Conference Explores VA Rush to Copy CA Energy

by Steve Haner

Californians were again this week under an electricity “flex alert,” a conservation order required because of its reliance on unreliable solar and wind energy. They often cannot keep up with demand on the hotter days. Is this Virginia’s future? The government is telling Californians:

  • Set your thermostat at 78° or higher
  • Avoid using major appliances
  • Turn off unnecessary lights
  • Use fans for cooling
  • Unplug unused items.

The return of this power shortfall comes just days before Governor Gavin Newsom faces a recall vote, with this growing crisis being cited by some of his opponents. It is also a distant cloud on Virginia’s horizon as early voting begins here next week in the elections for statewide offices and the House of Delegates.

Virginia has rushed to copy California’s climate-fear and rent-seeking driven solar and wind energy scheme.

Of all the ways Virginia’s new Democratic majority has remade the state, the move to unreliable energy sources will have the greatest impact on business and family budgets over coming decades. Once completed the transformation’s costs will likely exceed that of all the various tax increases imposed. Two of the new energy taxes, one a carbon tax and the other to fund a subsidy for low-income electricity users, begin to raise energy prices this month.

The consumer impact (cost and lifestyle) of the various energy transformation measures will be the topic of Thursday’s Virginia Energy Consumer Conference, with another proposed carbon tax – the Transportation and Climate Initiative – the topic of my planned presentation. The various presentations can be streamed live if you pre-register here.

No election in recent memory has presented such clear contrasts on so many issues. Energy policy is a major one so far ignored by most campaigns  Another of Thursday’s presenters, a Northern Virginia attorney affiliated with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), framed the contrast in a recent article for a national audience on the website Real Clear Energy.

“We need an electric grid which is stable, and we absolutely have to change direction,” Republican nominee for Governor Glenn Youngkin told E&E News on May 7.  “We must change direction from the clean energy plan which was passed … because it is not doable, affordable or good for Virginia.” That is the one clear statement from his campaign to date.

In contrast with that, CFACT’s Collister Johnson, Jr. in his article cited pledges from Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe to double down on the already aggressive pledges to get the state to at least a net-zero position (undefined, always undefined) by 2045 or 2050.  McAuliffe would push to get it done a decade sooner. Johnson is part of a GOP group seeking repeal of the centerpiece Virginia Clean Economy Act, topic of a previous post.

McAuliffe’s complete flip from the state’s biggest cheerleader for two controversial natural gas pipelines to becoming another loyal soldier in the War on Fossil Fuels is being ignored by both his opponents and the media, and thus remains invisible to the general voters.

Will he, for example, push forward with the plans to join that Transportation and Climate Initiative? Governor Ralph Northam passed on his first real opportunity to put it before the legislature in this past session. Northam had also promised not to attempt to impose new taxes and rationing on motor fuels without that direct vote of the legislature.

McAuliffe, with this issue still under the radar, has made no such promise to follow the regular routine for imposing a tax or joining an interstate compact. He started the process to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as a regulatory end run around the legislature, so the playbook is established.

The TCI battle rages in New England, where both Connecticut and Rhode Island supporters did push the issue in their legislatures this year but have failed so far. The unions have now added their muscle in Connecticut, following a promise that their workers would get the jobs flowing from the TCI taxes collected in that state.

In Massachusetts TCI advocates claim a previous law allows it to implement the taxes and rationing without any legislative action, but now opponents have grabbed the initiative and will subject TCI to a voter referendum in 2022. As of this moment, only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia are in a position to move, and that hardly qualifies as a regional compact.

The highlight of Thursday morning is likely to be a pre-recorded keynote presentation from Michael Shellenberger, best-selling author of “Apocalypse Never: While Environmental Alarmist Harms Us All.” A Californian himself, he is actively campaigning against Newsom, in part because of Newsom’s efforts to shut down the best clean energy source of all, nuclear.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “Conference Explores VA Rush to Copy CA Energy”

  1. FluxAmbassador Avatar
    FluxAmbassador

    “Californians were again this week under an electricity “flex alert”, a conservation order required because of its reliance on unreliable solar and wind energy.”

    Point of order, this isn’t the rationale given at all. This is:

    “‘With above-normal temperatures in the forecast for much of California and the West, the power grid operator is predicting an increase in electricity demand, primarily from air conditioning use,’” said the nonprofit group, which manages the flow of electricity on high-voltage power lines and operates the state’s wholesale energy market…

    “An excessive heat warning is in effect for the Antelope Valley through Wednesday, the Weather Service said. A heat advisory is in place until Friday for several areas, including the mountainous portions of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

    Residents can expect temperatures to be five to 15 degrees above normal all week, the Weather Service said.”

    “…copy California’s climate-fear…”

    Given they’re currently experiencing a week of temperatures 5 to 15 degrees above normal I think California’s fear is justified. And given we’re currently in the middle of a month where temperatures in the Richmond area have stayed stubbornly above average highs except when large weather patterns bring colder air to the area Virginia is right to worry, too. The Times-Dispatch just ran a story about how the number of nights where the temperature in the area doesn’t get below 70 has been increasing year after year.

    If you think we should focus more on nuclear power as we transition away from hydrocarbons for pushing electrons, that’s a conversation to have. It’d be nice to resolve where we’re going to put the waste before we ramp up nuclear production. It would be nice to see movement on some of the liquid salt reactors, which can run hotter and reduce the amount of waste. The extractive industries don’t have a great track record on mitigating negative externalities either during extraction or during energy production.

    And, personally, I’d like to see a move away from commercial scale solar and using some of that public money to put panels on people’s houses. But that doesn’t mean commercial scale solar is bad and that moving away from carbon heavy sources shouldn’t be done. It sucks that the focus so far in Virginia has been on making sure Dominion is made whole through all this and pushing the cost onto rate payers, but the next time any power in this country puts the well being of citizens ahead of the profits of business will be the first.

    But the climate future is already here. It’s time to get serious about it. We can either pay now or pay later, and giving what paying later usually costs I’d prefer to start paying now.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You were doing great until you mentioned the one word that drives Conservatives crazy, pay.

      1. FluxAmbassador Avatar
        FluxAmbassador

        I’m no doe eyed Pollyanna about these things – every revolution has costs. The Agricultural Revolution. The Industrial Revolution. This potential Green Revolution. The difference is those first two were demonstrably worse for the environment (and arguably the first one was bad for the species as a whole given the loss in height that accompanied it, to say nothing of the increased populations it could support giving rise to infectious diseases) and this one looks to benefit the environment* in a way that can be done without placing an undue burden on the average person.

        But it will cost money. It’s just that it will cost less money than rebuilding New Orleans once a decade. Or the cost of people freezing to death in Texas. Or the cost of continuous wildfires in the western part of the country. Or losing the military presence in Hampton Roads. Or greatly reducing available fish stocks because of ocean acidification. Or whatever the Hell is going to happen if the AMOC actually stops circulating. And so on.

        Fortunately, on a societal level, we’re relatively flush with cash, or at least wealth. Most of it going completely unused. We just lack the political will to tax giant piles of wealth and actually put it to productive use. One day that may change. Hopefully Miami isn’t populated solely by mermaids when that day comes.

        *Yes, heavy metal waste as a result of solar panel construction is and will be a problem and needs to be addressed. But it is and will be far less of one than another degree or two of extra entropy banging around in the atmosphere.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          We *were* getting pretty good at recycling on a certain scale, e.g., lead, steel, aluminum, etc., because this material is large stuff. We’re at the point where new mined stuff makes up a small percentage of the material we use. If we could get serious on plastic, a tougher move since it’s all small stuff spread on the person scale, who can simply trash it, then we won’t wake up some morning buried in it. Solar panels will eventually be like car batteries, you pay a core charge to replace/recycle. Of course, my panels are on a boat, so one day, I’ll simply make an insurance claim. “There was a storm and *whoosh* the wind carried them away. Oh, and I need a new bimini too.”

          The problem with the cost of the “Ages” is if they don’t know a cost, they assume it to be zero, or wish it so. “CO2? It doesn’t cost to just let it go.” My father used to use an expression, “They know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.”
          https://freethinkersanonymous.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/gahanwilson.jpg

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Wow. Rejecting the benefits of both agricultural and industrial progress over the past 2oo years or so, raising a huge percentage of people out of poverty.
          A true Luddite.

          1. FluxAmbassador Avatar
            FluxAmbassador

            I was referring to the original Agricultural Revolution – the one where our species first transitioned from bands of hunter gatherers to our first protocivilizations. I also didn’t reject the benefits, I just acknowledged they came with a cost. Just as I acknowledged my preferred policy will come with a cost.

            “A true Luddite.”

            Willful bad faith readings and needless name calling are distressingly common among the front pagers here.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      Maybe Steve does not get similar “alerts” in Henrico, but I do up the road from REC which has, for years, warned customers of high or low temps, increased demand and requests to reduce demand on heat/cool and clothes drying , etc.

      And the thing about solar. The more solar you build, the less gas you’ll burn – overall – and we still need to keep the gas plants to operated when solar is not available.

      There is no loss of reliability. It’s a conservative/anti renewables’ canard that they can’t help themselves from demagoguing.

      Used to be Conservatives were actually interested in “conserving” money and energy. It was a good think and modern technology was how to do it. Now, they’ve become so politicized over this issue that they’ve become almost luddite-like in their attitudes.

      Conserving energy, reducing pollution, is now a liberal conspiracy to be opposed with every inch of “conservative” resolve!

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s simple, and you pretty much got it.

        A genset runs, generally at 1800 rpm (a multiple of 60 cps), to produce AC electricity. If there is no draw, it simply hot idles using a minimum of fuel.

        Put a 10 AMP draw on it and the resistance in the generator increases and the throttle opens to maintain 1800 rpm, using more fuel.

        If there is another source, e.g., solar, that the 10AMP draw can use, then the genset continues at hot idle. Enough secondary, and you can shut the genset down for awhile.

        Batteries not included, or for that matter, necessary.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s simple, and you pretty much got it.

        A genset runs, generally at 1800 rpm (a multiple of 60 cps), to produce AC electricity. If there is no draw, it simply hot idles using a minimum of fuel.

        Put a 10 AMP draw on it and the resistance in the generator increases and the throttle opens to maintain 1800 rpm, using more fuel.

        If there is another source, e.g., solar, that the 10AMP draw can use, then the genset continues at hot idle. Enough secondary, and you can shut the genset down for awhile.

        Batteries not included, or for that matter, necessary.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Most portable generators provide info about runtime on a tank of fuel and it always is accompanied by a second data item which is what percent load.

          Like it will say something like 8hrs of runtime at 25% load.

          And solar can and does extend the “runtime” of a generator if both are supplying power.

          No one except the crazies ( on both sides) are talking about dismantling gas power plants overnight. It’s about building and incorporating other “fuels” like solar to reduce the use of more polluting fuels actually BOOSTING reliability by diversifying the fuel sources and becoming less reliant on just one source.

          Enough solar can help keep a grid operating in the event of a conventional power plant going offline.

          The “anti” folks can’t help themselves – it’s an all or nothing binary idea rather than a half-glass idea.

          They CHOOSE to be ignorant about it.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I suppose we could use our energy sources sequentially… ya know, burn all the hydrocarbons first and then switch to renewables, since according to our local “experts”, we cannot possibly suffer any ill effects from burning fossil fuels.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, we’d need to go back to whale oil and coal, right? AND a big plus, we could burn all our trash, pee and poop to boot!

            And MORE nukes – one for each urban region – one for Richmond/Henrico, NoVa, Cville, etc.

            Of course we’d need new leadership – Trumpster types – like Youngkin for this revolutionary change…. “damn the torpedoes… to “F*ck the climate, burn, grandkids burn”

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Always reminded of a story told to me by an old Navy Chief about a Willy Fud making a transit from Puerto Rico to Miami when the engines began to lose power. The pilot ordered everything jettisoned and the crew began pulling the electronics from the racks and pitching it. The plane landed literally in dead stick and the base commander rushed out to congratulate the crew on their heroic effort only to find the entire interior of the aircraft stripped clean… save for the 12 cases of rum.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Okay, if CA is one extreme and TX is the other, either nothing works, or perhaps something in the mushy middle.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      CA and TX are the same, not on opposite ends of the spectrum. Both are too reliant on the unreliable. Someone sent me a copy of the new TX law to fix some of the issues from last year and I need to unpack it. But they still refuse to join the union and interconnect with the national grid, viewing FERC as just as evil as other federal agencies.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        In terms of grid infrastructure – there is PLENTY in Texas. What did them in was their utility model that purposely downplayed reliability.

        Texas screwed themselves on purpose over money to pay for reliability – not because they built too much wind/solar, etc.

        And I agree in California for similar reason, they do not really have a PJM type regional structure.

        And you may remember Enron and market manipulation:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_California_electricity_crisis

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    ugh Steve yes right on

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Points well made. Th unintended consequences of mandated technology are almost always downplayed. Dominion and the GA, along with our ex-gov are just sweeping aside the technology advances that will take place over the next two decades in favor of technology has many flaws and will make the grid less reliable.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Speakin’ of California, the dummies out there only require 12% of the total votes cast in a gubernatorial election to initiate a recall. Why don’t they streamline the process with a ballot change, e.g.,

    FOR GOVERNOR (mark one line only)
    [ ] Jack Smith (D) and [ ] for recall if they lose
    [ ] Bill Jones (R) and [ ] for recall if they lose

    Seems a whole lot more efficient.

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    The author somehow leaves out the fact that 41 states and DC have programs to reduce carbon;

    https://www.wri.org/insights/ranking-41-us-states-decoupling-emissions-and-gdp-growth

    Curiously, California is way down the list on recent progress made. Maryland leads the list.

    I fail to see the point that Virginia is aping California. This is a simplistic ruse to set green-thinking Virginians as bogeymen. Is there really a connection?
    Also, the author fails to note that many of California’s energy problems stem from PG&E, a notoriously mismanaged utility.

    My work sometimes has me involved in reporting on the West Coast and Canada. Plenty of experts say the wildfire issue and other problems are directly linked to global warming.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      And plenty do not. The number of fires and acres burned is actually greatly reduced over the past century. Solid data on that. The difference is now those areas are heavily population and firefighters get killed protecting some rich guy’s ski cabin. PG&E would respond that it has been prevented from clearing areas around its lines (built to feed those cabins) and thus preventable fires occur.

      Just about every prediction of catastrophe or growing extreme weather collapses when you look at the actual record over time. No, hurricanes or tornadoes are not more prevalent, just more people and houses to hit. Snow has not disappeared. Antarctica is actually adding ice. Polar bears are doing fine. They can’t sell this schist with the facts. And they’ve been peddling the same falsehoods for 30 years running.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        How about Lake Mead? Is that real or fake?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Fake. And empty.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            more fake news:

            California reservoir falls to lowest level on record

            California’s Lake Oroville, the second largest reservoir of the state, has seen its water level fall to the lowest recorded level ever. On Wednesday, the lake dropped to nearly 643 feet above mean sea level which passed the all-time low that was set in 1977.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Hardly the first or the worst drought to hit the region, but — again — now tens of millions more humans dependent on limited water.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            No it’s not and yes, many more millions do depend on that water but the vast majority of it goes to agriculture.

            ” Agriculture uses approximately 80 percent of the Colorado River’s water, ”

            https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/priority-landscapes/colorado-river/agricultural-partnerships-colorado-river/#:~:text=Agriculture%20uses%20approximately%2080%20percent,and%20wildlife%20depend%20on%20it.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            “Agriculture is a major component of the Colorado River Basin’s economy.. Of that, approximately 60 percent of the acreage supports forage crops and pasture, which are used to support a prosperous livestock industry ”

            https://uwm.edu/centerforwaterpolicy/wp-content/uploads/sites/170/2013/10/Colorado_Agriculture_Final.pdf

            one can google other sources and find:

            Only about 20% of the water in the Colorado Basin goes for human consumption. 60% goes for crops to feed livestock. The remaining 20% goes for other vegetable/fruit crops.

            Cutbacks to irrigation/agriculture happens before cutbacks for human consumption, but the farming economy will be seriously harmed and prices for vegetables and meat will go up.

            The cost of food to everyone will be the result of water shortages.

          5. “…- now tens of millions more humans dependent on limited water.”

            That’s the elephant in the room no one wants to acknowledge. Densification that exceeds the capacity of the area to supply water means collecting it from further out areas and impacting them too. In Hampton Roads, it does that and also causes land subsidence that doubles relative (local) sea level rise.

            Changing fuels won’t change the amount of available water.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    In plain old terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness with no mention of global warming – adding new sources of energy that are cheaper and less polluting would be a no-brainer even if they are not 24/7 dispatchable. You are not forced to remove the other sources just to use wind/solar. You ADD to them and use wind/solar when they are available, and especially so if they are less expensive.

    This is plain old common-sense fiscal conservatism, or it used to be before the culture wars.

    At some point, Dominion, which already purchases power from PJM, needs to buy power in the future, wind/solar will be options and if they are “available” and cheaper than gas, it would be a pure financial decision – i.e. buy the lowest cost power.”

  8. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    As I always say, risk is in the eye of the beholder. If you are a proponent of progressive, state-mandated energy policy, you are willing to accept any and ALL risks associated with that option. Generally we happily accept risk that we feel we are in control of, like smoking and driving. And if something happens we feel we do not like, say use of a little fossil fuel, we will not accept even infinitesimal small risk. It’s just how we humans view risk: politically not realistically.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Are we equating “risk” with “reliability” in the grid or are you referring to something else?

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        cost, reliability, harm to wildlife, whatever, if you favor 100% renewables you feel we must rapidly go in that direction come hell or high water. “you” not meaning you per se.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          No one I know is advocating 100% renewables much less rapidly.

          The idea with most progressives is we ought to take advantage of wind/solar as a lower cost/lower polluting fuel the same way we did in moving to gas away from coal.

          There are wacadoodles on BOTH sides, left and right – but the vast majority on the left are NOT far-left no more than those on the right are far-right wackadoodles.

          And many on the left also support nukes – but not the 60 year-old design nukes – modern nukes that are cost-effective and safe.

          https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2019/11/PS_11.25.19_climate.energy-00-014.png?resize=640,789

Leave a Reply