SCC Commissioner Angela Navarro, whose term ends January 31, 2022.

by Steve Haner

Does Tuesday’s election result mean Virginia is going to move back towards a rational energy policy? Watch two key personnel decisions, both entirely matters for the next legislature to decide.

State Corporation Commissioner Angela Navarro was elected by the 2021 General Assembly to fill the unexpired term of Mark Christie, who moved to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. His SCC term was expiring January 31, 2022, so hers does too, putting her up for reconsideration immediately.

A former staff lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, she was an architect and advocate for the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act. Key decisions on that are beginning to fill the SCC docket, the largest being the next Dominion integrated resource plan and the first tranche of offshore wind development.

Will the new Republican majority in the House of Delegates deny Navarro a full term and choose another judge less associated with that bill? Well, the oldest rule in the legislature is “what goes around comes around.” When the Democrats took full control of the Assembly in the 2020 session, former Commissioner Patricia West was seeking an extension on her partial SCC term that began in 2019.

She was denied that extension, and instead replaced by Jehmal T. Hudson, who had been serving at FERC in a staff position.

West was not even given the simple courtesy of a hearing in front of the legislative committee, even as she sat in the room for what is usually a pro-forma opportunity to speak. Delegate Richard “Rip” Sullivan, D-Arlington, was the committee chair who ignored her, and sitting right beside him that day was Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, who didn’t push for her to be heard. West, a former cabinet member, chief deputy attorney general and circuit court judge, was shamefully disrespected.

Even if Navarro is to be replaced, she should be given better treatment and a chance to make her case for a full term.

Kilgore is at the center of the other personnel question, as he is pushing hard once again to rise up from his seat at the far western end of the Commonwealth and become Speaker of the House. Dominion Energy Virginia has no more loyal lieutenant in the House than Kilgore, the only Republican in that body to vote for that same 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act. His legislative career has been sustained with $375,891 in Dominion donations, despite the political safety of his seat.

He voted for the bill because Dominion promised to continue the existence of the expensive (and apparently money losing) Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center in St. Paul, burning coal, coal waste and other carbon-emitting fuels. The war on fossil fuels crowd (Navarro included) accepted the continued existence of Virginia City as the price of making the deal with Dominion and Kilgore. Presto, it became a bipartisan bill. One Republican senator joined in the very bad vote.

Search in vain for any vote cast by Kilgore against the wishes of Dominion, no matter who was pushing on the other side. His constituents are served by other electric utilities, so any price increases his actions impose on Dominion’s 2.6 million customers in other parts of the state cost him no votes. Those future Dominion price hikes discussed in the campaign? Not in Scott County.

The other likely candidate for Speaker, Delegate Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, has also been a reliable vote for Dominion on various regulatory matters, but did oppose the 2020 omnibus. (Dominion donations for his elections to his safe red seat total $485,219.)

Personnel is policy, and vice versa.

The 21 Senate Democrats could stand firm and block any new SCC Commissioner elected by the Republican House but doing that would leave the seat vacant. Navarro’s term has a hard stop of January 31. The SCC would be back to two members with the possibility that future Governor Glenn Youngkin could make a recess appointment. That the legislators usually will not abide. Picking judges is their gig.

If the next Assembly adjourns and Navarro is still on the Commission and Kilgore in the Speaker’s chair, the transformation of Virginia into a high-cost, low-reliability energy state will continue apace. There is not a single bill the next Governor needs to sign to keep that railroad running at full speed now. The question is what bills might pass to slow things or change direction.

And, as with many other things, Youngkin’s comments to date have been fairly general and non-specific anyway. His mandate for change was far clearer in education and law enforcement.

Repealing the 2020 VCEA or even seriously amending it (which Youngkin has discussed) will require at least some Democratic committee and floor votes. Unwinding the myriad other examples of lawful favoritism now built into our electricity regulatory laws will be even harder, because all were created and defended with Republican votes.

These two initial personnel decisions could indicate a change in direction but would just be a first step on a long hard road. Or they could be flashing signal that nothing will change after all.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

20 responses to “Personnel is Policy On Future Energy Reform”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    Some different ways of looking at this but one way would be to recognize that what the GOP and Youngkin can do ( or not ) may well depend on the elections for the Va Senate and who knows what mayhem might occur if the GOP gets the Va Senate, not the least of which is to kneecap the SCC again.

    You can bet the GOP is busy on planning right now!

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It is easier to find Democratic votes to challenge Dominion in the Senate, Petersen for one. Both parties must take the blame for knee capping the SCC over the many years, but you are up to your usual tricks of pretending that just one party is to blame. I for one am sick of you doing so. We all are.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        No tricks. Just looking at who had control of the GA for most of the time and how the Dominion things played out including earlier efforts at deregulation and excess profits.

        I admit the Dems had a role but I don’t think as much a role as the GOP has had.

        Perhaps you can say I’m wrong on that and it is and has been all along an equality party thing.

        You obviously know far more about this that the average guy but sometimes I not sure you are totally a non-paritsan square shooter… my apologies if I’m wrong.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It is easier to find Democratic votes to challenge Dominion in the Senate, Petersen for one. Both parties must take the blame for knee capping the SCC over the many years, but you are up to your usual tricks of pretending that just one party is to blame. I for one am sick of you doing so. We all are.

  2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Thank you for the analysis Steve. Will be interesting to watch the energy policy direction. Perhaps the first step is a Va. Repub energy policy or platform, as national Repubs have rolled something out, and then the other decisions flow from that vision.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I agree you start with the policy discussion, decide some key principles, and then look to writing or amending legislation. Give the Democrats credit: In two short years they changed the state’s legal environment substantially and unwinding it will be hard. We’ll need leadership committed to doing so, listening to the little individual and mom and pop business consumers and not Amazon or Facebook.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It is not as clear-cut as you make it. There probably has not been enough time to evaluate her performance, but Navarro’s role as an administrative law judge is quite different from her former role as a policy advocate. Like others before her (see Mark Christie), she could very well be a fair judge and implementer of the powers provided the SCC by the GA.

    If the Republican House balks at her election to a full term, the Democratic Senate has some leverage. There will be a state Supreme Court vacancy to fill. (Alas, Bill Mims has announced his retirement.) Time for some good old fashioned horse trading.

    But, you are right that the legislators are loath to adjourn while leaving judicial vacancies for the Governor to fill in the interim. If they cannot come to agreement on the SCC position and other judicial appointments, I predict the GA will resort to the trick they have used the past few years–not adjourn, but technically stay in session for most of the year, pending filling those vacancies.

    As for the Speaker, based on your comments, Dominion would have a friend in the Speaker’s chair whether Kilgore or Gilbert were selected. I would much rather see Kilgore get the position. Over the years, Gilbert has shown a nasty, hard core side at times. Having him as Speaker would likely be even more polarizing. Kilgore, on the other hand, is much more likeable and could probably set a better tone in the House chambers.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      If that is read widely, you just elected Todd. 🙂 Overall I’m quite agnostic on the Speaker position, and agree that Dominion’s level of support has compromised both. But Kilgore has been a go-to sponsor for them, not just a steady vote in committee and on the floor. I’ve known Kilgore longer and better, but think that yes on that bill for those reasons is a high hurdle to overcome. Not like I get a say. No more lobbying, no more clients. Not among the crowd of office seekers now crowding transition office inboxes. (Would have been four years ago.)

  4. Clear, concise analysis. Thanks, Steve.

  5. Steve Gillispie Avatar
    Steve Gillispie

    Good analysis.

    Youngkin got no money from Dominion. I suspect he, like most of us doesn’t believe Dominion didn’t know what the Accountability Virginia PAC was up to. They just didn’t expect to get caught so publicly. Whatever he believes, his campaign put out a pretty strong video hammering Dominion and McCauliffe — “Dark Money, Big Favors”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Ky8US3N8k

    Given that, it would be surprising if Dominion has free reign with this administration.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Yes. But as I’ve said before here, and a couple of years ago in a WaPo guest column, and other places, Job One is to deal with our wild west anything goes campaign finance system. If that does not happen, and only a motivated governor can make it happen, very little will change. I am no less unhappy about how Clean Virginia and the rest of the war on fossil fuels crowd are buying votes. ‘Tis the same. Perhaps Bob Blue gave our new governor some fire on this.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        judging from the number of Ads I saw, neither candidate lacked money for Ads. My understanding of C4 Super Pac Dark money is that it cannot be spent directly by the candidate but it can on behalf of a candidate and that money is unlimited and the donors anonymous if they wish. In that regard, it looks like Dominion screwed up unless I don’t understand – which is uncharacteristic for Dominion typically.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I’m not sure the fund donors are anonymous forever but the reporting cycle leaves them unknown as of election day. Yes, Dominion could have written a corporate check, not a company PAC check, and not been reported when it was. But since it used the PAC account it had a report due at the end of Sept. or so.

          It is against the rules for the candidates to coordinate the message from those “independent” entities so I’m SURE nobody did.

          Here’s hoping Mr. Wilson at the RTD is standing by when that pop up PAC finally does file disclosure. If Dominion was the ONLY donor that’s another story.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            not a bad article and I’m somewhat wrong on the disclosure of donors of Super PACS:

            Dark money
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money

            Dark Money Basics

            https://www.opensecrets.org/darkmoney/dark-money-basics.php

            https://sunlightfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/10/Super20PAC20v20Dark20Money20FINAL-2-800.jpg

            IRS Issues Final Regulations on Nonprofit Donor Disclosure on Form 990 Schedule B; States Likely to Take Action
            May 29, 2020
            ” After a great deal of whipsawing as the rules flipped back and forth, the nonprofit sector now has certainty from the IRS: section 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations will not have to disclose the identity of their donors on their annual Form 990 filing with the IRS. However, some states are already beginning to require this information separately, and others may soon follow suit.”

            https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2020/05/irs-issues-final-regulations-on-nonprofit-donor

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Given the way all that works, I’d be careful about being certain that Youngkin got no help from Dominion in any way. Even he might not know it, but it could easily have happened. Plenty of the R House candidates did, directly and indirectly.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            and… it appears the reason the IRS has authority is an entity claiming non-profit status.

            If they don’t claim non-profit status, not sure the law or who they must report to.

            but even claiming non-profit status:

            ” Political Nonprofits (Dark Money)
            Politically active nonprofits – principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s – have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term “dark money” is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding – though a minority do disclose some or all of their donors, by choice or in response to specific circumstances.

            These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public, and though their political activity is supposed to be limited, the IRS – which has jurisdiction over these groups – by and large has done little to enforce those limits. Partly as a result, spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors has increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in the 2012 presidential cycle and more than $174 million in the 2014 midterms.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0a16b91d18e74d8686128aff1871d298881fa4a6ddde276908e11b2dc83327c.jpg

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Then again, he might have known. Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do… and THEN be disappointed.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Don’t hold your breath.

            That was supposed to be in regard to your first reply on this thread, but works to your 2nd as well.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I’m not sure the fund donors are anonymous forever but the reporting cycle leaves them unknown as of election day. Yes, Dominion could have written a corporate check, not a company PAC check, and not been reported when it was. But since it used the PAC account it had a report due at the end of Sept. or so.

          It is against the rules for the candidates to coordinate the message from those “independent” entities so I’m SURE nobody did.

          Here’s hoping Mr. Wilson at the RTD is standing by when that pop up PAC finally does file disclosure. If Dominion was the ONLY donor that’s another story.

Leave a Reply