Energy Outcome Cloudy as Adjournment Looms

Rube Goldberg is the best illustration when our General Assembly does energy policy bills.

by Steve Haner

With adjournment less than a week away, the 2023 General Assembly is a mixed bag for electricity consumers, with the Assembly seeming to release control to regulators in some areas but continuing to assert its tight control in others.

Dominion Energy Virginia’s legislation to sweeten its authorized profit margin, which will not lower customer bills despite claims in its advertising blitz, passed the Senate but remains in trouble in the Virginia House of Delegates. A key House committee voted late last week to stick with a version of the bill that leaves the return on equity formula unchanged.

Dominion had lowered its ambitions in the version that passed the Senate, now seeking to enhance its rate of return on equity only through December of 2027. Even five years of a higher profit margin, however, wipes out any financial benefit from the company’s proposal to move $350 million dollars of rate adjustment changes (RACs) into its base rates.

A recent SCC staff estimate was that five years of enhanced profit would cost ratepayers an additional $1.2 billion. It also confirmed that the accounting change with the RACs, simply moving the charges from one part of the monthly bill to another, may not save the ratepayers anything. Its real effect could be to prevent $350 million in customer refunds.

The House version removes all the provisions dealing with the return on equity and eliminates language allowing a long, drawn out repayment for past fuel cost increases, also potentially expensive to consumers. Democrats continue to oppose that version because it contains language giving the SCC more power to keep fossil fuel plants operating. Their commitment to SCC independence has its limits.

It is possible that no compromise is reached and neither bill passes by Saturday’s adjournment. That would not be a bad outcome for consumers.

Other legislation that is favorable to consumers is poised for passage, although not all the final votes are taken. The most important are matching House and Senate bills that restore State Corporation Commission authority to set rates in future cases without some of the handcuffs imposed by previous General Assembly actions.

House Bill 1604 might have passed the Senate last week, having cleared a Senate Committee with bipartisan support. But it was delayed for consideration until this week, perhaps because the Senate version of the same bill is not quite as far along. Senate Bill 1321 has seen similar bipartisan support in committee and will be on the House floor this week, as well.

In previous years, the SCC was prohibited from lowering the utility’s base rates unless it could prove the company had earned excess profits for at least two consecutive cycles. The SCC was also told it could not lower rates more than $50 million per year, far less than was justified by the company’s excess profits. Those restrictions are gone for the future if these bills pass.

Another effort to strengthen the SCC’s independence was offered only on the House side. House Bill 2267 remains pending for the final meeting of Senate Commerce and Labor Committee Monday afternoon. It passed the House 99-0, but that may not be enough to carry it past that Senate committee, friendlier to Dominion. The change it proposes involves those stand-alone rate adjustment clauses (RACs) and lets the SCC decide when to use them for new projects rather than base rates.

Dominion has proposed two bills dealing with its offshore wind project which are advancing without any headwinds. Senate Bill 1477 is now pending on the House floor after a unanimous endorsement by the House Commerce and Energy Committee. It lays the groundwork for Dominion to recruit a capital partner on the $10 billion (or more) project or perhaps on a second wave of turbines in the same place.

The second, Senate Bill 1441, is another strong indication that the second wave is still under consideration. Returning to the old ways of the Assembly dictating outcomes to the SCC, it seeks to direct commission acceptance of an offshore wind project if it is tied to development of a wind turbine manufacturing facility in Virginia. Representatives of Siemens Gamesa have testified to their interest in such a plant in Portsmouth, which would create far more jobs than the facility it already plans to assemble turbines built overseas.

Also advancing without significant opposition is a change in the ratemaking rules for the state’s second largest utility, Appalachian Power Company, serving Western Virginia. Should it pass, there will be major differences in how its rates are reviewed and its customers are charged, with the vast majority of its existing, stand-alone rate adjustment charges folded into base rates.

It passes, and Dominion and Appalachian will be operating under different regulatory structures. Once again, Virginia may be doing something for its monopoly utilities no other state has done.

The companion versions of the Appalachian bill, Senate Bill 1075 and House Bill 1777, have been amended over the weeks but have remained identical or nearly so. There is no House versus Senate conflict, perhaps because Appalachian quickly distanced itself from Dominion’s push to change the return on equity formula. Appalachian will remain under the peer group calculation of its allowed profit margin as it has been in place for 15 years.

The big difference for Appalachian is the SCC is now directed to set rates that give the utility that profit and adjust its forward rates to compensate if the utility fails to make that profit. Under traditional ratemaking the rates are set to create the opportunity to earn a profit, but nothing is promised.

This remains another example of the Assembly making the rules rather than trusting Virginia’s independent regulators. So far it has been a session of steps forward and steps backward on the issue of SCC independence. The final tally probably can’t be known until Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) gets his opportunity to veto or amend whatever bills reach his desk.

First published this afternoon by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

11 responses to “Energy Outcome Cloudy as Adjournment Looms”

  1. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    These competing bills obfuscate the goal, high quality & Reliable power at the lowest rate. It does not make sense to have different rules for different suppliers of the same product. Let’s hire Appalachian to conduct an Engineering Study & a Business Case study on the benefits of all ways to make electricity. Better yet, let’s hire a third supplier. In the interim, I will have to pay more because politicians are having a tantrum.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The energy issues and the budget seem to be the only big-ticket items left undecided, with the House and the Senate killing each other’s hot-button bills.

    There is an interesting op-ed today in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by Albert Pollard on the headwinds that Dominion is battling–both in the GA and in the stock market. (Pollard is a former delegate and a veteran of the Dominion skirmishes in the last decade and a half.) Whereas Steve blames the new management at Dominion for the current troubles and praises the management of Tom Farrell, Pollard argues that Dominion’s current troubles are a result of past poor management decisions and “not taking the long view on how to handle the boom years” as well as “legislative trickery.” In contrast to Steve’s critique of the current CEO, Bob Blue, Pollard declares “The good news is that Dominion has a relatively new leadership team that can bring a fresh approach as they do this “top to bottom review.” https://richmond.com/zzstyling/view-oped-sig/opinion-dominion-faces-the-consequences-of-its-actions/article_5383ffda-ae29-11ed-918a-2fa93f16f523.html

    I am not in a position to judge which viewpoint is the most valid. I just find this difference of opinions between two critics of Dominion fascinating.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      On one level it is as simple as Farrell being more Republican and Blue being a major Democrat. Pollard also is aware of and appreciative of Blue’s deep commitment to the anti-fossil fuel vision which I know will be a disaster for this state, country (and the world.) Farrell’s last big hurrah included the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which had my enthusiastic support and that of my employer, the shipyard. When the CVOW behemoth comes to a similar bad end, Blue will be holding that bag. Well, he may have made it out the door before the collapse or the Cat 5 storm.

      Early on I never felt lied to by Farrell or his chief lobbyist of that time, Bill Thomas. I had to push hard for answers often, but they didn’t lie to me. (I am honest enough to say it wasn’t me so much as the shipyard they had to respect.) Closest they came to a giant whopper was on the nuclear bill in 2014, when I never believed for a second they were serious about North Anna 3. But they may have been believing their own propaganda at that point.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      On one level it is as simple as Farrell being more Republican and Blue being a major Democrat. Pollard also is aware of and appreciative of Blue’s deep commitment to the anti-fossil fuel vision which I know will be a disaster for this state, country (and the world.) Farrell’s last big hurrah included the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which had my enthusiastic support and that of my employer, the shipyard. When the CVOW behemoth comes to a similar bad end, Blue will be holding that bag. Well, he may have made it out the door before the collapse or the Cat 5 storm.

      Early on I never felt lied to by Farrell or his chief lobbyist of that time, Bill Thomas. I had to push hard for answers often, but they didn’t lie to me. (I am honest enough to say it wasn’t me so much as the shipyard they had to respect.) Closest they came to a giant whopper was on the nuclear bill in 2014, when I never believed for a second they were serious about North Anna 3. But they may have been believing their own propaganda at that point.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      On one level it is as simple as Farrell being more Republican and Blue being a major Democrat. Pollard also is aware of and appreciative of Blue’s deep commitment to the anti-fossil fuel vision which I know will be a disaster for this state, country (and the world.) Farrell’s last big hurrah included the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which had my enthusiastic support and that of my employer, the shipyard. When the CVOW behemoth comes to a similar bad end, Blue will be holding that bag. Well, he may have made it out the door before the collapse or the Cat 5 storm.

      Early on I never felt lied to by Farrell or his chief lobbyist of that time, Bill Thomas. I had to push hard for answers often, but they didn’t lie to me. (I am honest enough to say it wasn’t me so much as the shipyard they had to respect.) Closest they came to a giant whopper was on the nuclear bill in 2014, when I never believed for a second they were serious about North Anna 3. But they may have been believing their own propaganda at that point.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Did not realize there was as much left/right politics involved.

        Was Farrell aligned with the right on issues like renewables and RGGI, etc?

  3. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Apco’s entire cost of service essentially gets RAC treatment–guaranteed return of profits each year. If that passes, it won’t be long before Dominion wants and gets it.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Sir, I have been thinking exactly that for weeks. Way smarter move than what they are doing.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      That an interesting observation that I do not think I have seen before here in BR.

      If true, makes one wonder what all the various machinations and “concern” are about with Dominion.

      Does APCO have a superior lobbying strategy?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Going all the way back to 2007, yes. Much easier to deal with the APCO folks. Much more reasonable in what they ask for, and they were always willing to explain their reasons and listen to feedback. Like night and bloody day compared to the larger group, especially in the last few years.

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    It’s comical that Dominion has been running full page ads claiming that it is supporting legislation that will lower rate payer costs. Think about that, a company is lobbying its customers to support actions that will take money away from the company.
    That shows how little Dominion thinks of the intelligence of its customers.
    Members of the General Assembly generally do not possess the skill set to match the SCC in determining rates, return on equity, etc.

Leave a Reply