotten involved, would we still be burning coal as a major part of the mix?

      Reliability is more than just fuel mix.

      And it’s way more than the GA or even the SCC can assure. Neither of them are PJM and in all respects, that’s a good thing.

  6. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    This legislation is a good first step but much more needs to be done. The mandates in the Virginia Clean Economy Act are almost certainly wrong because no group, especially a legislative group, can know all the factors and forces that will take place over a period of time of several decades.
    At some point Dominion will claim that sunk costs are not irrelevant and its investment needs to be protected by some other actions that will keep us tied to wind power even if it is not cost competitive.
    If Dominion is convinced about its wind farm, it ought to lobby to remove legislative mandates because it is committed to the wind farm option. But it won’t do that.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I agree with first sentence, but the same could be said of coal or nukes. Coal is being phased out and sunk costs are an issue. The coal ash is a kind of a “sunk” cost that had to be recovered.

      Would/shouldl the GA support the development of SMRs over other technologies?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Well, the answer is it didn’t. Another column I need to write….

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        coal is being replaced because of economics and environmental regulations. That is the way markets work. We have been decarbonizing for decades and don’t need government subsidies or mandates.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          yes, but ” economics and environmental regulations.” affect all energy sources including gas, wind, solar and nukes.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            So, what’s your point? If the cost of natural gas is less than the cost of coal, it will replace it. Government mainly messes things up and introduces market distortions. The history of energy demonstrates that quite clearly.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            only that both regulation and market are involved and we’re not going back to coal and if SMRs get to commercial , they’re not going to be cheaper and likely more expensive that gas or wind or solar.

Leave a Reply