Batting Zero on Virginia Energy Policy Reset

by Steve Haner

One year later, a series of energy policy goals for Virginia proposed by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy remains just as valid and also remain unaccomplished. Gridlock has favored the flawed status quo.

Compared to a year ago, more Virginians have awakened to the reality that they will soon be forced into electric vehicles they may not want. They may be prevented from using reliable and efficient natural gas in a furnace or stove. Their monthly electric bill is growing with charges for unreliable solar and wind projects that do not work more hours than they do.

And despite all that, the weather will remain as it is, and the millennia-long relative sea level rise will stay its inexorable course. Our self-imposed energy poverty won’t stop any of that. We can rush toward that stark future or change course, the sooner the better. The checklist remains the same.

The opening paragraph of the document a year ago noted that Dominion Energy Virginia had just admitted its 176-turbine offshore wind project was going up in cost to almost $10 billion. Debate over the project and possible forms of consumer protection continues, but the dollar figures under discussion have risen again. Consumers may now be on the hook now for a share of $11.3 billion or more, amortized over decades. A total project cost of almost $14 billion is now hinted at.

The underlying laws that basically mandate the project’s approval, constraining the State Corporation Commission’s traditional independent oversight role, remain fully in force. Two bills to restore SCC discretion that passed in the GOP-controlled House of Delegates during the 2022 session failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In his recently released state energy plan, Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) expressed strong support for restoring the SCC’s ability to decide what are reasonable and prudent utility investments, ending the General Assembly’s usurpation of that job. The legislation to accomplish that is not yet revealed. Again, if all Democrats vote against it in lock step, it dies.

There is no better indication of the continuing gridlock than the General Assembly’s failure to elect a third member to the three-member SCC, a vacancy which has dragged on for a year.

Governor Youngkin has also begun a process to eliminate the carbon tax imposed by Virginia’s membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Eliminating taxes or penalties intended to discourage particular forms of energy in favor of others was an element of the Institute’s proposal. But the tax itself remains in place and will continue into 2023, costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars, as Democrats fight at every step to maintain the RGGI tax.

The 2021 recommendation to remove penalties in law on specific energy sources would also apply to the coming ban on internal combustion engines in vehicles, which rely on gasoline or diesel. A year later Virginia remains in step with California’s shrinking caps on and eventual elimination of the sale of such vehicles. Legislation on that also passed the House and failed in the Senate, but has been reintroduced already for 2023.

Continuing with the list of prior recommendations:

Has anything changed to limit the ability of the regulated utilities to influence their own fates and the costs imposed on consumers by making large campaign contributions? No.

Has the SCC process been opened up by making it more difficult for applicants and other parties to cases to declare information is proprietary or confidential and thus withheld from public examination? No. In a few cases the Office of the Attorney General has successfully pushed for additional transparency. A real solution will require a change in SCC rules, or legislation.

No effort was made to remove the consumer advocacy function from under the Office of the Attorney General and transfer it to a separate office, as is the case in several other states. This idea has nothing to do with the priorities or skills of the staff, and everything to do with the appearances created by the Attorney General being an elected officer soliciting and accepting those very same campaign contributions discussed above.

Tightly limit or eliminate the campaign contributions, and the need to restructure the office diminishes.

Under Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, the Office of Consumer Counsel did devise and push an aggressive consumer protection proposal on Dominion’s offshore wind project. In its initial decision on the case the SCC accepted it. But Dominion asked for reconsideration, and Miyares then abandoned his previous proposal in light of something else Dominion preferred.

Last year it was clear that Virginia local governments, especially those few with their own utility services, had no duty to serve their communities. Richmond City Council had expressed (and has never retreated from) a desire to eliminate its natural gas utility, which reaches into three surrounding counties. Other Virginia localities under pressure from local activists are willing to implement energy micro-policies to discourage or eliminate specific fuel sources, often with zoning restrictions.

Following the familiar pattern, the Republican members of the House had the votes to pass a bill to establish a right to natural gas within state law, which would constrain those local efforts. They did so. It also failed in the Senate.

Every one of these efforts should be attempted and debated again at the 2023 General Assembly. The result could again be partisan gridlock, but if the two parties get further locked into their opposite positions, at least voters can see a clear choice for the 2023 elections in both chambers.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

86 responses to “Batting Zero on Virginia Energy Policy Reset”

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    “Has anything changed to limit the ability of the regulated utilities to influence their own fates and the costs imposed on consumers by making large campaign contributions? No.”

    I’ve been saying that for 18 years on this blog.

    A succession of Democratic and Republican legislatures have failed to act.

    A succession of Democratic and Republican governors have failed to act.

    Until we make honesty a critical trait of those for whom we vote, we will not reign in Dominion (or any other special interest group in Virginia).

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Legislators might be more “honest” if the legislature was unicameral with no excuses to blame upon another chamber. Delegate districts are reasonably equally populated following the failure of the redistricting commission. One vote, one legislator before the next census.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Maybe. I think Nebraska does it that way. I’m less than sure that having a unicameral legislature would make the politicians we elect any more honest.

        What would you think of a unicameral legislature with 200 representatives? At least 60 new people would have to be elected. Virginia’s population has increased dramatically while the number of legislators has not. Maybe 200 would bring the politicians closer to the people they supposedly represent.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It’s been said that Congress would need to have 10 times as many members as now if it were to keep to the numbers of represented per congressman originally.

          So would there be more common man elected rather than what we have now – millions of dollars of campaign money from questionable sources with motivations more than local concerns.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Such proportion to the original representative rate is not necessary in a nation with vastly improved communication and travel. The elimination of 100 Senators affects nothing in the population equation. The populace under the current census remains represented without redundancy.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well I think you make a good point but I think it’s like 800K for a Congressman and that seems like a tough gig to be “in touch” with your constituents though as you say communication and a lot of staffers involved may help.

            Still.. come election time – it some districts – even with polling – it seems the electorate may not be tracking with their elected. Once they get elected, they go off and do their partisan things.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            I don’t have data but my nose tells me voters have an instinctive sense that the legislative process is a quagmire and turns them off. In addition, two centuries of civic indoctrination that a bicameral body produces better legislation approaches myth. Lastly, those same civics lessons instructed that the Founders did not trust the populace resulting in the Electoral College and legislative selection of Senators.

            Four year terms limited to 3 or 4 might mitigate going off, doing their own thing. One vote, one legislator.

          4. LesGabriel Avatar

            I don’t believe that the legislative selection of senators was a reflection of a distrust of the electorate, but rather the determination that the House was to represent the people of the District while senators were to
            represent the interests of the states. The idea of the sovereignty of the states is one that has eroded significantly in the last 2 centuries.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          A GA with 100 members and districts, reasonably equally and equitably populated, offers a far more close relationship with the governed. Increase the term to 3 years and limit to 3 or 4. Need a compensation increase also funded in part by the loss of 40.

        3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          As a former Nebraska resident and current member of the Nebraska bar, I can attest to Nebraska having a single house legislature known as the Unicameral where the members are called Senators. It is also officially nonpartisan. However, both Parties endorse candidates and have their caucuses in the legislature. Half of the 49-member legislature is elected every two years.

          Most of the Democratic Senators come from the Omaha and Lincoln metro areas. The rest of the state usually elects Republicans. Often, the election determines whether the GOP has a super majority.

          I hope this information is useful.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Created under the leadership of Sen. Norris in the 1930s following the Great Depression who, it is said, thought a unicameral legislature more efficient and responsive, necessary to initiate action to economic conditions.

  2. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    I recently discussed these issues with someone who has recently moved into a retirement community. He follows issues with the general assembly related to many things, but no energy. He was not aware of how critical the issue has become. Do you think living in a retirement community lowers the bar for recognizing this as an issue? I have been following for about two years now and I am very concerned. I don’t want to move to a retirement community and own a gas run home with no mortgage. I have a back up system, but it is not at all efficient, even for air-conditioning. The house is older and we had to air condition with split systems vs. central.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Mainly I say, plan to spend way more. The supply of gas is massive but they are continuing to suppress its availability (see even the current prices in New England.)

  3. Deckplates Avatar

    The problem with creating this costly & unacceptably low ROI, to make an electricity generating, contract with Dominion, is it was not really obviated to the general public. At least I did not know of the details, and the goofy high cost per kilowatt the windmills are “supposed” to produce. And the really goofy high cost per windmill design / installation / maint / contractor fees – with an unknown / unable to accurately predict amount of power production.
    The other and more obvious problem is that the majority of Virginians did not actually vote for it. Our elected reps pushed this thru without useful public vetting nor a concern for the eventual outcome.
    It almost seems as if the last administration purposely left the present administration a mess to clean up? Otherwise, why screw all Virginians, rich, median income & poor, into paying X times higher electric bills?

    Now it has to be undone, and that will cost too.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      heard similar bad feelings about those HOT lanes! 😉

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    If the energy consequences on the EU caused by the war in Ukraine aren’t enough to cause the GA to reconsider its energy policies it is doubtful anything will other than an energy crisis.
    Government has tried since the first embargo to back oil out of our energy budget and has failed so far. Mandates and similar government actions can prove disruptive and costly but until technology is developed to make gasoline and diesel, and natural gas less economically attractive, we will just keep going from one mess to another.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      It’s wasting energy we ought to agree on though.

  5. Given that political polarization is about as bad as it has been since the War of northern aggression, paralysis is the most one can hope for. It sure beats left wing control.

    Re Dominion OSW I think the fully loaded (financed) construction cost of over $20 billion should also always be given. It is what we will pay.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      ever since they built a nuke plant on an earthquake fault, right?

      1. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        They built a nuke plant on an earthquake fault?

        That shit only happens in Virginia.

        Ought to change the state motto from “Sic Semper Tyrannis” to “Hold muh beer”.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Compared to a year ago, more Virginians have awakened to the reality that they will soon be forced into electric vehicles they may not want. They may be prevented from using reliable and efficient natural gas in a furnace or stove.”

    I suppose you have a stash of incandescent lightbulbs in the basement? Americans didn’t want LEDs either. Would you care to show us the TJI calculation on how much those incandescent bulbs cost you?

    Have scientists been wrong. Yes. But your insistence that it’s a hoax makes you appear waaay less intelligent than you had to be some 40 years ago. Have scientists perpetrated hoaxes, or falsified data. Undoubtedly. But not for long, and never in large numbers — and that’s the key.

    In order for climate change to be a hoax, as you have claimed, an entire scientific community would have to be in on it. We’re talking about 1000s of scientists, working with publicly available data, using open source mathematics (there ain’t no other kind) and physics perpetrating and perpetuating a hoax.

    You should stop now Steve.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      their “models” are wrong all the time but we still rely on them because they’re also right.

      The trick is which one do you believe?

      Haner believes NONE – all models are wrong!

      it’s a HOAX!

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec4394faa8336f1c9ccc8417dacec665617b5c84f5363fa6d9a0e289021bc409.jpg

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Those government models, NASA, NOAA, NCAR, etc., are open source too. Scientists are welcomed to them. They can review the assumptions and algorithms.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          but a PR guy can pronounce them “flawed”!

          Oh, and then there’s that physicist that used to work as Chief Scientists for an oil company… he knows more than the scientists at NOAA, NASA and MIT/Cal Tech, etc.

          I swear if 100 doctors told Haner he needed to change his habits and undergo medical treatment or die, would he believe the one guy that said the other doctors were lying?

          I bet not.

          He’d diss the CDC and FDA scientists on COVID but he wore his mask and got his shots.

          Conservatives are ODD !

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Maybe because he knows that when it comes to ‘tipping point’ climate change, he’s got it beat.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      you might like this: https://youtu.be/8KSC84K4rcY

    2. how_it_works Avatar
      how_it_works

      Just don’t replace halogen headlight bulbs with LED ones. They are not legal and most are cheap Chinese trash.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oooh, but the colors…

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    Truth is most voters believe climate change is real and that we have to start making changes.

    If Youngkin had run on the TJ platform as central to his campaign, he would have lost votes and that’s why him and Miyares are “weaseling”.

    The GOP has no credibility on environmental issues. They have, forever, demonized almost any/all efforts to reduce pollution and get to a better place on the environment. Boogeyman politics is their game. I’m trying to remember what, if anything, they showed strong support for (as opposed to patting themselves on the back AFTER good results from new laws- like reducing CFCs that they staunchly opposed on the front end).

    Remember the “war on incandescent lights”? Yep. Pro Forma!

    Or how switching over to different CFCs was going to double air conditioning bills?

    Auto mileage standards were going to “destroy” autos?

    I’ve used a dual-fuel furnace for decades – yes – oh the horror – I USE GAS! But over the years, heat pumps have gotten better and better and so has the gas-burning furnace!

    It’s called “progress” and yep, Conservatives assume their standard role… as they have for as long as I can remember!

    People ARE going to buy electric cars. Not everyone, and certainly not overnight – but it’s going to happen and it has nothing to do with the environment for a lot of folks – it’s really the next evolution of cars that used to get 20mpg, then 30, now 40… and whatever comes next.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Then why pass a law to mandate it, hmmmmm? Why the massive subsidies? Flying your usual false flag again. You aren’t for letting the market make the path…

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        passed Laws are HOW the environment has gotten cleaned up!

        Clean Air and Clean water laws that Conservatives opposed, did pass and they worked!

        We do have cleaner air and water, less acid rain, a clean Chesapeake Bay, etc, etc… from “mandates” that Conservatives opposed!

        Nothing new here… same old same old!

        1. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          Larry, there is no convincing evidence that energy technology mandates work or that climate change is an existential threat as you and other apocalyptics keep asserting.
          As for clean air and clean water improvements, you assume that progress would not have been made except by the host of regulations that have been passed in the last 50 years. A little skepticism on your part could go a long way in clearer thinking. Progress through excessively costly regulations is not a sign of enlightened action.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Bill – you don’t think mandates on mileage standards and efficiency standards “worked”?

            And I don’t “assume” anything. I KNOW what did not happen until laws were passed.

            I assume you do know about mandated efficiency standards on things like heat pumps, furnaces, light bulbs, and myriad other things that have successfully increased efficiency and by doing so reduced use as well as pollution.

            Come on Bill, you KNOW THIS!

            Here’s a challenge for you and Haner. Name ONE energy regulation that has been rolled back because it did more harm than good…

            just one!

          2. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Your question is too easy. The embargo driven regulations that mandated the allocation of gasoline and the price that could be charged were swept away by Presidents Carter and Reagan. Carter DEREGULATED the airlines. You believe that there is no alternative to the heavy hand or government to making environmental progress. Have you ever thought about giving market forces and energy taxes a chance? Have you ever looked at cost-benefit analyses for the regulations you love?
            Its not that there is no place for regulation, it is that many of the existing regulations went too far and in doing so produced a host of unintended consequences.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            NTSB and FAA?

            tell me which of the following laws and regs went too far and had to be subsequently repealed?

            Antiquities Act
            Atomic Energy Act of 1946
            Atomic Energy Act of 1954
            Clean Air Act
            Clean Water Act
            Coastal Zone Management Act
            Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund)
            Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
            Endangered Species Act
            Energy Policy Act of 1992
            Energy Policy Act of 2005
            Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
            Federal Land Policy and Management Act
            Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
            Federal Power Act
            Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
            Food Quality Protection Act
            Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens)
            Lacey Act
            Marine Mammal Protection Act
            Migratory Bird Treaty Act
            Mineral Leasing Act
            National Environmental Policy Act
            National Forest Management Act
            National Historic Preservation Act
            National Park Service Organic Act
            Noise Control Act
            Nuclear Waste Policy Act
            Ocean Dumping Act
            Oil Pollution Act
            Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
            Rivers and Harbors Act
            Safe Drinking Water Act
            Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
            Toxic Substances Control Act
            Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
            Wilderness Act

            It in ya’ll genes to oppose!

            but after all is said and done, virtually all of the environmental laws that passed despite your opposition, still stand and for most of us, a good thing.

            Compare our country to most other countries and where do we stand on pollution – as well as GDP !

            Do you want us to be China or Russia or India or Brazil instead?

          4. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You asked about regulations and I answered, so now you change and ask about laws and assert that I opposed all of them. I am not going to play your game. If you want to support ever bigger government, go right ahead but try to be a little more clever engaging in exchanges and stop being so sophomoric.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Bill – either one!

            Just tell me what laws or regulations that were passed but subsequently overturned/repealed for going too far!

            The vast, vast majority have not!

            “Clever”.

            I’m pretty straight forward… don’t normally do “snark”.

            It’s “sophomoric” to respond to TJ/Conservative claims that environmental regs are harmful and need to be repealed/rolled back?

            No. This is standard pro forma for Conservatives and I’ve just brought up past laws/regs they have opposed pretty much every one – often on the basis that they inflict economic harm on the economy and citizens.

            I think the test of time has proven the opposite.

            I don’t think most citizens want to see clean water, clean air rolled back and I do think you guys are out of touch with how most citizens today feel about the environment and climate change.

            Straight up debate Bill.

            Haner writes these standard TJ pro-forma anti-environmental regulation tomes and I feel duty-bound to at least bring up the history and facts.

            I realize ya’ll won’t agree but at least admit I’m giving an honest rebuttal.

          6. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I answered your question the first time. Do you even bother reading response before you proceed to distort?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            ” Larry, there is no convincing evidence that energy technology mandates work or that climate change is an existential threat as you and other apocalyptics keep asserting.”

            where have I “asserted” what you say here with regard to climate? Distort much?

          8. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You asked me to name “One energy regulation that has been rolled back because it did more harm than good”. I did that and you ignored that answer and have wandered aimlessly with nonsense. I am not going to play your game any more.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            I ignored it in part because it was not intended as a permanent/long term thing AND it was in the context of environmental regulations like clean water and clean air.

            And I agree that anytime govt tries to control price, it’s not a good thing.

            You then accused me of ” or that climate change is an existential threat as you and other apocalyptics keep asserting.” and after that said you didn’t want to play the game any more,

            come on.

            You want it on your terms or else you take your ball home?

          10. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Wrong, wrong. It was permanent and nothing to do with environmental regulations. When you are in a hole quit digging.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar

            Can you cite the specific law that made it permanent?

            And yes – I was speaking PRIMARILY about environmental regulations because that is what Haner is writing about here..

            But even then – the vast majority of regulations have not been repealed or even close.

            We fight each one on the front when proposed but after they pass, they “perform” and are kept.

            They get updated and modified to perform better but seldom do we unwind the whole law because it did more harm than good

            Ya’ll just have their mindset about regulation, it’s like embedded in your culture.

            I do not “like” regulation for regulation sake and I will actually agree that SOME non-environmental regulation proposed is actually BAD and needs to be killed. I’ve just not seen as much of that with environmental legislation and yes, you can now proceed to show me how wrong I am – with some specifics (but don’t accuse me of using climate apocalypse as an argument.

            Like most folks, what most of science is saying IS troublesome and worrisome and only a complete fool would just disregard it out of hand IMO, but that does not mean I am predicting apocalypse as a way of getting regulations passed.

            It’s much more like the Ozone Holes. We never had proof positive that had to shut down CFCs overnight or else disaster. We said we needed to make changes over time and we did and continue to. Same thing on climate.

            That’s NOT an “unreasonable” position as it is the same as a lot of others both scientists and citizens so don’t disrespect it because you don’t agree.

            That really undermines you.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I look at it this way. Climate change and the subsequent energy policies are a game strictly for the under 50 crowd. Those over 50 don’t have a dog in the hunt. Those over 62 don’t even have to know that there is a hunt.

    It’s their future, not ours. If they want me to spend a little more of the money that we have stolen from them and their children on energy generation because they believe it will keep the planet viable for them and their children then we owe them that much. Not like it will make a fuzzy duck’s difference to us. It’s better to say, “I told you so,” to the generation who is making your pudding and changing your Depends than to have them ticked off at you for leaving them no hydrocarbons for an emergency. You’re gonna want that pudding. Oh, and itch… the Depends are going to be even more important.

    1. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      Same holds true on the National Debt, yet it keeps growing, and growing and growing. All these “investments” by the Federal Government are debt funded, unless the mandates are done by the states, all of which feeds inflation.

      I would like to think both can be addressed, but that would take bi-partisanship.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Back when TRump was POTUS and both houses of Congress were GOP – they passed tax cuts that were not paid for and added to the deficit/debt.

        I expect that kind of stuff from Dems but I had thought that the GOP were fiscal conservatives and often threaten to grid lock Congress over the debt limit. When they had all 3 parts of govt, they had the opportunity to model the behavior and they did not.

        Not giving the Dems any credit either but they’ve never claimed to be fiscal conservatives either.

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Didn’t the Dems claim to be fiscal conservatives back when Byrd ran that party in Virginia?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            how long ago? 😉

            “Pay as you go”. tax increases to pay for roads up-front rather than borrowing, right?

            No way around it. If you want more/better roads, you have to pay more – the fiscal conservatism is enforced because Va cannot carry a deficit – it’s pay as you for the whole budget.

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Well, I’m curious–did “pay as you go” apply to the construction of civil war monuments?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Pretty much not as most were funded with private contributions but on land provided by the govt.

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Land that the government took from some private property owner, right?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t think so. Land they already owned that they might have acquired earlier for govt general use. Once they had the land, they could then use it for other purposes including spaces for donated statues and memorials. I don’t think they condemned private property specifically to put statue on but I don’t know that for a fact but suspect so.

            If you take Monument Ave in RIchmond, they probably took that land for the road earlier then converted the median to other uses including for monuments.

          6. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            I think they should build a 5-story monument of Lee on his horse right in the median of I95 so we can have something to look at while stuck in traffic. And they can fund it with gas tax revenue.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            like the monster Confederate Flag beside Rt 29 down Danville way?

          8. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Sort of, but that’s on private property.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            so you don’t care how black folks feel about these things > just lay it out in public places?

          10. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Sure, why not? The irony of sitting in traffic on a substandard highway next to a Confederate monument on which no expense was spared should uniquely capture what it means to live in Virginia.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar

            geeze…

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Since 1995 it’s been tax & spend Democrats and borrow & spend Republicans.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yes. they call tax & spend, “investments”.

            The GOP likes deficit-financed tax cuts.

            funny how that works.

            The Dems raise taxes to pay for something. THe GOP cuts those taxes and pays for it with debt.

            ugly

        3. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          There are valid arguments for how lowering tax rates generate more revenue, it happened in the Kennedy Presidency, but while I do believe a good bit of revenue was generated, I do not believe not fully. CBO did an analysis of it.

          But I digress, a more important point needs to be made.

          These are now Biden/Democratic tax cuts, they own it. After the 2020 election, which was won by Biden I may add, he and the Democratically led Congress had the ability to immediately reverse the tax cuts, but he and congress did no such thing. They left them intact.

          Instead, they tried to spend more and then use “tax increases” to “pay for it”, a total BS approach that many bought into. But they sure benefited from the lower tax rates in continuing a good economy.

          So I totally reject your argument, Biden and the Democrats take as much ownership of the current tax rates as Republicans. In fact, they still have 30 days to reverse those tax cuts in full, why don’t you write your Congressman and ask they be done before year end, and make it retroactive to all of 2022?

    2. LesGabriel Avatar

      There is a lot of talk about “sustainability” among the under 50 crowd, but for some reason it seems to be solely focused on the atmosphere, and not on many other areas of life that cannot keep going in the direction that they have been indefinitely. Very little interest in rare earths and other minerals that will be needed in unprecedented quantities to sustain the manufacture of solar panels, turbines, EV’s, batteries, etc. Very little interest in economic, civic and political sustainability either.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well, as for me, every 3 to 8 seconds 24/7, the atmosphere means a lot. Right now it smells like fried fish. Materials? What project ever gathered everything before starting? There has to one guy who has to point out supply chain issues. Are you trying to get him fired even before he starts?

        The question you’re asking has only one solution; recycling. How much and how? Don’t know yet, but look at steel and aluminum. Production of “new” metal has dropped off precipitously even as demand for steel and aluminum goes up. Just how much of a beer can is new aluminum? 10%? 5%?

        You’re not the first to point out polution from the panels. But let me give you something to start with. ClearBlue Easy. Look it up. Chips, 2 lithium batteries, and “disposable”.

        1. LesGabriel Avatar

          I didn’t mention pollution from the solar panels. The problem with forcing energy transition through the political process is that the market doesn’t have the time or the flexibility to solve these “supply chain issues” as we go because of artificial deadlines and removing legacy supply before it can be replaced (to say nothing of the inflated costs). Conservatives do not have a problem with renewable energy as such, but we do have a problem with forcing huge government solutions in situations where smaller might be better. I grew up on a farm in the 1940’s where windmills did all of the pumping of water, at least until we got electricity. Solar and wind projects at the individual home or business level could avoid some of these all-or-nothing big-government, big-utility solutions, but then not so much for the lobbyists and politicians to split.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You don’t think hydrocarbons were foist on us through politics? I suppose you still heat your house with coal? When you switched from subsidized coal to subsidized oil heat, did you object to subsidized methane pipelines?

            Does your AC uses R-12 coolant? Where do you get your leaded gasoline? It’s never been a free market.

            Relax. It will work. Our kids will make it work. The same way we made cellphones and the internet work, and the way our parents made the Interstates, and put a man on the moon, and their parents built railroads and ships.

            We just need to get out of their way.

  9. Just asking: If a respected scientist offers up a compelling new climate theory and it runs contrary to the prevailing pro Green agenda. What are the scientist’s chances for future funding?

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    A big theme of my entire adult life is that I have been critical of the state/utility monopoly. Started for me in NJ around 1987, when NJ passed a policy that said all future power plants would be utility owned/coal fired. Part of purpose was to prevent growth in natural gas use, another part was hot-dogging by state, viewing power plant construction as a way to attract economic development/jobs. And now we see what Dominion/Virginia are doing. I am less worried about eco impact of wind over coal, but still, it’s official gov’t hot-dogging that may not go well.

    Too bad we cannot have a state that attracts real jobs, which means we have to try to forge our own state-run economy.

  11. NN, thanks for including here, along with the usual snark, a nice gut punch. Yes, climate change only really matters to our children, and they are pretty well convinced that the footdragging SHs of today are costing their futures, their future economy, enormously more than the investments/costs they are asking we incur now. We’ll be long gone when they have to pay those higher bills; isn’t that their decision, then? As for the light bulbs, the point you make is utterly consistent. Lower initial investment cost has always had more appeal to some folks than lower operating cost, even when the lifetime cost overwhelmingly favors that higher initial price tag. “I won’t use it that much” or “I won’t be here to worry about it” are just two ways of putting it. Well, what about the people you’re going to leave behind?

    As for beachguy’s point, there comes a time when it’s difficult to find scientific funding for a theory whose assumptions contradict the observed facts. If that’s a “prevailing agenda” so be it. Now, political funding: that’s another matter.

  12. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Steve- Overall this trend might be considered a triumph of the Electrification Coalition lobby, formed some years ago with utilities, car makers, electronic suppliers, fighting for electrification. For example, the CEO/founder of FedEX is one hyper-believer in getting rid of fossil fuels, I believe.

    US liberals of course see American petrochemical industry as a crime against humanity and an industry that should be destroyed ASAP. So they’ve deiced to throw their hat in with utilities to try to bring down the US oil and gas industry. Not to mention the investment community, and Americans by nature, like to favor new trends, and people like to buy stocks of the latest trends, and the green investors strongly favor government green mandates to force their investments values to soar.

    With the state/utility structure we have in USA, the state elected officials will naturally be favoring the monopoly utilities.

  13. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Steve- Overall this trend might be considered a triumph of the Electrification Coalition lobby, formed some years ago with utilities, car makers, electronic suppliers, fighting for electrification. For example, the CEO/founder of FedEX is one hyper-believer in getting rid of fossil fuels, I believe.

    US liberals of course see American petrochemical industry as a crime against humanity and an industry that should be destroyed ASAP. So they’ve deiced to throw their hat in with utilities to try to bring down the US oil and gas industry. Not to mention the investment community, and Americans by nature, like to favor new trends, and people like to buy stocks of the latest trends, and the green investors strongly favor government green mandates to force their investments values to soar.

    With the state/utility structure we have in USA, the state elected officials will naturally be favoring the monopoly utilities.

Leave a Reply