Former SCC Commissioner Mark Christie communicated his enthusiasm for Kelsey Bagot’s election with this photo on X.

By Steve Haner

The General Assembly has now filled the two open seats at the State Corporation Commission (SCC), ending two years of gridlock.  Unfortunately, the same legislators, on both sides of the aisle, are still working overtime to dictate and micromanage the state’s energy policy, reducing the discretion and authority of the independent, non-partisan regulators. 

Samuel T. Towell, elected to the SCC last week, fits the expected mold for such positions.  His legal career has been inside and outside the Virginia government, with his term as the civil litigation deputy under Attorney General Mark Herring (D) as the highlight of his resume.  In that role he supervised the consumer counsel functions under Herring, participating in SCC matters.  Since then, he has been working for Smithfield Foods.  

Breaking the mold is Kelsey Bagot, only a decade out of Harvard Law and with no real Virginia-specific experience.  She spent much of her career so far at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), working part of that time for former SCC Chairman Mark Christie.  Christie’s expressed enthusiasm for her qualifications makes her about as close to a bipartisan choice as was possible.   

They join current Commissioner Jehmal Hudson, also a veteran of FERC, who has been serving by himself for more than a year.  Towell and Hudson, less than 20 years out of law school, and the younger Bagot form a trio that could be in office together for decades.  That had to be on the minds of the legislators (all Democrats) who made these choices.   

Fully qualified and engaged judges are still bound to follow the law.  Virginia’s headlong rush into an economically foolish war on fossil fuels is being directed by the bills flowing from the General Assembly, not by rogue judges.  If the last two sessions controlled by Democrats, 2020 and 2021, were a two-alarm EV battery fire, the 2024 session could be the equivalent of the Maui apocalypse.   

Throw a dart at the list of bills dealing with the public utilities and you are likely to hit something that impedes generation or transportation of coal or natural gas or promotes or even mandates expansion of solar and wind developments.  February 13 is the deadline for bills to pass in their houses of introduction, and at that point we’ll have a better idea of what is advancing toward the governor.   

House Bill 638 and Senate Bill 230 both amend the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act to accelerate the retirements of fossil fuel generation and to greatly expand top-down energy efficiency requirements.  The law currently gives the SCC multiple paths to evaluating the cost-benefit ratios used to measure efficiency efforts, but these bills would mandate a single standard. They strip out, for example, the ratepayer impact test which can reject a program based solely on its high cost to customers.    

Both also require the SCC to fully enforce the aspirational green energy goals the earlier Democratic majorities enshrined in law.  As you can read for yourself, they require reaching no electricity from fossil fuels on a schedule more aggressive than the VCEA.  The policy also reaches into transportation and building construction policies, agriculture and industry, to remove fossil fuel use.  The revitalized SCC could become the Clean Energy Policy Police.   

The solar and wind projects already mandated in that VCEA are often subject to major opposition from neighboring landowners, who sometimes succeed in getting local governments to deny permits.  House Bill 636 and Senate Bill 567 fix that by empowering the SCC to override that local authority and approve them anyway.   

The shortage of charging facilities is one reason electric vehicles sales aren’t as high as some hoped.  House Bill 118 will give the utilities the job of building more and let them charge all their customers for the capital costs, with profit of course.  Then the utilities would create lower rates for those engaged in such vehicle charging, shifting costs to the scofflaws still using gasoline.   

House Bill 524 is clearly aimed at interfering with existing plans to expand natural gas service into the Hampton Roads region and would greatly complicate any other similar project in the future.  If not under construction by July 1, the Hampton Roads project would face an entirely new round of expensive and time-consuming reviews.     

The Southside Virginia gas pipeline expansion serving Hampton Roads is also targeted by Senate Bill 486, prohibiting its current plan to expand the compressor station in that region.  That change would also force the project into a redesign and then a new time-consuming battle for permits.   

Permitting would be eased, however, for a small modular nuclear facility in Southwest Virginia under House Bill 741.  It extends the fast track “permit by rule” open to small renewable projects to a nuclear plant which would be much larger, but still too small to be considered a major energy asset.  Such a stand-alone plant will never be built (a connected series of SMRs is more likely) but the law is still a bad idea.  

Senate Bill 591 would greatly expand the ability of customers to escape from the monopoly power companies and use a third-party supplier, if that supplier claims it provides “renewable energy.”  It gives choice to residential and larger industrial customers, but there is another big benefit in the bill for industrial customers. 

The 2007 revisions to the state’s electricity regulations allowed those large industrials to leave the monopoly suppliers, but if they did so they would have to give five years notice to come back.  That effectively prevented departures.  This bill reduces that from five years to six months. Another bill makes the notice only 90 days.  A key small consumer protection element of the 2007 compromise would die.  

The impact of allowing customers to leave for competitive suppliers is that the overhead costs of those who remain with the monopoly will rise.  The more customers who leave, the larger the load they no longer take from the utility, the more those costs go up for everybody else.   

For this bill, and for so many others, it seems the authors are looking for ways to make the energy in your home or business more expensive.  Actually, just delete “it seems.” 

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


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “Great Judges Can’t Fix Bad Energy Laws”

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    Seems like offshore wind is beginning to meet obstacles in Maryland.

    In November, Orsted dropped out of a New Jersey wind farm construction program. MAryland was hopeful Orsted would continue with its MAryland plans.

    https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/11/02/md-hopes-to-continue-offshore-wind-with-orsted-after-company-ends-n-j-projects/

    Last week, Orsted disappointed Maryland by cancelling its Maryland based offshore wind project. Orsted determined that the existing Maryland planned wind farm project was no longer commercially viable.

    https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2024/01/26/maryland-offshore-wind-suffers-big-setback-with-rsted-change-of-course/72367099007/

    Interestingly, these cancellations by Orsted (the world’s biggest developer of offshore wind) came just after that company started wind farm electricity generation off the coast of Long Island.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/south-fork-wind-turbine-montauk-east-hampton-long-island/

    Has Orsted seen the future of US offshore wind?

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It will be interesting to see if the administration opposes any of these bills.

    Thanks for the summaries.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It will also be interesting to see if Dave Marsden was serious about a revisit to all this, which ought to mean some of these should be carried over or referred to that off-season study. I bet a struggle is underway behind the scenes.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I would not take that bet. I am sure you are correct.

  3. DJRippert Avatar

    Seems like offshore wind is beginning to meet obstacles in Maryland.

    In November, Orsted dropped out of a New Jersey wind farm construction program. MAryland was hopeful Orsted would continue with its MAryland plans.

    https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/11/02/md-hopes-to-continue-offshore-wind-with-orsted-after-company-ends-n-j-projects/

    Last week, Orsted disappointed Maryland by cancelling its Maryland based offshore wind project. Orsted determined that the existing Maryland planned wind farm project was no longer commercially viable.

    https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2024/01/26/maryland-offshore-wind-suffers-big-setback-with-rsted-change-of-course/72367099007/

    Interestingly, these cancellations by Orsted (the world’s biggest developer of offshore wind) came just after that company started wind farm electricity generation off the coast of Long Island.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/south-fork-wind-turbine-montauk-east-hampton-long-island/

    Has Orsted seen the future of US offshore wind?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The future has surfaced in New Jersey, where the state just approved two new projects with massive increases in price. One developer is promised 20 years of subsidies, a price of more than $130 per megawatt hour in year one, with a three percent annual escalation. Like maybe twice the ultimate ratepayer cost of the previous, abandoned projects. The other project’s guarantee is just under $125 per mwh in year one, also with annual kickers.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      There was recent article in Wall Street Journal saying Dominion solved the problem: customers pay the higher cost. The article also mentioned many utilities waiting to see how it works, which makes sense (I have argued wait-and-see would be the smarter approach for a non-monopoly, private company). NJ and Va. both want to “take the lead”, so we shall see first-hand how well it works, apparently. Condering the massive size of the new turbines is not well proven, this will be an interesting experiment.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The future has surfaced in New Jersey, where the state just approved two new projects with massive increases in price. One developer is promised 20 years of subsidies, a price of more than $130 per megawatt hour in year one, with a three percent annual escalation. Like maybe twice the ultimate ratepayer cost of the previous, abandoned projects. The other project’s guarantee is just under $125 per mwh in year one, also with annual kickers.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Why is it that Democrats can’t seem to understand that both people and businesses can leave and relocate in another state?

        Or, is the expectation that our perplexed, peevish, and perpetually puzzled president, plodding and puttering ponderously in his primeval parlor will mandate offshore wind farms for all states?

        Should work well in Kansas.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I might ask why can’t conservatives not be willfully blind to the well reported REAL problems with offshore wind and not viability.

          The reality is that there are so many projects planned that they outran the supply chain that got whacked by Covid.

          Why would those who claim to be supporters of the free market and cheaper energy join the culture war and modern-day Luddites and oppose proven low cost energy like solar and wind?

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Now that’s some good alliteration!

    4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      There was recent article in Wall Street Journal saying Dominion solved the problem: customers pay the higher cost. The article also mentioned many utilities waiting to see how it works, which makes sense (I have argued wait-and-see would be the smarter approach for a non-monopoly, private company). NJ and Va. both want to “take the lead”, so we shall see first-hand how well it works, apparently. Condering the massive size of the new turbines is not well proven, this will be an interesting experiment.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        Very heroic of Virginia. Rolling the dice with the entire state’s economy for the sake of virtue signaling. No doubt the popinjays presently in our General Assembly will join the exodus out of Virginia so they can arrive in some well run state and start screwing it up too.

        Look out Texas!

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          On energy issues Texas has its own quirks, one must admit. 🙂

          1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            Texas is 100% ONshore wind, which is what we *should* probably be doing also…it is a different and much cheaper approach.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            You do the wind that suits your geography. Offshore wind is abundant and so much so that too many projects
            have been proposed than there is supply chain to feed. Google it. It takes specialized ships to erect the
            turbines… there’s a shortage of them and you can’t build them overnight.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Oh I’m sure out good idea fairies who brought Dominion record profits and zero regulation can correct the ERCOT mistake too.

  4. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    It’s economic malpractice for Virginia, especially Hampton Roads, not to pursue opportunities in the small modular nuke arena. We have expertise in the navy community that retires and leaves the region to work for the nuke industry outside of VA. Make it here and grow the economy.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Especially the Fed gov’t could do to make power for the bases. But see, that’s the thing the State wants to do the money spending for Dominion only.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        SMRs for the military as well as for islands without native fossil fuels.

        Both have to transport fuel to power generators.

        It’s a big problem for remote military bases… the base can become vulnerable without power and the fuel it needs.

        Many islands have to import diesel fuel to generate electricity at a cost at 30-50 cents a killowatt hour depending on how far the fuel needs to be transported.

        SMRs, conceptually, could be a boon if they could fill those voids.

        I don’t know of a single case where they are being used that way but perhaps they are on some military bases and it’s not publicized.

        I’m pretty sure they’re the most costly grid power right now and not sure at all they are cheaper than diesel fuel on islands.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      Turbocohen. Can I ask why you feel this way?

      and… are you aware of the economics of SMRs
      can I send you a couple of links on the subject?

Leave a Reply