SCC Staff: Dominion Should Refund $312M, Cut Rates, Due to $1.14B Excess Profits

SCC Staff summary showing how $1.14 billion in Dominion Energy Virginia excess profits get whittled down to only a possible $312 million refund.  Step one, not shown, is the law allows the company to keep the first 70 basis points of excess profit no questions asked.  Click for larger view.

by Steve Haner

Customers of Dominion Energy Virginia are due a refund of $312 million and the company’s future base rates should be reduced by another $50 million annually, the utility accounting staff at the State Corporation Commission concluded in testimony filed September 17.

Patrick W. Carr, deputy director of the division of utility accounting and finance, was joined in filing testimony by ten other members of that staff, but he provided the baseline result in his opening summary.

In the staff’s opinion, Dominion earned $1.143 billion of profit in excess of its allowed 9.2% return on equity during the four year period it reviewed, 2017 through 2020. The company will vigorously dispute those claims in rebuttal testimony, it is safe to predict.

The State Corporation Commission is entering the key phase of its so-called “triennial review,” which in Dominion’s case covers an extra year because that is what it asked of the Virginia General Assembly, and the Assembly seldom declines DEV’s requests. This is the first full audit of the company’s finances since 2015, which covered the two prior years of 2013 and 2014.

In 2015, the company was also found to have earned excess profits and ordered to make refunds. The two years in between, 2015 and 2016, were never fully reviewed, again thanks to a compliant General Assembly and a bill signed in 2018 by Governor Ralph Northam. That bill pushed this current case off until 2021, with the decision unlikely until the current statewide election is over.

Why isn’t the SCC recommending a return to ratepayers of the entire $1.14 billion in excess profits? Carr, in this testimony, walks readers through the accounting.

First, the official return on equity amount is surrounded by a 70 basis point collar. That allows the utility to earn another 70 basis points of profit above 9.2% before any dollar can be considered for refund. That moves about $180 million out of the surplus and into the company’s treasury (from customers to ratepayers.)

Second, the General Assembly protected the utility from any financial damage to its revenue from the COVID-19 pandemic. Another $206 million of the excess profits have been used to reimburse the company and its stockholders – in full – for unpaid bills during the recession. (That is just the amount through the end of 2020, and the General Assembly just voted to continue protecting the company into 2022. Those will be more dollars moved from potential refunds to company profits.)

Those two steps reduce the “excess profit” figure to $755 million, Carr reports.

Third, the same 2018 legislation mentioned before allowed the company to use excess profits on certain favored capital investments, the largest of which in this case was construction of the two-turbine offshore wind demonstration project, now operational. In all $309 million is diverted to cover those capital costs with so-called “customer credit reinvestment offsets,” leaving $446 million in excess profits that could be used for refunds.

But going all the way back to 2007 legislation, adjusted in a 2013 bill, 30% percent of those excess profits are also retained by the company. That $134 million kept by stockholders brings us to the figure of $312 million that Carr and the SCC staff recommend should be returned to ratepayers, just a bit above one quarter of the actual excess profits.

Looking at future revenue needs the staff then recommends a $50 million annual rate reduction. Why that figure? Again, you must return to that 2018 legislation in which the General Assembly and Northam told the SCC that there could be no higher reduction than $50 million per year, no matter what the accounting indicated.

Carr and the staff indicated that without that handcuff, a very substantial rate cut of $212 million per year would have been their recommendation instead. That is based on another staff proposal which is part of this case, and being fought by Dominion, a reduction in the future return on equity to 8.7% (down 120 basis points).

This is the headline summary of hundreds of pages of testimony in what is likely to be the largest case record in SCC history by far. There are several major arguments under way between the parties over accounting issues for the three-judge SCC to settle before reaching a final decision.

One of the largest, also touched on by Carr, involves a number of coal-fired generation units which Dominion has already or soon plans to retire, even though they have years of useful life left. The company is entitled to full compensation for the hundreds of millions in stranded costs, but the timing for collecting that compensation is a huge issue.

Dominion has claimed the costs in full during this accounting period, which is a major reason it shows no excess profits and claims it really needs more money. But Carr recommends a 25-year amortization period for those costs, all of them tied to General Assembly determinations that scrapping those plants now is needed to save the planet from a climate catastrophe.

Should the SCC agree with the staff accounting and order the $312 million in refunds, recent Virginia general assemblies and governors will have taken an extra $830 million out of the pockets of just 2.7 million Dominion customers, residential and business, non-profit and government. That is over just four years of the 14 which have passed since the General Assembly took full control of utility regulation in 2007.

The SCC, of course, could let the company keep it all and leave the excess base rates in place. Stay tuned.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

19 responses to “SCC Staff: Dominion Should Refund $312M, Cut Rates, Due to $1.14B Excess Profits”

  1. tmtfairfax Avatar

    As a lawyer who has been involved in common carrier and utility regulation since the late 1970s, I believe Virginia’s regulation of Dominion and the State’s regulatory laws are unbelievably bad. Utility regulation is supposed to balance the interests of the utility and its shareowners with those of ratepayers. The utility must have a fair opportunity to recover its reasonable expenses and a fair profit on its investments.

    I’ve seen states attempt to push rates below what is reasonable. But Virginia’s law goes so far the other way that it borders on the criminal. Justice and karma demand that the Governor and the General Assembly rot in hellfire eternally for how they’ve screwed the residents and businesses served by Dominion.

    Allowing Dominion to recover COVID losses constitutes unlawful retroactive ratemaking. Dominion should have been forced to file an completely new rate case before it could attempt to recover lost revenues from COVID. Such a case would put its overearnings and excessive rates at risk. Moreover, a very strong argument can be made that these losses should not be included in full because they are extraordinary and not likely to occur in the future.

    The law delaying the earnings review contains no protections for ratepayers and should not have been passed and signed into law. A delay would be appropriate only if ratepayers received something as well — a rate cut or increase in the amount to be refunded with overearnings.

    Dominion should not be permitted to recover the costs for stranded investment or its allowed rate-of-return should have been cut significantly to reflect the much lower business risk.

    In light of the fact that, in most areas of the country, alternative sources of power, e.g., wind farms, operate on an unregulated basis with market conditions rather than on a regulated-put all the costs and risks on ratepayers-basis.

    Virginia offers the worst of all possible worlds (apologies to Alexander Pope and Voltaire) — it exhibits the ill effects of both wokeness and post-bellum, good-old-boy/girl corruption. I’m glad there’s progress on the new house (with a new power company — the Town of Wake Forest). In the old days, we’d see the media nailing both Dominion and our corrupt politicians for the harm they cause for ordinary people.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I assume that the Wake Forest house will be served by Duke Power. That company does not have the best of reputations.

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar

        Actually, it’s either served by the Town of Wake Forest electric system or the Wake County Coop. I’m still puzzling with maps to find out exactly which one.

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Don’t you normally figure out which utility serves the property before you even break ground? You want to involve the utility as early as possible because it can take them a while to install whatever infrastructure is needed to serve the property….

          Especially because I don’t think the folks in North Carolina operate with any more a sense of urgency about things than the ones in Virginia…it took NOVEC nearly 8 months from the time I contacted them till they had installed the transformer..and the pole was only 300 feet away.

          1. tmtfairfax Avatar

            We have a builder who bought the lot from the developer. All the utilities are in the subdivision. And some homes are completed and occupied.

            The Town provides power to some residents and businesses but the rest of Wake Forest is served by a Coop. I just don’t know where the boundary line has been drawn.

  2. Nice dissection of the issue, Steve.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      They are advocates. That was a paid witness. When I saw it, I said let’s wait to see what the SCC staff says — they’ve been auditing Dominion all along. It will carry more weight with the judges. The SELC is retweeting my story with relish. I don’t claim that reading and summarizing an SCC document is crackerjack reporting….

      Look, I don’t like you either, Peter. Everybody loves to watch this game, but I hate it. I want to return to the point where you stay the f*&% away from what I write and I’ll do the same for you.

    2. From the article: the utility accounting staff at the State Corporation Commission concluded in testimony filed September 17.

      It would have been a neat trick for Mr. Haner to report on testimony which was filed on September 17 before September 17. That would not only be “on top of the news” it would be in front of it.

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Also Virginia elected officials bend over backwards to give Dominion everything it wants. Recall TMac approved the huge gas pipeline, which in hindsight looks like a boondoggle to compete with MVP, and then TMac later caved on the Dominion request to suspend reviews and freeze the rates. TMac said he met with Dominion officials they said that action was absolutely necessary for the company, so he had to give it to them.

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Nope. I will not start censoring myself.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Ironic, considering you want to censor others or are unwilling to defend your opinions without ad hom attacks.

  5. How long until I get my rebate check?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Uh, don’t plan on it just yet….

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      I’m running the blender on Dominion’s dime!

    3. ‘To dream the impossible dream…’

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I always appreciate your clear summary of these complex issues.

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve, After seeing stories about this in the RTD and the AP, I realize that you were ahead of the curve on this one. I apologize.

  8. […] excessive profits, one of the highest margins around for a regulated utility, also fund things like the hiring of […]

Leave a Reply