Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Thanks for the Column, Barnie. Now for Some Tough Questions.

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Barnie Day, to my knowledge, is the first candidate for a State Corporation Commission judgeship who has made his case publicly on a blog. In “A Matter of Exquisite Balance,” Barnie provides a thoughtful column on the qualities he believes an SCC judge should possess.

As a community bank executive in Patrick County, this former Bacon’s Rebellion contributor knows full well that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. At the same time, Day is a consumer. “I want the lights to come on when I hit the switch. I want my insurance company to pay my claims. I want my phones to work. I want my bank to stay solvent and take care of my money.” A judge, he says, has to find the right balance.

I would agree with all that, but as a citizen I want to know his thoughts in more detail. As Day rightly observes, the three SCC judges are the state’s supreme regulators. The odds are you can’t name a single one of them, but outside of the governor, the House majority leader and the Senate majority leader, they may be the three most powerful men (and/or women) in Virginia.

These are tumultuous times, especially for Virginia’s energy industry. The state will have a lot to say about how many new power plants, and what type, the newly regulated electric power industry builds over the next decade. Which path, or paths, should we pursue? Nuclear? Coal? Renewable? Conservation? Imported electricity over transmission lines? How do we “balance” environmental concerns against the desire to protect consumers by keeping rates low? Meanwhile, a proposal has been floated that would reform the way natural gas companies are regulated, with the aim of promoting conservation.

How worried is Day about global warming, a key justification for energy conservation and renewable fuels? What is the proper balance between consumer concerns and environmental concerns? How aggressive should the Commonwealth be adopting a new regulatory philosophy? The men and women of the General Assembly who appoint the SCC judges may not ask these questions, but they should.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Fair questions all, Jim–and I would expect no less. I don’t know how long we’re going to remain a carbon-based economy. And I don’t know if the so-called “green” movement is a passing fad or not—I suspect that it is not. Time will tell. I do know that lip service is easy, and I have noticed that some of the better-known “green” proponents seem to travel by private jet. The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stone. My belief is that the Carbon Age won’t end because we run out of coal and oil. I suspect that changes in attitudes and behaviors, new discoveries, and new technologies will shift us into some other paradigm. I do not know what that will be. I don’t thing there are any magic beans in our future. Whatever the shift is will require trade-offs. There are downsides to all alternatives with which I am currently familiar—tidal, geo-thermal, wind, water, nuclear, hydrogen, solar, and bio-this-that-and-the-other. This shift will occur, in my opinion on a parallel tract with the development of our willingness to make these trades. This fabulous environment called Earth is, for the most part, a closed system. What we have to work with is here—home to us all, and to all living things was we know them. It will take care of us for a long time if we let it. More SCC-specific thinking as this thread develops. Barnie Day

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There are downsides to all alternatives with which I am currently familiar—tidal, geo-thermal, wind, water, nuclear, hydrogen, solar, and bio-this-that-and-the-other. This shift will occur, in my opinion on a parallel tract with the development of our willingness to make these trades. “

    Exactly right, in my opinion.

    It is going to take time, and it can’t come purely by force or mandate. We more or less have the technology, but that is going to be the easy part. The social and government part is hard.

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If you start incorporating the cost of pollution, it will fundamentally change the way we do business.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We do incorporate pollution in the way we do business. We don’t yet do it particularly equally or accurately. Standards are as much political as scientific.

    It is also likely to change how much business we do.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Barnie Day: The whole notion of “costs” is an interesting—and intricate—one, particularly “opportunity” costs. When calculating any cost of taking an action it seems to me that we must also include the cost of non-action. If we do that, the commonalities are a wash, and the true cost becomes only the differential between action and inaction. Another cost frequently overlooked is the cost of conflict. Conflict is expensive. Even the few indigenous tribes remaining on Earth seem to have figured this out. They don’t practice real war anymore, but rather resort to ritual conflict. Killing each other is much more expensive than getting drunk, putting on war paint, dancing, strutting, and shaking sticks at each other. One activity assures mutual destruction, the other mutual survival. John Whatshisname, portrayed in the movie “A Beautiful Mind” won a Nobel Prize with this realization.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Mr. Day:

    You wrote, “More SCC-specific thinking as this thread develops.”.

    I certainly hope that is true.

    With all due respect, your first answer to Jim’s questions answered nothing.

    The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone?

    Actually, the age of wood burning stoves as a primary source of heat did end because the growing population of European cities ran out of nearby trees to cut down. The world did not run out of trees either. However, trees near population centers did become realatively scarce. Hence, coal as a fuel.

    Running out is not the issue. Relative scarcity is. Anyone who doubts that we have entered a world of realtive scarcity of fossil fuels need only go to a gas station and take note of the price per gallon. The prices are rising as if they were guided by an “invisible hand”. That’s the “invisible hand of relative scarcity” Mr. Day.

    If you really want to become one of the six most powerful people in the state I think you should provide answers to Jim’s quite reasonable questions.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Question: Which path, or paths, should we pursue? Nuclear? Coal? Renewable? Conservation? Imported electricity over transmission lines? How do we “balance” environmental concerns against the desire to protect consumers by keeping rates low?

    Answer: I don’t think we should close any path to inquiry, nor do I think we’ll have a reasonable, cost-comparable alternative to our existing sources of energy anytime soon–“soon” being defined as 25-50years. The appreciable advances we make will be incremental, in my opinion, not quantum leaps–advances in safety, efficiences, and applications. Alternative and renewable sources of energy will not find a substantial share of the market until they can compete on a cost basis. If government subsidies on them now were removed they would largely vanish. On the balance question, consumers will always define the banance between cost and environmental downsides simply by demonstrating, in both instances, what they’re willing to live with. If you were to graph these two on an x/y axis, the lines wouls cross precisely at this “willing to live with” point.

    How worried is Day about global warming, a key justification for energy conservation and renewable fuels? What is the proper balance between consumer concerns and environmental concerns? How aggressive should the Commonwealth be adopting a new regulatory philosophy?

    Answer: Global warming, frankly, does not keep me up at night, though I do think about it. I’m not sure we need a new regulatory philosophy–if we have one now, I’m not sure what it is. I do think that we have a regulatory culture that is adversarial, maybe even antagonistic, and conflict is expensive–an expense that flows to the end use consumer. Barnie Day

Leave a Reply

Read More