Wall Street Journal: Wind Approved “Under Duress”

by Steve Haner

With an editorial published yesterday, The Wall Street Journal has now given its readers more insight into the risks inherent in Dominion Energy Virginia’s coming wind project than any Virginia newspaper or broadcast outlet has. It is not the kind of national spotlight Virginia should crave.

It noted that the recent approval of the project by the State Corporation Commission was “under obvious duress” and then went on to cite many of the dangers and potential cost consequences outlined  in the SCC’s own order. This is nothing new to readers here at Bacon’s Rebellion who read this about the decision already, or this earlier column on the reasons why the project should be rejected.

The WSJ does focus on one detail not available when those were written, comments by Dominion CEO Bob Blue on the firm’s most recent investor conference call. From the editorial:

Dominion could appeal. “We are extremely disappointed in the commission’s requirement of a performance guarantee,” CEO Robert Blue said on an earnings call. He griped that it would effectively require the company “to financially guarantee the weather, among other factors beyond its control, for the life of the project.” Exactly. Since no one can control mother nature, who should bear the risks? Dominion’s answer is not Dominion.

 

One key point that the WSJ underplayed is that the General Assembly also totally disregarded the risk on ratepayers and was happy to protect the company’s shareholders. Again, not news to my regular readers. They and I will not be surprised when the utility rushes back to the Assembly to either overturn or gut any performance mandate from the SCC. Look at Europe’s wind record below to see why.

Perhaps this is a good time to note that my “five reasons” column was initially offered to three newspapers that have regularly printed my guest columns before. One never responded, one responded only after I pulled the offer to go elsewhere, and one quickly rejected it.

I get it. Dominion is a huge advertiser. Those editors, too, lie awake worrying about the megadroughts, record river flooding, terrifying sea level rise and waves of disease which building these turbines will magically prevent. Those end-of-the-world myths appear as news in all three publications on an almost daily basis. The editorial page can’t undercut the “news.”

What will the wind produce off Virginia Beach if and when those turbines are built? Some recent information on the performance of offshore wind in Europe may get your attention. While Dominion is promising a 42% capacity factor (in other words, 42% of the stated 2,600 megawatts of output), the past decade of data from Europe shows just under 35% on average for offshore turbines. That is a significant difference over the 25 years or more we will be paying for those turbines.

Long-term capacity factors for wind and solar in Europe and the UK. Source: edmhdotme.com, via wattsupwiththat.com. Click for larger view.

Offshore wind also yields the best performance of any of Europe’s so-called “renewable” energy sources tracked. Onshore wind, far more common in Europe and the United Kingdom than offshore, averaged less than 23% capacity factor, and solar under 12% average output. Most of Europe is much further north than the parts of the U.S. better suited to solar. But hey, these are the same geniuses who burn wood pellets shipped from America and claim that reduces CO2 emissions.

In Europe and the UK, onshore wind is the most common of the three, with 186 gigawatts installed as of 2021. The region has 26 gigawatts of offshore wind on the grid (Dominion’s project is 2.6 gigawatts) and 171 gigawatts of solar.

These figures come from a post on Watts Up With That, reprinted from a personal blog for engineer Ed Hoskins. It is easy to find the daily reports on Euro/UK wind production here, and the overall grid mix every day here. They are consistent. Without steady natural gas, coal, and nuclear, Europe would go cold and dark.

The horrible winter they are preparing for (German retail electricity prices are now 41 eurocents per kWh, English consumers are organizing a boycott of electric bills) can be blamed on Vladimir Putin’s intention to cut Western Europe’s supply of natural gas. But Putin is only doing what every Democratic member of the Virginia General Assembly is sworn to do, along with an army of well-funded lobbying organizations for the Wind and Solar Industrial Complex.  They all want to eliminate gas use in Virginia homes, businesses and power plants.

Winter 2023 in Europe will be Winter in Virginia very soon. The Wall Street Journal sees it coming, but Virginia’s mainstream media will applaud the coming tidal wave until the last reader departs.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

51 responses to “Wall Street Journal: Wind Approved “Under Duress””

  1. Several good lines in here, Steve. I particularly liked this one:

    “Putin is only doing what every Democratic member of the Virginia General Assembly is sworn to do, along with an army of well-funded lobbying organizations for the Wind and Solar Industrial Complex.”

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Pretty much Haner’s entire schtick these days… a series of “lines”.

  2. Dominion’s complaint that it cannot “guarantee the weather” is also an admission that the system is not designed to deal with a known, and highly probable, critical failure point.

  3. Dominion Virginia (aka Vepco) – Holding their customers responsible for every stupid corporate decision, and every wasted dollar, since 1909.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “While Dominion is promising a 42% capacity factor (in other words, 42% of the stated 2,600 megawatts of output), the past decade of data from Europe shows just under 35% on average for offshore turbines. That is a significant difference over the 25 years or more we will be paying for those turbines.”

    Just like with solar, you think there will not be a difference in wind and operating conditions off the coast of Virginia when compared to the UK? Do you think Dominion has accounted for that improperly?

  5. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve Haner may have his negative views on renewable energy and that’s his business. However, he grossly conflates Moscow’s playing in energy wars with Virginia Democrats. The Russians have always played the energy card and so has everyone else. One reason Hitler sacrificed so many troops at Stalingrad was to get at Caspian oil fields. In the 1970s, the Soviets badly wanted the “Friendship” pipeline to take petroleum from new fields in Western Siberia to Europe. Jimmy Carter nixed U.S>.shipments of steel for the pipeline after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. One reason Moscow was so brutal with the Chechens is that it saw them threatening new pipeline routes. Putin didn’t invent this. His crazy war with Ukraine is not all about gas leverage in Europe. Building out offshore wind and solar is actually a solution for Western Europe. Another point, Germany got rid of its nukes after the Fukushima disaster. It had nothing to do with Putin. Connecting the current war with Virginia Democrats is beyond insane.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      “Virginia Democrats is beyond insane.” Amen. Been saying that for a good while now.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Oh, I agree the war is not about energy, and am aware of some of that history. The fair point that you could have made is that the comparison is unfair because the Virginia Democrats truly are committed to eliminating the use of gas and Putin is not. Putin is brutally reminding Europe and the world that there lies the true insanity, reliance on intermittent energy….Putin expects Russia to be producing, using and exporting fossil fuels the rest of this century, and he’s probably correct.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    No one I know is thinking/believing that we stop using gas 100% right now and totally rely 100% on wind/solar.

    Most folks know and realize that it will take decades to get to that point and it likely won’t happen until unless there are other breakthroughs in storage, nukes, and other technologies.

    So the difference is if one believes that climate change is a threat we must confront or not.

    Someone who reads and believes Watts Up With That can fairly be called a “denier” and from that point on, it is no surprise that everything they write is going to have that tilt to it.

    Even if you are a climate denier though, one should see the benefit of not being hostage to fossil-fuels whether you’re Germany or Japan or the 10,000 inhabited islands that use diesel fuel or the more than 200 US military bases that exist around the world. Lessening dependence on fossil fuels is actually a priority of the US military which does believe there is climate change, as does NOAA and NASA and the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.

    Reducing dependence on fossil fuels , separate from climate, is important in it’s own right.

    We’re not doing this overnight. We’re not banning any/all use of gas tomorrow or next week or next year. We’re supplanting gas with wind/solar on a timetable that will take decades.

    somewhere we don’t get this truth in the “deniers” articles.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      See, it’s a religion! To doubt The Revealed Truth makes one a “denier,” and soon they’ll move to “heretic.” The way for us to be free of foreign dependence is to keep producing our own fossil fuels, more gas, less coal, but keep it up. There will prove to be a hard limit on how much wind and solar can be allowed if you want reliability.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Rather than attack the source of data or information and dismiss it outright (unless it is someone like Alex Jones who deals in lies as a way of doing business), one would do better to offer data that disproves or undermines the data being presented.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Hey, if you do a little reading on the website whatsupwiththat.com you’ll see that they are a denier site.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

        They’re basically the climate equivalent of Alex Jones….

        When someone tells me that both NASA and NOAA (and their world counterparts) are lying and conspiring to lie about climate change – that’s Alex Jones territory in my book.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      See, it’s a religion! To doubt The Revealed Truth makes one a “denier,” and soon they’ll move to “heretic.” The way for us to be free of foreign dependence is to keep producing our own fossil fuels, more gas, less coal, but keep it up. There will prove to be a hard limit on how much wind and solar can be allowed if you want reliability.

      Larry cannot dismiss the data cited so he attacks the website. Loyal readers remember this lesson — that’s what kind of fallacy? A hint: Ad H*****m.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        “Denial” is a religion especially when it’s based on beliefs and not facts.

        Here is an example:

        Even if you look at just this country, if wind/solar produce electricity cheaper than gas – no different than when gas produces electricity cheaper than coal , it makes perfect financial sense to use it when it is available to reduce costs.

        But the “religion” of denial – won’t even deal with facts and rational decisions based on cost alone, if they suspect it has something to do with climate!

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Why not look at ASNMR technology as well? https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs

          The goal should be to develop solutions that provide affordable, safe, carbon-free, reliable energy to power the economy. What about the choice of where to live being left to the individual? The idea of living in little boxes in areas where there is high levels of street crime?

          The VSCC staff should ask advocacy groups to provide informaation about the residence locations of their members on an aggregate basis.

          This reminds me of the wealthy people living in rural parts of NoVA funding the Smart Growth Coalition to keep density low.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’m 100% in favor of that technology including subsidies to finish development on it and even operational use of it even if it costs more than solar/wind (but less than gas). And abandonment of wind/solar if the technology ends up cheaper than wind/solar.

            When I see one put on an island, we’ll KNOW it’s ready for prime time.

            Not opposed to it, just the opposite.

            But it’s not ready yet. I don’t even think the initial pilot is set to run for another year or two and 5-10 years or longer to deploy as part of the grid.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        If you want to use more of our gas for generation, maybe don’t export so much of it…🤷‍♂️

  7. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Mr. Blue, who, in his own way, seems as dangerous as Donald Trump, is pushing the NC Utilities Commission to adopt a similar rip-off deal for Dominion NC customers. Dominion serves most of northeast North Carolina, but fortunately not me.

    There is no reason to put all of the risk of performance on ratepayers without a concomitant reduction in Dominion’s allowed profit level to reflect the lower level of risk.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Need to look at the statute again, but I think if the NC Commission says no, we Virginia jurisdictional ratepayers get to pay even more!!

      1. Yeah, well, I still hope NC to says no.

        We get the government we deserve, after all.

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “They all want to eliminate gas use in Virginia homes, businesses and power plants.”

    Eventually, that is true, I suppose. However, I have not seen evidence that this group would ignore grid reliability issues in seeking to eventually achieve that goal.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      They’re talking about over decades not tomorrow or anything close to it.

      It’s much more akin to what has happened and is happening to coal plants.

      Remember the “War on Coal”? that was the rallying cry of some of the same folks who now use the phrase “War on Fossil Fuels”.

      Remember “Clean Coal”? now the same folks say “clean gas”! “dark caves” and other nonsense.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, when I can, I will drop the VNG teat. Let’s see, what can I bring into my house that can blow the whole damned thing off the foundation and me with it?

      Peebles! Very large pebbles.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The two basic narratives are:

    1. – Climate change is real and we need to transition to fuels that don’t contribute to it. It won’t get fixed anytime soon but we may be able to slow it down or start to arrest it like we did with CFCs (that were also not considered a “pollutant”).

    2. – There is no such thing as climate change caused by burning fossil fuels. It’s a hoax and evil people/dems/liberals/climate scientists around the world , are conspiring to make money and harm people and the economy.

    pays your money and picks your poison

    1. Larry, you’re such a cut-up. After reading and critiquing Haner (and me, and others on this blog) for years, do you really think those are the only two narratives? Do you absorb anything that other people write?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Oh I absorb quite well… and yes.. there are some basic narratives both climate and BR in general.

        some nuances but an equal number of just flat out false narratives, a BR specialty!

        Not a one of you yahoos has explained why it’s a bad thing to use wind/solar when available if it costs less… it’s just plain dumb on purpose.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Wrong and intentionally misleading. Climate change is real but moving very slowly, has many causes including natural cycles, and poses zero existential threat. The scary parts are fiction. A month ago the SW was in a climate-change induced drought, and this week’s rain was a climate-change induced 1000 year flood. Both claims total nonsense, a fairy tale to sell clicks and views. and solar panels.

      It makes sense to exploit sun and wind where they are cost effective (not many places really) and to rapidly replace coal with gas, but the economy will always require reliable baseload power. Nukes are best, but absent the nukes we use the gas we have. Nothing we do to reduce CO2 in this country will move the needle because 1) China, Russia, India, Africa and other nations are demanding and building more coal and gas and 2) the human CO2 contribution from fuels is just part of the change in concentration. Ready to give up modern agriculture are you?

      When we were born the world had fewer than 3 billion people. Now it is 8 billion people. They are not going to happily go into energy poverty and run their washing machines only on sunny days. Look at what happened in Sri Lanka when the Greens banned fertilizers, a push now going on in Europe and Canada.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re: ” and poses zero existential threat”

        See this is called “denial”. No one can be THAT sure that BOTH floods and drought are actually climate induced.

        It’s a change from a stable weather cycle to one that is not, not predictable and – not financially sustainable.

        The insurance companies will be confirming this.. count on it. Can you financially afford insurance for both flood and drought? Not you personally, but farmers and the ultimate cost of food to folks who are already on the margins.

        How can you be SO SURE 100% , especially when you tell your grandchildren?

        re: ” Ready to give up modern agriculture are you?” No and not industrialization either which are much bigger and tougher issues to deal with.

        Electricity and electric cars are easy. Concrete, steel, grain and hamburgers, no so much.

        We change what we can , when we can, without compromising reliability and physics.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Air is fungible and, increasingly, so is employment. Virginia’s actions don’t stop West Virginia or Pennsylvania from burning fossil fuels. Virginia’s actions certainly don’t stop Russia and China from doing the same.

          However, Virginia’s actions will make electricity much more expensive in Virginia. This will increase the cost of living and make Virginia a much less attractive place for companies to employ people.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not if Dominion buys lowest cost power like they do right now.

            Dominion “burns fuel” when it’s cheaper than buy from PJM region.

            LED lights, new HVACs, nest thermostats have made electricity conservation much easier. The payback for something like a nest thermostat is ridiculous.. it’s a no brainer.

            But countries with a ton of population that use, maybe 1/10th what we do – there is no way for them to easily reduce consumption.

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            What does reducing consumption have to do with Dominion’s offshore wind program?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            this: ” However, Virginia’s actions will make electricity much more expensive in Virginia. This will increase the cost of living and make Virginia a much less attractive place for companies to employ people.”

            people reduce consumption when the cost goes up – right?

            I bet you do, no?

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Then just tax the hell out of electricity and forget all these high risk offshore wind projects.

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        “Nothing we do to reduce CO2 in this country will move the needle because 1) China, Russia, India, Africa and other nations are demanding and building more coal and gas …”

        Aye, Matey – there’s the rub.

        You can view the massive offshore wind project in Virginia one of two ways:

        1. Left – wing virtue signaling by people who know that, even if it does work, it will have minimal impact on world pollution levels, or …

        2. A massive economic development effort which will catapult Virginia to the forefront of offshore – based wind technology to be supplied to other leftist virtue signalers who believe that tiny, little local actions will overshadow what China, India, Russia, etc do.

        While the latter idea has some merit, it should be remembered that the last large scale economic development effort pushed by Virginia politicians which succeeded was when Washington and Jefferson put the nation’s capital on the banks of the Potomac River.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re: ” “Nothing we do to reduce CO2 in this country will move the needle because 1) China, Russia, India, Africa and other nations are demanding and building more coal and gas …”

          Nope. You’re messed up if you don’t know and acknowledge CO2 generation per person which is something like 1/10th in undeveloped countries with larger populations.

          Like all other reductions in pollution, it starts with countries that lead and then other countries follow.

          This is almost like some folks are bound and determined to take us to disaster over seriously flawed “thinking”.

          It’s a contest now between those who do accept the problem and those who deny it but over time some of them become believers.

          We get serious when we have enough folks who do acknowledge the realities.

          we’re effectively hostages to the deniers.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            If you think China, Russia and (more often than not) India are going to slow their economic growth by implementing very expensive offshore wind electrical generation, you are delusional.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            First, you need to look a per-capita energy use. That would make you a more intelligent responder.

            No one expects Russia to do anything helpful to mankind. Do you read the news?

            China seems to have an all sources policy. They have more renewables than we have as well as more hydro and coal as well as nukes.

            But you’re leaving out the rest of the world especially the developed countries that use far more energy per capita than India, RUssia or China.

            Your argument seems to be that we’re headed for hell no matter what so do nothing, right?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You should look at this and ask yourself if the standard to be adopted by all countries was energy use per capita:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bed878a704447241500724482d6e872d4ae010d4d1821ba1070318f205521467.jpg

      3. 2) the human CO2 contribution from fuels is just part of the change in concentration.

        Yes, and the human CO2 contribution from respiration is not insignificant. This presents a path by which climate change fanatics can help quickly reduce the overall carbon load from living human beings.

      4. 2) the human CO2 contribution from fuels is just part of the change in concentration.

        Yes, and the human CO2 contribution from respiration is not insignificant. This presents a path by which climate change fanatics can help quickly reduce the overall carbon load from living human beings.

  10. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The Youngkin administration is soliciting public input for the update of the Virginia Energy Plan, which is required every four years. The stated goals are:

    “The plan will focus on achieving four objectives:

    Lower Cost of Living
    Job Creation
    Bringing People to Virginia
    An “All-of-the-Above” Approach to Energy Policy

    The “all-of-the-above” approach will be informed by energy
    affordability, reliability, capacity, competition, environmental
    stewardship, choice and innovation.”

    It will be interesting to see the administration’s final product. Details can be found here: https://energy.virginia.gov/energy-efficiency/VEP-Landing-Page.shtml

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      A political process for a political document.

  11. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Follow the money and ignore everything that the MSM says. If a person or entity is funded by utililties, fossil fuel producers and similar sources, there is usually some skepticism. But if a person is paid by the feds or a foundation devoted to the climate change issue, why no skepticism. Bias is bias. And if we are hearing about implicit bias in many systems, why isn’t there implicit bias on both sides of the climate issue?

    I’m not arguing that any particular person or entity is wrong on any specific issue. But I also remember the global cooling movement in the late 70s and 80s. I’ve also read that some of the data used are not measured but estimated. As I recall from college, estimated data was unacceptable. One does not have to disbelieve in climate change to questions specifics. Fudging data and funding bias are valid issues.

    And the idea that climate change causes every weather phenomenon is simply foolish. Be it natural or social science, single cause analysis is often flawed.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Right. But are you saying this is, in fact, a world-wide conspiracy of climate alarmists?

      not just a few in the US, but around the world, 200 countries worth?

      re: “global cooling”… and how about Cold Fusion and dozens of other bogus claims?

      But when you have scientists around the world – you’d have to have essentially a conspiracy, right?

      It’s not hard to doubt one guy making wild claims but what do you do when it’s hundreds of scientists around the world?

      Is that what you believe? That not only NASA and NOAA but most other scientists in the US as well as around the world – are not only wrong – but they are collaborating with each other to produce bogus data?

      If you do believe that Climate Science is indeed a worldwide conspiracy, then it must be easy to believe other conspiracies , right?

      At that point, where do you get YOUR truth ?

      who do you believe if not most science and not most media?

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        The issue is not so much climate change as knee jerk response to it. US liberals want to ban all combustion in the USA, ASAP. Meanwhile China needs to make everything for us because we want no part of dirty technology. Liberals value highly, assembly of electric cars. Somebody else does the dirty work, making steel etc, sends us the parts, and as an advanced society, we value “assembly” as a clean technology of the future, that we can tolerate. This philosophy does not hold water. We need good plumbing logic to hold water, and we do not have that. Not sure we can get it back either.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          re: ” Liberals value highly, assembly of electric cars. Somebody else does the dirty work, making steel etc, sends us the parts, ”

          any more or less other things from TVs to microwaves, to dozens, hundreds of other products, right?

          why just this thing?

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            As usual, Larry trusting the SCIENCE! from the govt and the academy, and they are not corrupted by power and money. Look how they saved us from Covid!

  12. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Thank you Steve.
    I have previously talked about engineering performance and monitoring of the system.

    Will it perform “as advertised” ? I have suggested that we may never hear the secret facts of the operation, from Day-1. Wind strength falling short is NOT the issue: the issue is, given the amount of available wind resources, does the system perform 100% or 80% or 110%?…and how about Years- 2, 3, and 4…after erosion of the huge turbine blades.

    My perspective is an engineer on a team designing big new one-of-kind plants. Often times, we were building the plants for customers. So they would measure performance and we’d owe a legal fee for lack of performance. But under-performance guarantee fees do not mend a broken project and trust. Mostly our reputation was on the line, and we wanted the customer to feel the plant performed “as advertised”.

    Just guessing from my past experience as a project estimator myself, the economic justification of the plants is probably based on optimistic guesses. If the estimate was not optimistic, then there might be a question of why we are building it in the first place?

    But GA has essentially ruled the project is in the public good regardless of performance.

    I personally used to strive for somewhat optimistic estimates in early scoping studies, but as the project became more serious, I would try to dial down to exact realism with some conservatism for the final design. Usually that was based on actual small-scale pilot plant experiments. Sometimes the more realistic estimates approach loses the project.

  13. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    People tend to be conservative about things they know best, and Blue’s reaction reveals the scam.
    He and his Dem buddies love the climate hoax as long as they don’t bear the risk and can pawn it off on taxpayers (and customers). The academy loves all the research money to create models that “prove” the need for our political saviors to enrich their friends.
    All of the models are a waste of time. So many assumptions and so much unknown. The “climate” has always changed. I’m good with minimizing pollution. I am not good with calling CO2 a pollutant. And I am really not good with trusting such corrupted people who do not have the humility to admit they are guessing or even could be wrong. Because they are. It is a lie to say otherwise. Let me know when the “climate scientists” can be accurate here in Richmond for a month. Then maybe I could give a little more credence to their 40 year guesses.

  14. Ruckweiler Avatar
    Ruckweiler

    The “climate hoax” is driving these projects regardless of reality. The first hurricane that hits these windmills will be devastating to these “targets.”

  15. Verified Former Utility Exec Avatar
    Verified Former Utility Exec

    This is why we can’t have nice things and why it is largely impossible these days to build vital infrastructure. Let’s begin with the regulatory compact in place for well over 100 years. Utilities are granted a monopoly to attract capital to build infrastructure, and in return for the obligation of universal service, are guaranteed a return of prudently invested capital, plus a reasonable opportunity to earn a return on (profit) the same. They are thus insulated from risks they cannot control.

    This allows utilities to attract capital, both equity and debt, at rates that are favorable for utility ratepayers.

    There is a finite bucket of capital that utilities compete for, and factors such as management, regulatory environment, and economic climate earn utilities a relative ranking against a peer group that investors and lenders use to calculate risk.

    The Commission’s poison pill is not only an existential threat to the project, which one may or may not support, it is also a chilling introduction of risk into the regulatory environment which, if carried out and used as precedent in other cases, will only serve to reduce investment in Virginia’s energy infrastructure, increase the cost of debt and equity (thus raising rates), and introduce additional disruption in a sector that is built on stability. See, e.g., California.

Leave a Reply