How the General Assembly failed Virginia again on clean energy

Child on father's shoulders with sign reading "We need a healthy planet"

Photo credit Sierra Club.

When the General Assembly session opened January 9, legislators were presented with dozens of bills designed to save money for consumers, lower energy consumption, provide more solar options, and set us on a pathway to an all-renewables future. Almost none of these measures passed, while bills that benefited utilities kept up their track record of success.

Before I review the individual bills, it’s worth considering for a moment how very different Virginia’s energy future would look if the best of 2019’s bills had passed. In that alternate universe, Virginians could have looked forward to:

  • A freer and more open market for renewable energy at all levels, including unrestricted use of third-party financing for renewable energy, an end to punitive standby charges and arbitrary limits on customer solar, and new opportunities for local governments to install solar cost-effectively.
  • A mandate for utilities to achieve real energy efficiency results, not just to throw their customers’ money at programs.
  • An energy efficiency revolving fund to offer no-interest loans to local governments, public schools and public institutions of higher learning.
  • The right to choose an electricity supplier for renewable energy, instead of being restricted to more expensive and less desirable utility offerings (if available at all).
  • Tax credits for solar on landfills, brownfields and economic opportunity zones.
  • Rebates for low and moderate-income Virginians who install solar.
  • A new revenue source for spending on climate adaptation efforts, energy efficiency programs, and coalfields transition, made possible bythe auctioning of carbon allowances to power plants as part of joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; half the lowered carbon emissions would have been achieved through installing wind and solar.
  • Movement towards an eventual phase-out of fossil fuels.
  • Stronger assurance that customers won’t be overcharged for the use of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline or other fracked-gas pipelines owned by utility affiliates.

But in a legislature still ruled by Dominion Energy and Republicans (in that order), what we mostly got instead were bills letting utilities charge their electricity customers for speculative development projects (HB 1840, HB 2738 and SB 1695) and rural broadband infrastructure (HB 2691), and another that would actually prevent the state from pursuing carbon reduction regulations (HB 2611).

A year ago legislators agreed that Dominion and Appalachian Power should propose hundreds of millions of dollars in energy efficiency programs, as a way to sop up some of those companies’ excess earnings instead of the unthinkable alternative of taking the money away from them. This year subcommittees killed bills (HB 2294, HB 1809) that would have insisted those programs be effective. (HB 2294 would have also made last year’s renewable energy goals mandatory.)

The energy efficiency bills that did pass were far more modest: making it harder for the SCC to reject utility-proposed programs (HB 2292 and SB 1662) and establishing a stakeholder group to provide input on programs (HB 2293).

“Energy Freedom,” and other similar legislation aimed at opening up the rooftop solar market, died on party-line votes in committee.

In fact, the party-line vote became a theme whenever bills came up that Dominion opposed. Anyone sitting through the House Commerce and Labor subcommittee hearing, watching one customer solar bill after another be unceremoniously killed, might have wondered if the vote buttons had gotten stuck.

The only significant renewable energy legislation to make it through the committee gauntlet was a long-negotiated Rubin Group bill that gives customers of Virginia’s rural electric cooperatives more opportunities to install solar, at the cost of accepting future new demand charges (HB 2547 and SB 1769). Whether it works in favor of all coop solar customers or not remains an open question. The coops would not provide advocates with any cost modeling and referred us to the solar industry trade association MDV-SEIA, which told us they couldn’t provide it either because of a confidentiality agreement within the Rubin Group.

But the bill does raise the limit on the amount of customer solar that can be built in those parts of the state served by rural electric coops. Customers of Dominion and APCo didn’t get even that much, though one bill—from a Republican—calls for those utilities to provide a total of $50 million in assistance to low-income, elderly and disabled customers for solar and energy efficiency. HB 2789 marks one of the rare bright spots of the 2019 session.

Two other minor renewable energy bills could make incremental progress for a handful of municipalities (HB 2792 and SB 1779) and school systems (HB 2192 and SB 1331).

And that, I’m sorry to say, is pretty much it for energy legislation this year.

Below is a final rundown of the bills that passed, followed by the ones that didn’t. Links in the bill numbers will take you to their summary pages in the Legislative Information Service. The summaries there should not be relied on, because amendments may make a bill quite different by the time it gets passed (or dies). Follow the links on a page to read the legislation or see vote results. Many of the committee hearings were recorded on video.

Bills that passed: renewable energy

HB 2192 (Rush) and SB 1331 (Stanley) is a school modernization initiative that includes language encouraging energy efficient building standards and net zero design. It also encourages schools to consider lease agreements with private developers (apparently there is one particular North Carolina firm that wants this). It does not provide for the more common use of third-party power purchase agreements. It has nice (but not mandatory) language on net zero schools. It allows leases with private developers who will construct and operate buildings and facilities. It permits public schools to contract with utilities for solar energy as part of the school modernization project. An amendment added language requiring that renewable energy facilities must be on school property and cannot be used to serve any other property. PPAs are not mentioned. Ambiguous language in these provisions may cause problems for schools. Both bills passed the House and Senate almost unanimously with Senator Black the only naysayer.

HB 2547 (Hugo) and SB 1769 (Sturtevant) make changes to the net metering program for customers of electric cooperatives. The overall net metering cap is raised from the current 1 percent to a total of 5%, divided into separate buckets by customer type and with an option for coops to choose to go up to 7%. Customers will be permitted to install enough renewable energy to meet up to 125% of previous year’s demand, up from 100% today. Third-party PPAs are generally legal for tax-exempt entities, with a self-certification requirement. However, the coops will begin imposing demand charges on customers with solar, to be phased in over several years, replacing any standby charges. This bill was negotiated between the coops and the solar industry via the “Rubin Group.” An amendment to the bill establishes a stakeholder group for further discussions with Dominion and APCo on net metering, a prospect that will appeal only to eternal optimists and amnesiacs who don’t remember the past five years of time-wasting, fruitless negotiations. SB 1769 passed both the Senate and House unanimously. HB 2547 passed the House unanimously and the Senate 36-4, with Black, Chase, Stuart and Suetterlein voting no this time, with no discernible reason for the change.

HB 2621 (Ingram) and SB 1398 (Stanley) authorize a locality to require the owner or developer of a solar farm, as part of the approval process, to agree to a decommissioning plan. This was a negotiated Rubin Group bill. SB 1398 was incorporated into SB 1091 (Reeves), which was amended to conform to the compromise language of HB 2621.

HB 2741 (Aird) establishes a rebate program for low and moderate-income households that install solar. Amended so it retains the structure of the program but removes funding. As amended it passed both House and Senate.

HB 2792 (Tran) and SB 1779 (Ebbin) establish a 6-year pilot program for municipal net metering for localities that are retail customers of investor-owned utilities. The initial bill negotiated with the utilities was much more limited than most localities wanted; further amendments whittled it down to a point where it won’t help localities with significant projects like landfill solar. However, we are told it will be useful for a few small on-site projects that don’t need PPAs. Even with the utilities on board, 21 House Republicans and one senator (Sutterlein) voted against the House bill, though only 12 House Republicans were hardcore enough to vote against the identical Senate bill when it crossed over. 

HB 2789 (O’Quinn) requires Dominion and APCo to develop pilot programs to offer solar and energy efficiency incentives to low-income, elderly and disabled customers. The energy efficiency money, totaling $25 million, is to come out of the amount the utilities are required to propose in efficiency spending under last year’s SB 966. The renewable energy incentives, also $25 million, cannot come out of that spending; the legislation is silent on how it will be paid for. Passed the House 90-9, with only Republicans as holdouts. Passed the Senate 37-3, with only Black, Stuart and Suetterlein in opposition.

Bills that passed: energy efficiency

HB 2292 (Sullivan) and SB 1662 (Wagner), dubbed the “show your work bill,” requires the SCC to provide justification if it rejects a utility energy efficiency program. As amended, the bills passed almost unanimously.

HB 2293 (Sullivan) establishes a stakeholder process to provide input on the development of utility energy efficiency programs. Passed both houses unanimously.

HB 2332 (Keam) protects customer data collected by utilities while allowing the use of aggregated anonymous data for energy efficiency and demand-side management efforts. A substitute changed the bill to one requiring the SCC to convene a Data Access Stakeholder Group to review customer privacy and data access issues. As amended, the bill passed both Houses unanimously. 

SB 1400 (Petersen) would have removed the exclusion of residential buildings from the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which allows localities to provide low-interest loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on buildings. After passing the Senate unanimously, the bill was amended in the House to remove the residential PACE authorization (it does expand PACE to include stormwater improvements). As amended, it passed both houses unanimously. It’s probably cheating putting this one in the“passed” category, but I needed the win. 

Bills that passed: energy transition and climate

HB 2611 (Poindexter) would prohibit Virginia from joining or participating in RGGI without support from two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate, making it sort of an anti-Virginia Coastal Protection Act. Passed the House on a 51-48 party-line vote. Passed the Senate on a 20-19 vote. Only one Republican, Jill Vogel, voted against it. The Governor is expected to veto it.

HB 2747 (Kilgore) and SB 1707 (Chafin) create a Southwest Virginia Energy Research and Development Authority “for the purposes of promoting opportunities for energy development in Southwest Virginia, to create jobs and economic activity in Southwest Virginia consistent with the Virginia Energy Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 2 (§ 67-200 et seq.), and to position Southwest Virginia and the Commonwealth as a leader in energy workforce and energy technology research and development.” Among the powers listed are promotingrenewable energy on brownfield sites, including abandoned mine sites, and supporting energy storage, including pumped storage hydro. Fossil fuel projects are not listed, but are also not excluded. Both bills passed unanimously.

Bills that passed: other utility regulation

HB 1840 (Danny Marshall) allows utilities to develop transmission infrastructure at megasites in anticipation of development, charging today’s customers for the expense of attracting new customers. The legislation was amended to change the language to the nicer-sounding “business park,” but it continues to allow utilities to recover costs for constructing transmission lines and substations to serve these speculative projects. It passed unanimously in the Senate and 82-18 in the House, with mainly the newer Democrats voting no.

HB 2477 (Kilgore) originally would have eliminated one of the few areas of retail choice allowed in Virginia by preventing large customers from using competitive retail suppliers of electricity, including for the purpose of procuring renewable energy, in any utility territory with less than 2% annual load growth. A substitute bill removed most of the bad provisions and confined its operation to APCo, but also left it incomprehensible, so I can’t possibly tell you what it does. As far as I was able to determine, no customers opposed the final bill, which passed the House and Senate unanimously.

HB 2691 (O’Quinn) originally would have established a pilot program for electric utilities to provide broadband services in underserved areas, and raise rates for the rest of us to pay for it. The bill was amended so utilities can only provide the capacity on their lines to private broadband suppliers. The investment is eligible for recovery as an electric grid transformation project under last year’s SB 966, presumably so it is paid for out of utility overearnings instead of a new rate increase.The amended bill passed both houses almost unanimously.   

HB 2738 (Bagby) and SB 1695 (Wagner) authorizes utilities to acquire rights of way for sites that the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority decides could be developed to attract new customers, and allows utilities to recover costs from existing customers. A substitute tightened the requirements somewhat, but it remains another giveaway to utilities in the name of speculative development, at the expense of landowners and consumers.The House bill passed 85-13with mostly newer Democrats in opposition, then passed the Senate 37-3, with McPike, Spruill and Suetterlein voting no. The Senate bill passed 34-6; although the bills appear to have been identical, Chase, Newman and Peake also voted no. The House vote on SB 1695 was 84-13.

And now for the also-rans.

Bills that failed: renewable energy

HB 2329 (Keam) and SB 1456 (McClellan and Edwards) is the Solar Freedom bill that would have removed 8 barriers to renewable energy installations by utility customers, including lifting the 1% net metering cap, removing PPA caps, and allowing municipal net metering. HB 2329 was defeated inCommerce and Labor 8-7 on a party-line vote. The Senate companion was killed in Commerce and Labor on a 10-3 party-line vote.

HB 1683 (Ware) gives electric cooperatives greater autonomy, including authority to raise their total system caps for net metering up to 5% of peak load. Amended to remove the net metering language, then withdrawn by patron.

HB 1809 (Gooditis) follows up on last year’s HB 966 by making the renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions mandatory. If utilities don’t meet annual targets, they have to return their retained overearnings to customers. Defeated inCommerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote, with only Democrats supporting.

HB 1869 (Hurst), SB 1483 (Deeds) and SB 1714 (Edwards) creates a pilot program allowing schools that generate a surplus of solar or wind energy to have the surplus credited to other schools in the same school district. HB 1869defeated in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote. In Senate Commerce and Labor, SB 1714 was incorporated into SB 1483, then defeated unanimously.

HB 1902 (Rasoul) would provide a billion dollars in grant funding for solar projects, paid for by utilities, who are required to contribute this amount of money through voluntary contributions (sic). Killed in Appropriations subcommittee on party-line vote.

HB 1928 (Bulova) and SB 1460 (McClellan) expands utility programs allowing third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs) for renewable energy while continuing to restrict the classes of customers who are allowed to have access to this important financing tool. In committee hearings, utility lobbyists claimed there was no need for the legislation because there is “plenty of room left” under the existing caps. Industry members testified that there is a lot more in the queue than is public, and caps will likely be reached this year. HB 1928 killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 by a 6-4 vote; Republican Tim Hugo voted with Democrats in support of the bill. SB 1460 killed in Senate Commerce and Labor 10-3, with only Democrats supporting.

HB 2117 (Mullin) and SB 1584 (Sutterlein) fixes the problem that competitive service providers can no longer offer renewable energy to a utility’s customers once the utility has an approved renewable energy tariff of its own. Now that the SCC has approved a renewable energy tariff for APCo, this is a live issue. HB 2117defeated inCommerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote. Although the patron of SB 1584, David Sutterlein, is a Republican, his bill died in Senate Commerce and Labor 11-1, with only fellow Republican Ben Chafin voting for it, and Republican Stephen Newman abstaining.

HB 2165 (Davis and Hurst) and HB 2460 (Jones and Kory), and SB 1496 (Saslaw) provide an income tax credit for nonresidential solar energy equipment installed on landfills, brownfields, in economic opportunity zones, and in certain utility cooperatives. This is a Rubin Group bill. HB 2165 and HB 2460 were left in the Committee on General Laws (i.e, they died there). SB 1496 was amended in Finance to change it from a tax credit to a grant-funded program, but with no money. Then it passed the committee and the Senate unanimously.  However, it was then killed unanimously in a House subcommittee of Commerce, Agriculture, Natural Resources & Technology.

HB 2241 (Delaney) establishes a green jobs training tax credit. Failed in House Finance subcommittee on party-line vote.

HB 2500 (Sullivan) establishes a mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for Virginia, eliminates carbon-producing sources from the list of qualifying sources, kicks things off with an extraordinarily ambitious 20% by 2020 target, and ratchets up the targets to 80% by 2027. Failed inCommerce and Labor subcommittee 3 with only Democrat Mark Keam supporting it.

HB 2641 (Gooditis) makes third-party power purchase agreements for distributed renewable energy resources legal statewide. Killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 by a 6-3 vote. Delegate Hugo, who had voted for Bulova’s narrower PPA bill, joined the other Republicans in voting against this broader one.

HB 2692 (Sullivan) allows the owner of a multifamily residential building to install a renewable energy facility and sell the output to occupants or use for the building’s common areas. Stricken from docket.

HJ 656 (Delaney) would have the Virginia Resources Authority study the process of transitioning Virginia’s workforce from fossil-fuel jobs to green energy jobs. Failed to report from Rules subcommittee on party-line vote, all Republicans voting against it.

Bills that failed: energy efficiency (some of which had RE components)

HB 2243 (Sullivan) creates an energy efficiency revolving fund to offer no-interest loans to local government, public schools, and public institutions of higher learning. Killed in Appropriations subcommittee on party-line vote.

HB 2294 (Sullivan) establishes mandatory energy efficiency goals for electric and gas utilities. Killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote.

HB 2295 (Sullivan) creates an energy efficiency fund and board to administer it. Killed in an Appropriations subcommittee on a party-line vote.

SB 1111 (Marsden) requires utilities to provide rate abatements to certain customers who invest at least $10,000 in energy efficiency and, by virtue of their lower consumption, end up being pushed into a tier with higher rates. Stricken at the request of the patron.

HB 2070 (Bell, John) provides a tax deduction for energy saving products, including solar panels and Energy Star products, up to $10,000. Stricken from docket in Finance subcommittee.

Bills that failed: energy transition and climate

HB 1635 (Rasoul, with 9 co-patrons) imposes a moratorium on fossil fuel projects, including export facilities, gas pipelines and related infrastructure, refineries and fossil fuel exploration; requires utilities to use clean energy sources for 80% of electricity sales by 2028, and 100% by 2036; and requires the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy to develop a (really) comprehensive climate action plan, which residents are given legal standing to enforce by suit. This is being referred to as by the Off Act. Defeated on the floor of the House 86-12.

HB 1686 (Reid, with 14 co-patrons) and SB 1648 (Boysko) bans new or expanded fossil fuel generating plants until Virginia has those 5,500 MW of renewable energy we were promised. This is referred to as the Renewables First Act. HB 1686:Defeated inCommerce and Labor Subcommittee 3. 2 Democrats voted for it, 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat against. SB 1648 PBI’d 12-0 in Commerce and Labor.

HB 2501(Rasoul) directs the Division of Energy at DMME to include a greenhouse gas emissions inventory in the Virginia Energy Plan. Killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote.

HB 2645 (Rasoul, with 13 co-patrons), nicknamed the REFUND Act, prohibits electric utilities from making nonessential expenditures and requires refunds if the SCC finds they have. It also bars fuel cost recovery for more pipeline capacity than appropriate to ensure a reliable supply of gas. Other reforms in the bill would undo some of the provisions of last year’s SB 966, lower the percentage of excess earnings utilities can retain, and require the SCC to determine rates of return based on cost of service rather than peer group analysis. Democrat Steve Heretick voted with Republicans to kill the bill in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3.

HB 2735 (Toscano) and SB 1666 (Lewis and Spruill) is this year’s version of the Virginia Coastal Protection Act, which would have Virginia formally join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It dedicates money raised by auctioning carbon allowances to climate adaptation efforts, energy efficiency programs, and coalfields transition. HB 2735 died in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote. SB 1666 met the same fate in Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, with Democrat Rosalyn Dance abstaining.

HJ 724 (Rasoul) is a resolution “Recognizing the need for a Green New Deal in Virginia which promotes a Just Transition to a clean energy economy through lifting working families.” This was referred to Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3, where it was left without a hearing.

Bills that failed: other utility regulation

HB 1718 (Ware) requires an electric utility to demonstrate that any pipeline capacity contracts it enters are the lowest-cost option available, before being given approval to charge customers in a fuel factor case. Delegate Ware testified in committee that the bill was not intended to stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, but would simply guide the SCC’s review of a rate request after the pipeline is operational. Dominion’s lobbyist argued the legislation was unnecessary because the SCC already has all the authority it needs, and it shouldn’t be allowed to look back to second-guess the contents of the ACP contract. The bill passed the House 57-40. Do look at the votes; this is the most interesting energy vote of the year, as it neatly separates the Dominion faction from the pro-consumer faction. Unfortunately, the bill was then killed in Senate Commerce & Labor, where the Dominion faction runs the show, so most senators didn’t have the opportunity to demonstrate whose side they’re on.

HB 2503 (Rasoul) requires the State Corporation Commission to conduct a formal hearing before approving any changes to fuel procurement arrangements between affiliates of an electric utility or its parent company that will impact rate payers. This addresses the conflict of interest issue in Dominion Energy’s arrangement to commit its utility subsidiary to purchase capacity in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.  Stricken from docket.   

HB 2697 (Toscano) and SB 1583 (Sutterlein) supports competition by shortening the time period that a utility’s customer that switches to a competing supplier is barred from returning as a customer of its utility from 5 years to 90 days. HB 2697 died in House Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on a party-line vote, with all the Republicans voting against it. SB 1583 died in Senate Commerce and Labor 11-2, with only Republicans Newman and Chafin voting for it. Democrats Saslaw, Dance and Lucas joined the rest of the Republicans in demonstrating their Dominion-friendly bonafides.

SB 1780 (Petersen) requires, among other things, that utilities must refund to customers the costs of anything the SCC deems is a nonessential expenditure, including spending on lobbying, political contributions, and compensation for employees in excess of $5 million. It directs the SCC to disallow recovery of fuel costs if a company pays more for pipeline capacity from an affiliated company than needed to ensure a reliable supply of natural gas. It requires rate reviews of Dominion and APCo in 2019 and makes those biennial instead of triennial, and provides for the SCC to conduct an audit going back to 2015. It tightens provisions governing utilities’ keeping of overearnings and provides for the allowed rate of return to be based on the cost of providing service instead of letting our utilities make what all the other monopolists make (“peer group analysis”).  Killed in Commerce and Labor 12-1, with only Republican Richard Stuart supporting the bill.

So many bills filed, so few remain: almost-halftime status report on climate and energy legislation

Virginia statehouse, where the General Assembly meetsTuesday, January 5 marks “crossover” at the Virginia General Assembly, the date when House bills go over to the Senate, and Senate bills to the House. Any legislation that hasn’t made it through the gantlet to a successful vote in its starting chamber evaporates in a puff of smoke, if it has not already died due to causes natural or unnatural.

I’ve hot-linked the bill numbers to their pages in the Legislative Information Service; follow the links on the page to read the legislation or see vote results. The information below is based on what was available as of yesterday, February 3.

Many of the committee hearings were recorded on video.

Renewable energy bills

Solar Freedom, the bill to remove barriers to customer-owned solar statewide, met implacable resistance from Republicans in control of the Commerce and Labor committees, as did narrower bills focused just on power purchase agreements (PPAs). That meant the only significant renewable energy legislation moving forward is a bill negotiated between the rural electric cooperatives and solar advocates that will ease restrictions on customer solar in coop territory. See HB 2547 (Hugo) and SB 1769 (Sturtevant), below.

Two bills that would have provided financial support for solar have passed their committees, but only after the money part got taken out.

A watered-down municipal renewable energy bill survives, but in a disappointingly limited form. An interesting solar-on-schools bill now looks less interesting.

Legislation enabling localities to impose new decommissioning requirements on large solar farms will likely move forward.

Here is the status of the renewable energy bills I’ve been tracking, with a little color commentary sprinkled in:

 HB 2329 (Keam) and SB 1456 (McClellan and Edwards) is the Solar Freedom bill that would have removed 8 barriers to renewable energy installations by utility customers, including lifting the 1% net metering cap, removing PPA caps, and allowing municipal net metering.  Advocates gave this everything they had, with hundreds of citizens lobbying for the bill and showing up at the subcommittee hearings.But Republicans held firm for their utility friends. HB 2329 was defeated in Commerce and Labor 8-7 on a party-line vote with two Democrats absent and one (Lindsay) present but strangely not voting. The Senate companion was killed in Commerce and Labor on a 10-3 party-line vote. Some of the reforms in Solar Freedom also appear in weakened form in one bill (HB 2547 and SB 1769) that moves forward—but only for the electric cooperatives.   

HB 1683 (Ware) gives electric cooperatives greater autonomy, including authority to raise their total system caps for net metering up to 5% of peak load. Amended to remove the net metering language, then withdrawn by patron.

HB 1809 (Gooditis) follows up on last year’s HB 966 by making the renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions mandatory. If utilities don’t meet annual targets, they have to return their retained overearnings to customers. Defeated in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote, with only Democrats supporting.

HB 1869 (Hurst), SB 1483 (Deeds) and SB 1714 (Edwards) creates a pilot program allowing schools that generate a surplus of solar or wind energy to have the surplus credited to other schools in the same school district. HB 1869 defeated in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote. In Senate Commerce and Labor, SB 1714 was incorporated into SB 1483, then defeated unanimously.

HB 1902(Rasoul) would provide a billion dollars in grant funding for solar projects, paid for by utilities, who are required to contribute this amount of money through voluntary contributions (sic). Killed in Appropriations subcommittee on party-line vote.

HB 1928 (Bulova) and SB 1460 (McClellan) expands utility programs allowing third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs) for renewable energy while continuing to restrict the classes of customers who are allowed to have access to this important financing tool. In committee hearings, utility lobbyists claimed there was no need for the legislation because there is “plenty of room left” under the existing caps. Industry members testified that there is a lot more in the queue than is public, and caps will likely be reached this year. HB 1928 killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 by a 6-4 vote; Republican Tim Hugo voted with Democrats in support of the bill. SB 1460 killed in Senate Commerce and Labor 10-3, with only Democrats supporting.

HB 2117 (Mullin) and SB 1584 (Sutterlein) fixes the problem that competitive service providers can no longer offer renewable energy to a utility’s customers once the utility has an approved renewable energy tariff of its own. Now that the SCC has approved a renewable energy tariff for APCo, this is a live issue. HB 2117 defeated in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote. Although the patron of SB 1584, David Sutterlein, is a Republican, his bill died in Senate Commerce and Labor 11-1, with only fellow Republican Ben Chafin voting for it, and Republican Stephen Newman abstaining.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2165 (Davis and Hurst) and HB 2460 (Jones and Kory), and SB 1496 (Saslaw) provide an income tax credit for nonresidential solar energy equipment installed on landfills, brownfields, in economic opportunity zones, and in certain utility cooperatives. This is a Rubin Group bill. HB 2165 and HB 2460 remain stuck in the Committee on General Laws (not a good sign). SB 1496 was amended in Finance to change it from a tax credit to a grant-funded program, but with no money. Then it passed the committee unanimously. 

STILL ALIVE:  HB 2192 (Rush) and SB 1331 (Stanley) is a school modernization initiative that includes language encouraging energy efficient building standards and net zero design. It also encourages schools to consider lease agreements with private developers (apparently there is one particular North Carolina firm that wants this). It does not contemplate the more common use of third-party power purchase agreements. HB 2192 was amended in General Laws, where it passed unanimously. It still has nice (but not mandatory) language on net zero schools. It allows leases with private developers who will construct and operate buildings and facilities. It permits public schools to contract with utilities for solar energy as part of the school modernization project. New language requires that renewable energy facilities must be on school property and cannot be used to serve any other property. PPAs are still not mentioned. Ambiguous language in these provisions may cause problems for schools. SB 1331 was amended with what appears to be the same language as its House counterpart. It reported unanimously from Finance.

HB 2241 (Delaney) establishes a green jobs training tax credit. Failed in House Finance subcommittee on party-line vote.

HB 2500 (Sullivan) establishes a mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for Virginia, eliminates carbon-producing sources from the list of qualifying sources, kicks things off with an extraordinarily ambitious 20% by 2020 target, and ratchets up the targets to 80% by 2027. Failed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 with only Democrat Mark Keam supporting it.

STILL ALIVE:  HB 2547 (Hugo) and SB 1769 (Sturtevant) makes changes to the net metering program for customers of electric cooperatives. The overall net metering cap is raised from the current 1 percent to a total of 5%, divided into separate buckets by customer type and with an option for coops to choose to go up to 7%. Customers will be permitted to install enough renewable energy to meet up to 125% of previous year’s demand, up from 100% today. Third-party PPAs are generally legal, with a self-certification requirement. However, the coops will begin imposing demand charges on customers with solar, to be phased in over several years, replacing any standby charges. This bill was negotiated between the coops and the solar industry via the “Rubin Group.” You have to hand it to the coops, this is huge movement on their part, if not perfect, and it is too bad that Dominion and APCo held fast to their obstructionist position rather than allow their customers more freedom to install solar. An amendment to the bill establishes a stakeholder group for further discussions with Dominion and APCo on net metering, a prospect that will appeal only to eternal optimists and amnesiacs who don’t remember the past five years of time-wasting, fruitless negotiations. Delegate Hugo told me he tried to get Dominion and APCo to sign on to the coop deal but couldn’t persuade them—and I understand from others that he did make a real effort. But he scoffed at my suggestion that maybe Dominion shouldn’t have the final say. HB 2547 reported unanimously from Commerce and Labor. SB 1769 was amended to include the same stakeholder language requiring the mice to continue negotiations with the cat. It has now passed the Senate unanimously.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2621 (Ingram) and SB 1398 (Stanley) authorize a locality to require the owner or developer of a solar farm, as part of the approval process, to agree to a decommissioning plan. This is a Rubin Group bill. An amended version of HB 2621 reported from Counties, Cities and Towns unanimously. SB 1398 was incorporated into SB 1091.

HB 2641 (Gooditis) makes third-party power purchase agreements for distributed renewable energy resources legal statewide. Killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 by a 6-3 vote. Delegate Hugo, who had voted for Bulova’s narrower PPA bill, joined the other Republicans in voting against this broader one.

HB 2692 (Sullivan) allows the owner of a multifamily residential building to install a renewable energy facility and sell the output to occupants or use for the building’s common areas. Stricken from docket.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2741 (Aird) establishes a rebate program for low and moderate-income households that install solar. Amended so it retains the structure of the program but removes funding; otherwise it was going to be sent to Appropriations to die. As amended it was reported Commerce and Labor unanimously.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2789 (O’Quinn) requires Dominion and APCo to apply for approval of three-year programs to incentivize low-income energy efficiency and solar totaling $25 million each. The efficiency spending comes out of the money utilities are required to spend under last year’s grid mod legislation. The solar spending is new money. Somehow I missed this bill in my earlier round-up. It passed the House 88-11. The nay votes are  all Republicans: Adams, L.R., Byron, Cole, Fariss, Freitas, Gilbert, Landes, Poindexter, Wright, Brewer and LaRock.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2792 (Tran) and SB 1779 (Ebbin) establishes a 6-year pilot program for municipal net metering for localities that are retail customers of investor-owned utilities. The initial bill negotiated with the utilities was predictably much more limited than most localities wanted; further amendments have left it useful for only a few small on-site projects that don’t need PPAs. Fairfax County supervisor Jeff McKay testified in committee it would do nothing to help the county’s projects.Tran presented the amended bill in committee just a day or two after coming under fire from conservative Republicans for a bill that would ease one restriction on late-term abortions. In an obviously orchestrated attempt to demonstrate that conservative middle-aged white men still wield the power in Richmond, Delegate Hugo said he needed time to read the amendment. Committee chairman Terry Kilgore obliged, saying they would come back to it. Kilgore then kept Tran waiting through several hours of other bills, many of which also had new amendments, before letting her bill come back up. (Proving once again that middle school has nothing on the General Assembly.) As amended, HB 2792 reported from Commerce and Labor 19-2, with only Republicans Hugo and Head voting no.

HJ 656 (Delaney) would have the Virginia Resources Authority study the process of transitioning Virginia’s workforce from fossil-fuel jobs to green energy jobs. Failed to report from Rules subcommittee on party-line vote, all Republicans voting against it.

STILL ALIVE: SB 1091 (Reeves) imposes expensive bonding requirements on utility-scale solar farms, taking a more drastic approach than HB 2621 (Ingram) and SB 1398 (Stanley) to resolving the concerns of localities about what happens to solar farms at the end of their useful life. SB 1091 was amended to conform to the compromise language of HB 2621 and has passed the Senate unanimously.

Energy Efficiency (some of which have RE components)

We’re seeing modest progress in efficiency bills this year, mostly of the greasing-the-wheels variety. One of particular interest is Chap Petersen’s bill enabling Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing programs for residential buildings.

HB 2243 (Sullivan) creates an energy efficiency revolving fund to offer no-interest loans to local government, public schools, and public institutions of higher learning. Killed in Appropriations subcommittee on party-line vote.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2292 (Sullivan) and SB 1662 (Wagner), dubbed the “show your work bill,” requires the SCC to provide justification if it rejects a utility energy efficiency program. HB 2292 reported from Commerce and Labor with a substitute. SB 1662 passed the Senate with only 6 Republicans in opposition.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2293 (Sullivan) establishes a stakeholder process to provide input on the development of utility energy efficiency programs. Reported unanimously from Commerce and Labor with a substitute.

HB 2294 (Sullivan) establishes mandatory energy efficiency goals for electric and gas utilities. Killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote.

HB 2295 (Sullivan) creates an energy efficiency fund and board to administer it. Killed in an Appropriations subcommittee on a party-line vote.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2332 (Keam) protects customer data collected by utilities while allowing the use of aggregated anonymous data for energy efficiency and demand-side management efforts. Reported unanimously from Commerce and Labor with a substitute.

SB 1111 (Marsden) requires utilities to provide rate abatements to certain customers who invest at least $10,000 in energy efficiency and, by virtue of their lower consumption, end up being pushed into a tier with higher rates. Stricken at the request of the patron.

STILL ALIVE: SB 1400 (Petersen) removes the exclusion of residential buildings from the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which allows localities to provide low-interest loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on buildings. Passed the Senate unanimously.

HB 2070 (Bell, John) provides a tax deduction for energy saving products, including solar panels and Energy Star products, up to $10,000. Stricken from docket in Finance subcommittee.

Energy transition and climate

Bills designed to push Virginia towards a clean energy future died in the face of unanimous Republican opposition. House Republicans also united to pass a bill prohibiting Virginia from implementing its carbon reduction plan. But in a faint nod to reality, most Republicans and Democrats support legislation to help southwest Virginia develop renewable energy and energy storage (as long as it doesn’t cost anything).

HB 1635 (Rasoul, with 9 co-patrons) imposes a moratorium on fossil fuel projects, including export facilities, gas pipelines and related infrastructure, refineries and fossil fuel exploration; requires utilities to use clean energy sources for 80% of electricity sales by 2028, and 100% by 2036; and requires the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy to develop a (really) comprehensive climate action plan, which residents are given legal standing to enforce by suit. This is being referred to as the “Off Act.” Defeated on the floor of the House 86-12.

HB 1686 (Reid, with 14 co-patrons) and SB 1648 (Boysko) bans new or expanded fossil fuel generating plants until Virginia has those 5,500 MW of renewable energy we were promised. This is referred to as the “Renewables First Act.” HB 1686: Defeated in Commerce and Labor Subcommittee 3. 2 Democrats voted for it, 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat against. SB 1648 PBI’d 12-0 in Commerce and Labor.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2611 (Poindexter) would prohibit Virginia from joining or participating in RGGI without support from two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate, making it sort of an anti-Virginia Coastal Protection Act. Passed the House on party-line vote.

HB 2501 (Rasoul) directs the Division of Energy at DMME to include a greenhouse gas emissions inventory in the Virginia Energy Plan. Killed in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote.

HB 2645 (Rasoul, with 13 co-patrons), nicknamed the REFUND Act, prohibits electric utilities from making nonessential expenditures and requires refunds if the SCC finds they have. It also bars fuel cost recovery for more pipeline capacity than appropriate to ensure a reliable supply of gas. Other reforms in the bill would undo some of the provisions of last year’s SB 966, lower the percentage of excess earnings utilities can retain, and require the SCC to determine rates of return based on cost of service rather than peer group analysis. Democrat Steve Heretick voted with Republicans to kill the bill in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3.

HB 2735 (Toscano) and SB 1666 (Lewis and Spruill) is this year’s version of the Virginia Coastal Protection Act, which would have Virginia formally join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It dedicates money raised by auctioning carbon allowances to climate adaptation efforts, energy efficiency programs, and coalfields transition. HB 2735 died in Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on party-line vote. SB 1666 met the same fate in Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, with Democrat Rosalyn Dance abstaining.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2747 (Kilgore) and SB 1707 (Chafin) create a Southwest Virginia Energy Research and Development Authority which will, among other things, promote renewable energy on brownfield sites, including abandoned mine sites, and support energy storage, including pumped storage hydro. HB 2747 reported unanimously from Commerce and Labor and was referred to Appropriations, where it passed with a substitute (presumably removing its fiscal impact, though I haven’t looked closely enough to confirm that). SB 1707 reported from Local Government and then from Finance, also with a substitute, presumably the same one.

HJ 724 (Rasoul) is a resolution “Recognizing the need for a Green New Deal in Virginia which promotes a Just Transition to a clean energy economy through lifting working families.” This was referred to Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3, but there is no further information about it in the LIS.

Other utility regulation

 Bills that preserve, protect, and extend the monopoly power of our utilities are doing well. On the other hand, Dominion has so far failed to kill a bill strengthening the standards of review the SCC will use in considering whether to allow rate recovery for pipeline capacity. 

STILL ALIVE: HB 1718 (Ware) requires an electric utility to demonstrate that any pipeline capacity contracts it enters are the lowest-cost option available, before being given approval to charge customers in a fuel factor case. The discussion in the committee was lively. Delegate Ware assured the committee the bill was not intended to stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, but would simply guide the SCC’s review of a rate request after the pipeline is operational. Dominion’s lobbyist argued the legislation was unnecessary because the SCC already has all the authority it needs, and it shouldn’t be allowed to look back to second-guess the contents of the ACP contract. The bill passed the committee 11-8, with Democrats Keam, Kory, Bagby, Toscano, Heretick, Mullin and Bourne joining Republicans Ware, Byron, Webert and Wilt in support.  Republicans voting against were Kilgore, Hugo, Marshall, Robert Bell, O’Quinn, Yancey, Ransone, and Head. Democrat Eileen Filler-Corn abstained. [UPDATE 2/5/19: HB 1718 passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 57-40, with Filler-Corn abstaining again. Here is the tally of who voted on which side.]

STILL ALIVE: HB 1840 (Danny Marshall) allows utilities to develop transmission infrastructure at megasites in anticipation of development, charging today’s customers for the expense of attracting new customers. Reported from Commerce and Labor with a substitute. Democrats Bagby, Heretick, Mullin and Bourne joined the Republicans in support.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2477 (Kilgore) would eliminate one of the few areas of retail choice allowed in Virginia by preventing large customers from using competitive retail suppliers of electricity, including for the purpose of procuring renewable energy, in any utility territory with less than 2% annual load growth. A substitute bill in Commerce and Labor removes this language but replaces it with other requirements designed to make it difficult for large customers to leave the embrace of their incumbent monopoly. The substitute passed 15-2, with only Delegates Filler-Corn and Keam opposed.

HB 2503 (Rasoul) requires the State Corporation Commission to conduct a formal hearing before approving any changes to fuel procurement arrangements between affiliates of an electric utility or its parent company that will impact rate payers. This addresses the conflict of interest issue in Dominion Energy’s arrangement to commit its utility subsidiary to purchase capacity in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.  Stricken from docket.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2691 (O’Quinn) establishes a pilot program for electric utilities to provide broadband services in underserved areas, and raise rates for the rest of us to pay for it, proclaiming this to be in the public interest. A substitute bill has utilities only providing the capacity on their lines to private broadband suppliers, and makes the investment eligible for recovery as an electric grid transformation project (seriously!), but prevents utilities from going into broadband services themselves. The amended bill passed Commerce and Labor unanimously.

HB 2697 (Toscano) and SB 1583 (Sutterlein) supports competition by shortening the time period that a utility’s customer that switches to a competing supplier is barred from returning as a customer of its utility from 5 years to 90 days. HB 2697 died in House Commerce and Labor subcommittee 3 on a party-line vote, with all the Republicans voting against it. SB 1583 died in Senate Commerce and Labor 11-2, with only Republicans Newman and Chafin voting for it. Democrats Saslaw, Dance and Lucas joined the rest of the Republicans in demonstrating their Dominion-friendly bonafides.

STILL ALIVE: HB 2738 (Bagby) and SB 1695 (Wagner) authorizes utilities to acquire rights of way on land that the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority decides could attract new customers to the site, and allows utilities to recover costs from existing customers. Because, you know, having utilities seize Virginians’ land for speculative development is already going so well for folks in the path of the pipelines. Who could complain about paying higher rates to help it happen more places?  A substitute tightens the requirements somewhat without changing the basics. HB 2738 reported from Commerce and Labor 19-1 (Kory opposing, Keam abstaining). SB 1695 now has a similar amendment; it passed the Senate 34-6 and has been referred to House Commerce and Labor. The dissenting senators are an interesting mix of Rs and Ds: Chase, McPike, Newman, Peake, Spruill, and Suetterlein.

SB 1780 (Petersen) requires, among other things, that utilities must refund to customers the costs of anything the SCC deems is a nonessential expenditure, including spending on lobbying, political contributions, and compensation for employees in excess of $5 million. It directs the SCC to disallow recovery of fuel costs if a company pays more for pipeline capacity from an affiliated company than needed to ensure a reliable supply of natural gas. It requires rate reviews of Dominion and APCo in 2019 and makes those biennial instead of triennial, and provides for the SCC to conduct an audit going back to 2015. It tightens provisions governing utilities’ keeping of overearnings and provides for the allowed rate of return to be based on the cost of providing service instead of letting our utilities make what all the other monopolists make (“peer group analysis”).  Killed in Commerce and Labor 12-1, with only Republican Richard Stuart supporting the bill.

The Commerce & Labor Committee did WHAT?

Today the Republican-controlled House Commerce & Labor Committee endorsed the most sweeping energy transformation package in history by passing Democratic Delegate Sam Rasoul’s HB 1635, a bill known as the “Off Act” that would transition Virginia away from fossil fuels by 2035.

Or rather, they passed the bill. Saying they endorsed it: I’m making that up. The Republicans who run Commerce & Labor are wholly indebted to the fossil fuel companies whose campaign contributions keep them in office. Most of them don’t even believe in human-caused climate change. They cannot conceive of an economy reshaped around clean energy.

They didn’t allow this bill to pass out of committee because they support it, but because they want a bigger venue in which to kill it.

The Off Act is serious climate action. It starts with a complete fossil fuel moratorium and goes from there. The Republicans think it is so extreme that even most Democrats will vote against it when push comes to shove. And a vote on the floor of the House is a great place for verbal pushing and shoving. They intend to create some serious theater in the cause of preserving America’s dependence on dinosaur-based hydrocarbons.

How do we know this is the plan? Let’s play the video of the committee hearing.

First, Delegate Rasoul introduces the bill, and a cross-section of Virginia residents step up to testify in support—women, men, black, white, Asian-American. They are followed by a line of older white men representing fossil fuel interests. Each of these highly-paid lobbyists explains how this radical bill will cost too much and hurt poor people.

Then the committee members vote, and gradually we understand that the reason this bill, and this bill alone, did not go to the usual subcommittee to die, is that the Republicans have selected it as the vote they will take to the floor. To do that, they need just one of their members to vote in support.

Tim Hugo, who won reelection by only about 110 votes last year and will be in the crosshairs of grassroots progressives this fall, is the R designated to vote in favor. You will notice, however, that he does not speak in favor of the bill in committee, and as a conservative and close ally of Dominion Energy there is no way he actually supports it (though he will trumpet his vote when he needs to, come November).

But the Republicans screw up the first vote; it is 8-8, not enough to pass the bill. Kathy Byron, who voted against it, calls for a re-vote, and this time withholds her vote, allowing it to pass.

The smile on committee chair Terry Kilgore’s face afterwards seems to be recognition that the snafu revealed the plan all too well.

Update: You all will be shocked–shocked!–to know that the bill died on January 31 after a very vigorous debate on the House floor. 

Your guide to 2019 climate and energy bills

Virginia statehouse, where the General Assembly meetsUpdated (again!) January 23.

Clean energy and climate action are mainstream concepts with the public these days, but at Virginia’s General Assembly they have yet to gain much traction. Last year saw one renewable energy bill after another die in committee, along with legislation mandating lower energy use through energy efficiency and climate measures like having Virginia join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

The only major energy legislation to pass the GA in 2018 was the infamous SB 966, the so-called “grid mod” bill that included spending on energy efficiency and a stipulation that 5,500 megawatts (MW) of utility-owned or controlled solar and wind is “in the public interest.” But the bill didn’t actually mandate any efficiency savings or renewable energy investments, and it contained no support for customer-owned solar.

So clean energy advocates and climate activists are trying again, though the odds against them look as tough as ever. Republicans hold a bare majority of seats overall, but they dominate the powerful Commerce and Labor Committees that hear most energy bills. And Republicans overall (though with some exceptions) are more hostile to clean energy legislation than Democrats, and more willing to side with utilities against customers and competitors.

In particular, the House energy subcommittee has been a regular killing field for renewable energy bills. It consists of 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats, and last year every clean energy bill but one lost on party-line votes. Bills don’t advance to the full committee, much less to the House floor, unless they garner a majority in the subcommittee.

Over at Senate Commerce and Labor, Republicans hold an 11-4 majority on the full committee, and none of the Democrats are what you would call environmental champions. The electric utility subcommittee does not appear to be active this year.

A scattering of other clean energy and climate bills have been assigned to House Rules (which Republicans dominate 11-6) and Appropriations (12-10), where a subcommittee will several energy-related bills with fiscal impacts (at least three have been assigned to date). Some Senate bills will go to Finance.

Of course, this is an election year in Virginia, with every House and Senate seat up this fall. Legislators have reason to worry that the 2017 “blue wave” could turn into a 2019 flood tide that sweeps out not just vulnerable Republicans, but Democrats facing primary challenges from the left.

Will that persuade some of them to finally support clean energy, or at least some of the pragmatic initiatives that have broad popular support?

That’s the hope driving a number of bills framed around supporting market competition and customer choice, enabling private investments in renewable energy, and saving money for consumers and taxpayers. These are themes that appeal as much to conservatives as to liberals.

But a lot of these bills have the same problem they’ve always had. Dominion Energy opposes them, and Dominion controls the legislature.

Both Dominion and elected leaders maintain the fiction that it’s the other way around. That fiction allowed Senator Wagner and Delegate Kilgore, the chairmen of the Commerce and Labor Committees, to “refer” solar bills for secret negotiation between utilities and the solar industry via the private, closed-door Rubin Group.

About that Rubin Group

Frankly, I’ve never understood the notion that the solar industry ought to be able to work things out with the utilities so legislators don’t have to make decisions themselves. Solar installers negotiating with Dominion is like mice negotiating with the cat. The cat is not actually interested in peaceful coexistence, so it’s hard to imagine an outcome that makes life better for the mice.

And however much they insist they support solar, Kilgore, Wagner and company act like they’re secretly pleased that Kitty is such a good mouser. I don’t know how else to explain the way they lecture the mice on the virtues of compromise.

The Rubin Group has managed to produce legislation where the interests of the utilities and the solar industry align, primarily in ways that help utility-scale solar farms. When it comes to net metering and customer solar generally, however, Dominion hasn’t been willing to give up anything unless it gets something in return—and as it already has everything but the crumbs, progress seems to have stalled. I hear negotiations remain ongoing, however, so this isn’t the last word.

On the other hand, the solar industry did reach an accommodation with the electric cooperatives this year over customer solar. As member-owned non-profits, the coops are sometimes more responsive to the desires of their customer-owners, and this seems to be evidence of that. (Though see this blogpost from Seth Heald about the failures of democracy and transparency at Virginia’s larges coop, an issue now in litigation before the SCC.)

With the solar industry stalled in its talks with Dominion and a sense of urgency mounting, customer groups and other solar industry alliances have stepped into the void. Several bills seek to preserve and expand the market for customer solar with bills removing policy barriers. The most comprehensive of these is the Solar Freedom legislation put forward by Delegate Keam (HB 2329) and Senators McClellan and Edwards (SB 1456), removing 8 non-technical barriers to renewable energy deployment buy customers. Other net metering bills have similar provisions that tackle just one barrier at a time.

Another group of bills don’t seem intended to win Republican support, much less Dominion’s. Bills that will dramatically alter our energy supply, put Virginia at the forefront of climate action and rein in utility power have no chance of passage this year, but may become part of a platform for strong climate action next year if a pro-environment majority wins control of the GA.

The list below may look overwhelming, so let me just note that this is not even comprehensive, and additional bills may yet be filed.

I’ve separated the bills into categories for easier reference, but watch for overlap among them. I’ve put Solar Freedom up first (because I can!); after that, bills are ordered by number, with House bills first.

Solar Freedom 

HB 2329 (Keam) and SB 1456 (McClellan and Edwards) is the Solar Freedom bill that removes barriers to renewable energy installations by utility customers, mostly in the net metering provisions, and adds language to the Commonwealth Energy Policy supporting customer solar. The 8 provisions are:

  • Lifting the 1% cap on the total amount of solar that can be net metered in a utility territory
  • Making third-party financing using power purchase agreements (PPAs) legal statewide for all customer classes
  • Allowing local government entities to install solar facilities of up to 5 MW on government-owned property and use the electricity for other government-owned buildings
  • Allowing all customers to attribute output from a single solar array to multiple meters on the same or adjacent property of the same customer
  • Allowing the owner of a multi-family residential building or condominium to install a solar facility on the building or surrounding property and sell the electricity to tenants
  • Removing the restriction on customers installing a net-metered solar facility larger than required to meet their previous 12 months’ demand
  • Raising the size cap for net metered non-residential solar facilities from 1 MW to 2 MW
  • Removing standby charges for residential and agricultural net metering customers

Other renewable energy bills

HB 1683 (Ware) gives electric cooperatives greater autonomy, including authority to raise their total system caps for net metering up to 5% of peak load.

HB 1809 (Gooditis) follows up on last year’s HB 966 by making the renewable energy and energy efficiency provisions mandatory. If utilities don’t meet annual targets, they have to return their retained overearnings to customers.

HB 1869 (Hurst), SB 1483 (Deeds) and SB 1714 (Edwards) creates a pilot program allowing schools that generate a surplus of solar or wind energy to have the surplus credited to other schools in the same school district.

HB 1902 (Rasoul) would provide a billion dollars in grant funding for solar projects, paid for by utilities, who are required to contribute this amount of money through voluntary contributions (sic).

HB 1928 (Bulova) and SB 1460 (McClellan) expands utility programs allowing third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs) for renewable energy while continuing to restrict the classes of customers who are allowed to have access to this important financing tool.

HB 2117 (Mullin) and SB 1584 (Sutterlein) fixes the problem that competitive service providers can no longer offer renewable energy to a utility’s customers once the utility has an approved renewable energy tariff of its own. Now that the SCC has approved a renewable energy tariff for APCo, this is a live issue.

HB 2165 (Davis and Hurst) and HB 2460 (Jones and Kory), and SB 1496 (Saslaw) provide an income tax credit for nonresidential solar energy equipment installed on landfills, brownfields, in economic opportunity zones, and in certain utility cooperatives. This is a Rubin Group bill.

HB 2192 (Rush) and SB 1331 (Stanley) is a school modernization initiative that includes language encouraging energy efficient building standards and net zero design. It also encourages schools to consider lease agreements with private developers, but does not seem to contemplate the more common use of third-party power purchase agreements.

HB 2241 (Delaney) establishes a green jobs training tax credit.

HB 2500 (Sullivan) establishes a mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for Virginia, eliminates carbon-producing sources from the list of qualifying sources, kicks things off with an extraordinarily ambitious 20% by 2020 target, and ratchets up the targets to 80% by 2027.

HB 2547 (Hugo) and SB 1769 (Sturtevant) makes changes to the net metering program for customers of electric cooperatives. The overall net metering cap is raised from the current 1 percent to a total of 5%, divided into separate buckets by customer type and with an option for coops to choose to go up to 7%. Customers will be permitted to install enough renewable energy to meet up to 125% of previous year’s demand, up from 100% today. Third-party PPAs are generally legal, with a self-certification requirement. However, the coops will begin imposing demand charges on customers with solar, to be phased in over several years, replacing any standby charges. In the House version only, one additional provision allows investor-owned utilities (Dominion and APCo) to ask the SCC to raise the net metering cap if they feel like it, but I’m told it is not expected to be in the final legislation. This bill was negotiated between the coops and the solar industry via the “Rubin Group.”

HB 2621 (Ingram) and SB 1398 (Stanley) authorize a locality to require the owner or developer of a solar farm, as part of the approval process, to agree to a decommissioning plan. This is a Rubin Group bill.

HB 2641 (Gooditis) makes third-party power purchase agreements for distributed renewable energy resources legal statewide.

HB 2692 (Sullivan) allows the owner of a multifamily residential building to install a renewable energy facility and sell the output to occupants or use for the building’s common areas.

HB 2741 (Aird) establishes a rebate program for low and moderate-income households that install solar.

HB 2792 (Tran) and SB 1779 (Ebbin) establishes a 6-year pilot program for municipal net metering for localities that are retail customers of investor-owned utilities.

HJ 656 (Delaney) would have the Virginia Resources Authority study the process of transitioning Virginia’s workforce from fossil-fuel jobs to green energy jobs.

SB 1091 (Reeves) imposes expensive bonding requirements on utility-scale solar farms, taking a more drastic approach than HB 2621 (Ingram) and SB 1398 (Stanley) to resolving the concerns of localities about what happens to solar farms at the end of their useful life.

Energy Efficiency (some of which have RE components)

HB 2243 (Sullivan) creates an energy efficiency revolving fund to offer no-interest loans to local government, public schools, and public institutions of higher learning.

HB 2292 (Sullivan) and SB 1662 (Wagner), dubbed the “show your work bill,” requires the SCC to provide justification if it rejects a utility energy efficiency program.

HB 2293 (Sullivan) establishes a stakeholder process to provide input on the development of utility energy efficiency programs.

HB 2294 (Sullivan) establishes mandatory energy efficiency goals for electric and gas utilities.

HB 2295 (Sullivan) creates an energy efficiency fund and board to administer it.

HB 2332 (Keam) protects customer data collected by utilities while allowing the use of aggregated anonymous data for energy efficiency and demand-side management efforts.

SB 1111 (Marsden) requires utilities to provide rate abatements to certain customers who invest at least $10,000 in energy efficiency and, by virtue of their lower consumption, end up being pushed into a tier with higher rates.

SB 1400 (Petersen) removes the exclusion of residential buildings from the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which allows localities to provide low-interest loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements on buildings.

HB 2070 (Bell, John) provides a tax deduction for energy saving products, including solar panels and Energy Star products, up to $10,000.

Energy transition and climate

HB 1635 (Rasoul, with 9 co-patrons) imposes a moratorium on fossil fuel projects, including export facilities, gas pipelines and related infrastructure, refineries and fossil fuel exploration; requires utilities to use clean energy sources for 80% of electricity sales by 2028, and 100% by 2036; and requires the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy to develop a (really) comprehensive climate action plan, which residents are given legal standing to enforce by suit. This is being referred to as by the Off Act. (Update: HB 1635 passed Commerce and Labor on January 23 and heads to the floor of the House. Read this blogpost to understand what’s going on.)

HB 2735 (Toscano) and SB 1666 (Lewis and Spruill) is this year’s version of the Virginia Coastal Protection Act, which would have Virginia formally join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It dedicates money raised by auctioning carbon allowances to climate adaptation efforts, energy efficiency programs, and coalfields transition. The Governor has made this bill a priority.

HB 1686 (Reid, with 14 co-patrons) and SB 1648 (Boysko) bans new or expanded fossil fuel generating plants until Virginia has those 5,500 MW of renewable energy we were promised. This is referred to as the Renewables First Act.

HB 2611 (Poindexter) would prohibit Virginia from joining or participating in RGGI without support from two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate, making it sort of an anti-Virginia Coastal Protection Act.

HB 2501 (Rasoul) directs the Division of Energy at DMME to include a greenhouse gas emissions inventory in the Virginia Energy Plan.

HB 2645 (Rasoul, with 13 co-patrons), nicknamed the REFUND Act, prohibits electric utilities from making nonessential expenditures and requires refunds if the SCC finds they have. It also bars fuel cost recovery for more pipeline capacity than appropriate to ensure a reliable supply of gas. Other reforms in the bill would undo some of the provisions of last year’s SB 966, lower the percentage of excess earnings utilities can retain, and require the SCC to determine rates of return based on cost of service rather than peer group analysis.

HB 2747 (Kilgore) and SB 1707 (Chafin) create a Southwest Virginia Energy Research and Development Authority which will, among other things, promote renewable energy on brownfield sites, including abandoned mine sites, and support energy storage, including pumped storage hydro.

HJ 724 (Rasoul) is a resolution “Recognizing the need for a Green New Deal in Virginia which promotes a Just Transition to a clean energy economy through lifting working families.”

Other utility regulation

HB 1718 (Ware) requires an electric utility to demonstrate that any pipeline capacity contracts it enters are the lowest-cost option available, before being given approval to charge customers in a fuel factor case.

HB 1840 (Danny Marshall) allows utilities to develop transmission infrastructure at megasites in anticipation of development, charging today’s customers for the expense of attracting new customers.

HB 2477 (Kilgore) would eliminate one of the few areas of retail choice allowed in Virginia by preventing large customers from using competitive retail suppliers of electricity, including for the purpose of procuring renewable energy, in any utility territory with less than 2% annual load growth. (I haven’t confirmed this, but that might be Dominion as well as APCo.)

HB 2503 (Rasoul) requires the State Corporation Commission to conduct a formal hearing before approving any changes to fuel procurement arrangements between affiliates of an electric utility or its parent company that will impact rate payers. This addresses the conflict of interest issue in Dominion Energy’s arrangement to commit its utility subsidiary to purchase capacity in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

HB 2691 (O’Quinn) establishes a pilot program for electric utilities to provide broadband services in underserved areas, and raise rates for the rest of us to pay for it, proclaiming this to be in the public interest.

HB 2697 (Toscano) and SB 1583 (Sutterlein) supports competition by shortening the time period that a utility’s customer that switches to a competing supplier is barred from returning as a customer of its utility from 5 years to 90 days.

HB 2738 (Bagby) and SB 1695 (Wagner) authorizes utilities to acquire rights of way on land that the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority decides could attract new customers to the site, and allows utilities to recover costs from existing customers. Because, you know, having utilities seize Virginians’ land for speculative development is already going so well for folks in the path of the pipelines. Who could complain about paying higher rates to help it happen more places?

SB 1780 (Petersen) requires, among other things, that utilities must refund to customers the costs of anything the SCC deems is a nonessential expenditure, including spending on lobbying, political contributions, and compensation for employees in excess of $5 million. It directs the SCC to disallow recovery of fuel costs if a company pays more for pipeline capacity from an affiliated company than needed to ensure a reliable supply of natural gas. It requires rate reviews of Dominion and APCo in 2019 and makes those biennial instead of triennial, and provides for the SCC to conduct an audit going back to 2015. It tightens provisions governing utilities’ keeping of overearnings and provides for the allowed rate of return to be based on the cost of providing service instead of letting our utilities make what all the other monopolists make (“peer group analysis”).


This article originally appeared in the Virginia Mercury on January 17, 2019. I’ve updated it to include later-filed bills and one or two that I missed originally. 

Solar map locates Northern Virginia on the dark side of the metro region

people standing by solar panels on a high school.

The 90 kW of solar panels on the roof of Wakefield High School represent almost 5% of Arlington’s solar total. Arlington schools have been a bright spot in Northern Virginia’s otherwise lackluster solar performance. Photo credit Phil Duncan.

Those of us who’ve lately become bullish on Virginia solar got a rude wake-up call this week when the Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) updated its map showing the amount of solar installed in every locality in Northern Virginia and the greater Washington region. Stunningly, every single suburban Maryland jurisdiction did better than every single Virginia jurisdiction. So did Washington, DC.

The map reveals that as of the end of 2017, Fairfax County had the most solar of any Virginia locality measured, reflecting its status as Virginia’s most populous county. Fairfax boasted a cumulative capacity of 2,104 kilowatts (kW) of solar, edging out Virginia’s richest county, Loudoun, which came in with 1,878 kW, as well as much smaller but more liberal Arlington with 1,785 kW.

All the Northern Virginia jurisdictions together (which also included Prince William, Manassas, Alexandria, and Falls Church) boasted a total of 8,443 kW, spread across 1,112 systems. That’s an average of about 7.5 kW per system, meaning these are overwhelmingly rooftop solar installations on homes and businesses. (An average home solar system is about 5 or 6 kW. Using solar for all of a home’s electricity needs might require 8-10 kW or more, especially if the home is heated with electricity or includes an electric vehicle.)

NoVa’s 8,443 kW is about as much as Prince George’s County, Maryland alone had five years ago. Today, PG County leads the region with 136,507 kW. Added together, the Maryland suburban localities finished the year with 272,688 kW of solar, over 32 times the suburban Virginia total. Washington, with 40,954 kW, beat all of suburban Virginia almost five times over.

So what do Maryland and DC have that Virginia doesn’t have? One answer is incentives. Maryland and DC have mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require utilities to buy a certain percentage of their electricity from solar generated in state, including from their own customers. As the percentage requirement increases year after year, the forces of supply and demand set prices for solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) that make solar a profitable investment for consumers. In DC, the value of SRECs is currently so high that a home solar installation can pay for itself in less than four years. In Virginia, with the federal 30% tax credit but no RPS or SREC market, payback may take ten years.

Ten years is still not a bad payoff for solar panels that can produce free electricity for 40 years or more. That points to the other advantage Maryland and DC have over Virginia: pro-solar policies. Virginia law does provide for net metering, the policy that lets a solar customer put surplus power onto the grid during the day and receive a credit for it that is used against the same amount of power drawn from the grid at night. Without net metering, we would have very little rooftop solar at all.

But a whole host of restrictions apply to net metering in Virginia. Homeowners are limited to a 20 kW system, and utilities can (and do) apply punitive fees known as “standby charges” to residential systems over 10 kW. Commercial customers are limited to 1,000 kW, no matter how much space they have or how much electricity they use. Sharing solar arrays among customers is prohibited. A building owner cannot install solar and sell the electricity to tenants. A local government cannot install solar on a vacant lot and use it to power a building across the street. Only certain customers can use third-party ownership financing.

And if the market flourishes anyway, Virginia law puts a ceiling on the total capacity of net-metered systems. Once the total reaches 1% of a utility’s sales, the program will come to a screeching halt. Think of it as an anti-RPS.

This year the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation that encourages Virginia utilities to develop solar, but the bill failed to address the barriers holding back private investments in solar. Other bills that would have opened up the market failed in the Republican-controlled (and utility-friendly) Commerce and Labor committees.

Barrier-busting bills will certainly be back again next year, and local governments that want more solar in their communities should make sure these reforms are part of their legislative wish list. Meanwhile, there is room under current law for local governments and schools to install a lot more solar than they have to date. Leading by example is a powerful tool to capture the attention of the public, educate residents on the benefits of solar, and instill pride in the community.

Localities can also help residents and businesses go solar by promoting solar coops like Solarize NoVa, offering low-cost financing via commercial PACE loans(as Arlington is doing), and setting expectations for developers.

Maryland and DC may still beat Virginia on solar over the next few years, but it shouldn’t happen without a fight.

2018 Guide to Wind and Solar Policy in Virginia

[A downloadable PDF of this guide is available here.]

Introduction

Advocates for wind and solar finally begin to feel cautiously optimistic about the prospects for clean energy in Virginia. Prices for wind and solar have dropped to the point where the question is no longer whether they can compete with fossil fuels, but whether fossil fuels can compete with them. Support for renewable energy is high in the General Assembly, new solar projects are popping up across the state, and interest in offshore wind is on the rise again, after a years-long nap.

Still, Virginia’s energy laws were written by and for monopoly utilities that are heavily invested in coal, gas and nuclear. The Virginia Code contains a thicket of barriers that protect utility profits from competition and limit the options of developers, consumers, local governments and businesses.

This survey of current policy is intended to help decision-makers, industry, advocates and consumers understand what options for wind and solar exist today, where the barriers lie, and what we could be doing to take fuller advantage of the clean energy opportunities before us.

A few disclaimers: I don’t cover everything, the opinions expressed are purely my own, and as legal advice it is worth exactly what you’re paying for it.

  1. Overview: Virginia making headway on solar, but still no wind
Virginia Maryland North Carolina W. Virginia Tennessee
Solar* 631.26 932.7 4,411.65 6.05 236.36
Wind** 0 191 208 686 29
Total 631.26 1,123.7 4,619.65 692.05 265.36

  Installed capacity measured in megawatts (MW) at the end of 2017. One megawatt is equal to 1,000 kilowatts (kW).

*Source: Solar Energy Industries Association **Source: American Wind Energy Association

Virginia installed almost 400 megawatts (MW) of solar last year, bringing the total at the end of 2017 to 631 MW, up from 238 at the end of 2016. This nudges us closer to Maryland, though it leaves us further behind North Carolina than ever.

Most of the Virginia solar to date has been installed to serve large tech companies, not the general public. This reflects the companies’ renewable energy commitments, their buying power, and their willingness to pursue new financing models that make the most of solar’s increasingly low cost.

Corporate demand will likely continue to drive the majority of Virginia installations in the near term, but Virginia utilities are starting to add solar to the resource mix that serves ordinary customers.

On the other hand, Virginia remains the only state in our 5-state neighborhood without a wind farm. To be fair, all 5 states have been stuck in the doldrums; an American Wind Energy Association update showed no new wind farms opening in any of them in 2017. That leaves Apex Clean Energy’s 75 MW Rocky Forge wind farm still in limbo; it received its permit more than a year ago and remains construction-ready whenever a buyer shows up.

Among the recent developments showing momentum for solar:

  • In 2017, Dominion Energy Virginia acknowledged for the first time that solar had become the cheapest form of energy in Virginia. In May of this year, a news source reported that the utility’s parent company, Dominion Energy, has given up on building any new combined-cycle (baseload) gas plants and will build only large solar plants, though the company proposes many more of the smaller gas combustion turbines.
  • A new law passed in 2018 (SB 966) puts 5,000 MW of utility wind and solar “in the public interest,” although this language is not a mandate.
  • The 2018 law also makes it in the public interest for utilities to develop up to 500 MW of distributed solar (some parts of the bill say just 50 MW).
  • Dominion’s 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) includes up to 6,400 MW by 2033 in most of the scenarios it modeled. The IRP is not binding, but it gives regulators and the public a look into how a utility plans to meet customer demand over a 15-year period.
  • Some rural cooperatives and municipal electric utilities in Virginia are now adding solar.
  • Solar projects keep getting bigger. A few years ago, a 20 MW solar farm was considered huge; today it is at the low end for utility-scale. In 2015 Amazon Web Services stunned us all by announcing an 80 MW facility. By the end of 2017 it had contracted for 260 MW of solar in Virginia, including a 100 MW project. In March of this year Microsoft announced it had reserved 315 MW of a planned 500 MW project.
  • An analysisby the Solar Foundation found that Virginia could add over 50,000 jobs by building enough solar to meet 10% of the Commonwealth’s electricity supply over five years.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) website contains a list of projects that have begun the permitting process under Virginia’s permit-by-rule provisions, which govern projects up to 150 MW. Larger projects need permission from the State Corporation Commission (SCC). All projects must also obtain local permits.

Like onshore wind, offshore wind still hasn’t taken off in Virginia. In 2014 Dominion Energy Virginia won the right to develop an estimated 2,000 MW of wind power offshore of Virginia Beach, but it still hasn’t offered a timeline for a commercial offshore wind project or even included one in its IRP. The 2018 IRP does include Dominion’s two-turbine, 12 MW pilot project, with a projected in-service date of 2021. Last year Dominion formed a partnership with Danish energy giant Ørsted (formerly DONG Energy) to see the pilot project through.

  1. Customers’ ability to purchase renewable energy is still limited

 Currently, the average Virginia resident or business can’t pick up the phone and call their utility to buy electricity generated by wind and solar farms. Customers of a few rural cooperatives are the exception; see the next section on green power programs, and section 4 on community solar.

Section 56-577(A)(6) of the Virginia code allows utilities to offer renewable energy tariffs, and if they don’t, customers are supposed to be able to go elsewhere for it. Neither of our two major investor-owned utilities, Dominion Energy Virginia (formerly Dominion Virginia Power) and Appalachian Power Company (APCo), currently has an approved tariff for renewable energy. The SCC has previously rejected renewable energy tariffs from APCo and Dominion that the SCC ruled were not in the public interest, mostly because they were too expensive.

Both utilities are trying again. APCo’s latest proposed renewable energy tariff, dubbed Rider WWS, combines wind, hydro, and new solar, and would cost residential customers a premium of 4.25 percent over brown power—a huge drop from the 18 percent increase associated with the earlier, rejected program. (The case is PUR-2017-00179.)

Dominion’s new renewable energy tariff is intended for residential and non-residential customers with a peak demand of less than 1 MW. Rate Schedule CRG-S (case PUR-2017-00157) would consist of hydro, wind and new solar, but possibly also other sources from within the PJM region. Dominion calculates the premium at 17.87 percent over brown power, a surprisingly high premium given how cheap solar, wind and hydro have become.

The SCC has not yet ruled on either program, so it is not clear when, or if, Dominion and APCo will implement these renewable energy tariffs.

Can you go elsewhere? Since the State Corporation Commission has ruled that REC-based programs do not qualify as selling renewable energy, under the terms of §56-577(A)(6), customers are currently permitted to turn to other licensed suppliers of electric energy “to purchase electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy.”

That means you should be able to go elsewhere to buy wind and solar, at least for the limited time before Dominion and APCo can get tariffs approved. But Virginia utilities claim that the statute’s words should be read as requiring not only that another licensed supplier provide 100% renewable energy, but that it also supply 100% of the customer’s demand, all the time. Obviously, the owner of a wind farm or solar facility cannot do that. Ergo, say the utilities, a customer cannot really go elsewhere.

In spite of the roadblocks, an independent power seller called Direct Energy announced plans in 2016 to sell a renewable energy product to Virginia residents in Dominion’s territory. (The company described the product as a combination of wind and municipal waste biomass.) Dominion fought back, but in 2017 the SCC confirmed Direct Energy’s right to enter the Virginia market; however, the SCC also ruled that Direct Energy will have to stop signing up customers once Dominion has its own approved renewable energy tariff.

Legislation defeated in the General Assembly this year would have allowed customers of Dominion and APCo to purchase electricity generated 100 percent from renewable energy from any supplier licensed to business in the state, regardless of whether the utility had its own approved program.

Ron Cerniglia, Director of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs for Direct Energy, says Direct Energy “will be ready to begin offering a full suite of product and service offerings that customers currently receive in other competitive markets including a 100% renewable product by August to non-residential customers (e.g, commercial and industrial) within the Dominion Virginia Power service territory.”

Dominion will soon have a solar option. Legislation passed in 2017 under the misleading banner of “community solar,” authorizes Dominion and APCo to contract for power from solar farms to sell to consumers. Dominion’s program is awaiting approval at the SCC (case PUR-2018-00009). Rider VCS will be available to all retail customers at a premium of about 2.01 cents/kWh in the first year. As of this writing, APCo does not appear to have proposed a similar program.

The legislation states that these “community solar” programs explicitly do not count as ones selling “electric energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy,”though ironically, they may be the first programs from Dominion and APCo to do exactly that for residential and small commercial consumers.

Large customers have more options. As discussed in section 14, Dominion has worked with large tech companies, including Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook, to meet their demands for electricity from solar. Customers of this size also have the market power to sidestep utility control to achieve their aims through the wholesale energy market.

Other companies, institutions, and even local governments can aggregate their demand to achieve the same result, without affecting their retail purchase contracts with their utility (and thus not incurring the ire of the utility). For example, the Northern Virginia Regional Commission has hired a consultant to help area governments develop large-scale solar projects using a wholesale power purchase agreement, an undertaking I wrote about last fall.

  1. “Green power” products: mostly brown power painted green

Instead of offering renewable energy tariffs, for years Dominion and APCo have offered voluntary programs under which the utilities pay brokers to buy renewable energy certificates (RECs) on behalf of the participants. Participants sign up and agree to be billed extra on their power bills for the service. Meanwhile, they still run their homes and businesses on regular “brown” power.

As I wrote a few years back in What’s wrong with Dominion’s Green Power Program, there is little evidence that voluntary RECs from Midwestern wind farms are driving any new renewable energy, whether you buy them from a utility or a third-party supplier like Arcadia. But if you’re considering this route, read this post first so you understand what you are getting. Personally, I recommend instead making monthly tax-deductible donations to GRID Alternatives to put solar on low-income homes.

The situation is better with some rural cooperatives. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC), which supplies power to most of Virginia’s coops, signed long-term contracts for the output of three wind farms in Maryland and Pennsylvania, which it resells to some member coops. Customers of participating coops can choose to buy wind power for an additional cost. (See the information posted by Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative as an example.) ODEC has contracted for two solar farms in Virginia as well.

But not all coops do this. Most have REC-only offerings. In the case of Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, the RECs come from a biomass plant somewhere “in the greater mid-Atlantic area.” That is, customers voluntarily pay extra to subsidize the burning of trees for power, probably at a facility out of state. Because of wood’s high moisture content, this kind of biomass is a highly polluting way to make energy and an important source of carbon dioxide emissions, calling into question the value of the program to customers who want to support renewable energy.

  1. Community solar: what’s in a name? 

Community solar, in its purest form, enables people to work together to develop and own a solar facility in their community for the use of all the participants. This kind of community solar is not currently an option in Virginia. Solar advocates have introduced enabling legislation for several years running, but it has been defeated every year in the face of utility opposition.

Two Virginia rural electric cooperatives offer programs that come close. In both cases, the coop has contracted for the output of a solar project in its territory and offers shares of the electricity to coop members. BARC, in southwestern Virginia, was the first to offer such a program, using a small 500 kW solar facility. This year Central Virginia Electric Cooperative(CVEC) launched a 4 MW program. Subscribers can lock in the rate for 20 years, one of the most attractive features of community solar.

As noted in Section 2, legislation enacted in 2017 enables a kind of pseudo-community solar controlled by a utility. Using this authority, Dominion has contracted for the development of a number of smaller (up to 2 MW) solar projects around Virginia, and will offer customers the option of paying a 2.01 cents/kWh premium to buy solar. Unlike a true community solar program (or CVEC’s), the price is not fixed but will change annually based on market factors, and it includes a profit margin for Dominion.

It looks like a renewable energy tariff, and it quacks like a renewable energy tariff, but all concerned call it community solar. The program now awaits approval by the SCC (case PUR-2018-00009) and is expected to be available to Dominion customers by the end of the year.

  1. Virginia’s RPS: modest, and with much to be modest about

Most states have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or other mandates to require utilities to build or buy renewable energy. Leading states have been ratcheting up their percentages while tightening the rules for what qualifies, giving priority to new wind and solar.

Virginia is not among these leading states.

Virginia Code §56-585.2 creates a voluntary RPS, which means utilities have the option of participating but don’t have to. Renewable energy is defined in §56-576 to include not just wind, solar, and falling water, but also highly polluting forms of energy like trash incineration and burning trees, a/k/a biomass (“sustainable or otherwise”), as well as old, large hydroelectric plants that don’t qualify for other states’ programs. Utilities are also allowed to include up to 20% of RECs from renewable energy research and development activities, providing a subsidy to a few Virginia universities with good lobbyists.

Utilities demonstrate compliance with the RPS through the retirement of renewable energy certificates (RECs). The SCC insists that utilities take a least-cost approach to meeting the RPS, which means RECs from trash incinerators, wood burning, and old out-of-state hydro will always edge out wind and solar, simply because there is little competition for those junky RECs. If utilities build wind and solar, they are required to sell the high-value RECs from these projects (to utilities out of state or to the voluntary market) and buy low-cost junky ones instead. Thus, no matter how much solar Dominion builds, customers will never see solar as part of the RPS.

Perhaps it goes without saying that the RPS makes no provision for Virginia utilities to buy RECs from solar homes or businesses.

The targets are also modest to a fault. Although nominally promising 15% renewables by 2025, the statute uses a 2007 baseline, ignoring load growth, and contains a sleight-of-hand in the definitions section by which the target is applied only to the amount of energy after nuclear is excluded. Nuclear makes up a third of Dominion’s energy mix. Thus the combined result is an effective RPS target of well under 10% in 2025.

According to Dominion’s 2017 Annual Report to the State Corporation Commission on Renewable Energy, the “fuel” types used to meet the RPS in 2016 consisted entirely of hydro, municipal solid waste incineration, woody biomass, landfill gas, research and development, and “thermal energy” (another unusual source). The in-service dates of facilities generating renewable energy or RECs range from the 1910s to the 2010s, with the majority clearly pre-dating adoption of the RPS. Almost half the energy or RECs come from out of state. The report does not say who Dominion bought and sold RECs from and to, or for how much.

The General Assembly has rejected numerous bills to make the RPS mandatory, and efforts to narrow the definition of renewable energy have repeatedly failed in the face of utility and other industry opposition. The utilities have offered no arguments why the goals should not be limited to new, high-value, in-state renewable projects, other than that it would cost more to meet them than to buy junk RECs.

But with the GA hostile to a mandatory RPS and too many parties with vested interests in keeping the kitchen-sink approach going, it is hard to imagine our RPS becoming transformed into a useful tool to incentivize wind and solar.

That doesn’t mean there is no role for legislatively-mandated wind and solar. But it would be easier to pass a bill with a simple, straightforward mandate for buying or building a certain number of megawatts than it would be to repair a hopelessly broken RPS. The GA passed up an opportunity to do just that in this year’s SB 966, which makes up to 5,500 MW of solar and wind “in the pubic interest,” but not mandatory.

Short of that, the GA could require that Dominion apply the RECs from its solar projects to the voluntary RPS, instead of selling them, and allow the utility to buy other RECs only to fill any gaps left over.

  1. Customer-owned generation

The low cost of solar panels and the federal 30% tax credit make it cost-effective for most customers to install solar on a sunny roof or field, with homeowners reporting payback periods of less than 10 years. The federal tax credit will be available in full for projects that commence construction by the end of 2019. It drops to 26% for projects commenced in 2020 and 22% for projects commenced in 2021. Thereafter it drops to 10% for commercial and utility projects but disappears for homeowners entirely. Virginia itself offers no cash incentives or tax credits for wind or solar.

The emergence of bulk purchasing coops, sometimes also called “solarize” programs, such as those offered through nonprofits Solar United Neighbors of Virginia and LEAP, makes the process easy for homeowners and businesses and reduces costs.

Virginia allows net energy metering at the retail rate, though with limits (see section 7). Commercial customers can also reap the advantages of solar in reducing high demand charges.

In 2016 the General Assembly passed legislation enabling Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans for commercial customers. Localities now have an option to offer low-cost financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at the commercial level. Arlington County has launched the first C-PACE program and is accepting applications now. Several other counties have initiated studies or are developing their own programs. PACE is not available for residential customers.

The lack of a true RPS in Virginia means Virginia utilities generally will not buy solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) from customers. Back in the old days utilities in other states would buy SRECs generated in Virginia, but those markets have gradually closed. Pennsylvania, which had been the last remaining SREC market for Virginia residents, closed its borders last year.

The fact that the federal tax credit is such an important part of financing solar presents a challenge to customers who don’t pay any taxes, or enough taxes to use the credit. This includes non-profits, government entities, and low-income residents. Third-party financing offers a viable solution for tax-exempt entities, where available (see Section 10), but serving low-income residents remains a challenge.

  1. Limits on retail net metering

Section 56-594 of the Virginia Code allows utility customers with wind and solar projects to net energy meter at the retail rate. System owners get credit from their utility for surplus electricity that’s fed into the grid at times of high output, such as during the middle of a sunny day. That offsets the grid power they draw on when their systems are producing less than they need. Their monthly bills reflect only the net of the energy they draw from the grid.

Residential customers can net meter systems up to 20 kW, although standby charges will apply to those between 10 and 20 kW, generally making the larger sizes uneconomical.

Commercial customers can net meter up to 1,000 kW (1 MW). There is an overall cap of 1% of a utility’s peak demand that can be supplied by net metered systems (as measured at their rated capacity).

If a system produces more than the customer uses in a month, the credits roll over to the next month. However, at the end of the year, the customer will be paid for any excess credits only if they have entered a power purchase agreement with the utility. This will likely be for a price that represents the utility’s “avoided cost” of about 4 cents, rather than the retail rate, which for homeowners is about 12 cents. This effectively stops most people from installing larger systems than they can use themselves.

In 2015, the definition of “eligible customer-generator” was tightened to limit system sizes to no larger than needed to meet 100% of a customer’s demand, based on the previous 12 months of billing history. The SCC wrote implementing regulations (see20VAC5-315-10 et seq.) but failed to address what happens with new construction; in practice, utilities have simply told customers how much they can install.

In 2018 the House Commerce and Labor subcommittee on energy defeated a bill that would have increased the limit to 125% of previous demand and extended this to new construction, for residents in Dominion territory. Dominion had agreed to the change, recognizing that there is already a financial disincentive for customers to install more solar than they can use.

A number of other barriers also restrict customer solar. A building owner cannot install a solar facility and sell the output to tenants. A condo association or homeowners association cannot build a central solar facility to share the output. The owner of two or more separately metered buildings cannot share the output of a solar facility on one building with another building, with a limited exception for farmers (see section 8). A local government cannot install a solar facility at one site to serve another site.

These barriers reflect an argument, promoted by utilities, that customers who install solar for their own use don’t pay their fair share of the upkeep of the grid, shifting costs to those who don’t own solar. A range of “value of solar” studies in other states have generally found the reverse, concluding that distributed solar provides a net benefit to utilities, other customers, and society at large. A stakeholder group in Virginia completed the initial phase of a value of solar study in 2014 but got no further after the utilities pulled out of the process.

Over many years the utilities and the solar industry have tried to resolve their differences on net metering, without success. Efforts began in 2013 with the Small Solar Working Group, a broad stakeholder group facilitated by DEQ. That morphed into the Solar Working Group in 2014, then collapsed when the utilities walked away from a “Value of Solar” report the group drafted. In 2016 the utilities and the solar industry began meeting again privately in the “Rubin Group” (named for the moderator, Mark Rubin). This group produced consensus legislation in 2017 and 2018, primarily enabling the utilities to pursue their own solar goals, but they found no common ground on customer-owned solar.

In the absence of state tax credits or rebates, net metering remains critical to the financial viability of most customer-owned solar, making solar installers unwilling to give it up. For their part, utilities have put themselves into a box by insisting that customers ought to share grid costs equally. Reaching a resolution that allows the private solar market to grow will require taking the top off the box and valuing benefits as well as costs.

The issue is poised to come to a head this year. In addition to ongoing Rubin Group discussions, the Northam Administration has announced that net metering issues will be one focus of attention as the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) develops the 2018 Energy Plan, due at the end of October. DMME appears to have handed the solar work over to Dominion, which, as part of 2018’s SB 966 legislation, had tasked itself with conducting a study of net metering. Dominion has hired a consultant, Meridian Institute, “to design and facilitate a stakeholder engagement process” to consider “improvements” to net metering.

  1. Agricultural customers and meter aggregation

Under a bill passed in 2013, owners of Virginia farms with more than one electric meter are permitted to attribute the electricity produced by a system that serves one meter (say, on a barn) to other meters on the property (e.g., the farmhouse and other outbuildings). This is referred to as “agricultural net metering.” Unfortunately, there have been complaints from installers about a lack of cooperation from utilities in actually using this provision.

Advocates had hoped that agricultural net metering would be a first step towards broader meter aggregation options, but 2017 legislation instead took agricultural customers in a new direction. Farmers can now elect to devote up to a quarter of their acreage to solar panels, up to 1.5 MW or 150% of their own electricity demand. The electricity must be sold to the utility at its avoided cost, while the farmer must buy all its electricity from the utility at retail. A farmer who chooses to do this cannot also use agricultural net metering. Agricultural net metering will be terminated entirely in 2019 in territory served by electric cooperatives, though existing customers are grandfathered.

  1. Homeowner associations cannot ban solar (but they sure keep trying)

 Homeowner association (HOA) bans and restrictions on solar systems have been a problem for residential solar. In the 2014 session, the legislature nullified bans as contrary to public policy. The law contains an exception for bans that are recorded in the land deeds, but this is said to be highly unusual; most bans are simply written into HOA covenants. In April of 2015 the Virginia Attorney issued an opinion letter confirming that unrecorded HOA bans on solar are no longer legal.

Even where HOAs cannot ban solar installations, they can impose “reasonable restrictions concerning the size, place and manner of placement.” This language is undefined. The Maryland-DC-Virginia Solar Energy Industries Association has published a guide for HOAs on this topic.

Because of the vagueness of “reasonable restrictions,” HOAs continue to be a problem for many would-be solar homeowners.

  1. Limits on third-party financing (PPAs)

One of the drivers of solar installations in other states has been third-party ownership of the systems, including third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs). In a typical third-party PPA, the customer pays no money upfront and is charged only for the power produced by the system. At the end of the contract, or at some intermediate point, the customer usually can buy the system outright at a greatly reduced cost.

For customers that pay no taxes, including non-profit entities like churches and colleges as well as local government, PPAs are an especially important financing tool because they can’t use the 30% federal tax credit to reduce the cost of the system if they purchase it directly. Under a PPA, the system owner can take the tax credit (as well as accelerated depreciation) and pass along the savings in the form of a lower electricity price.

The Virginia Code seems to sanction this approach to financing solar facilities in its net metering provisions, specifically §56-594, which authorizes a “customer generator” to net meter, and defines an eligible customer generator as “a customer that owns and operates, or contracts with other persons to own or operate,or both, an electrical generating facility that . . . uses as its total source of fuel renewable energy. . . “ (emphasis added).

Notwithstanding this provision, in 2011, when Washington & Lee University attempted to use a PPA to finance a solar array on its campus, Dominion Virginia Power issued cease and desist letters to the university and its Staunton-based solar provider, Secure Futures LLC. Dominion claimed the arrangement violated its monopoly on power sales within its territory.

Given the threat of prolonged and costly litigation, the parties turned the PPA contract into a lease, allowing the solar installation to proceed but without the advantages of a PPA. (Note that PPAs are sometimes referred to as “leases,” but they are distinct legally. Leasing solar equipment is like renting a generator; both provide power but don’t involve the sale of the electricity itself. I have never heard of a utility objecting to a true lease.)

In 2013 Dominion and the solar industry resolved the dispute via compromise legislation that specifically allows customers in Dominion territory to use third-party PPAs to install solar or wind projects under a pilot program capped at 50 MW. Projects must have a minimum size of 50 kW, unless the customer is a tax-exempt entity, in which case there is no minimum. Projects can be as large as 1 MW. The SCC is supposed to review the program every two years beginning in 2015 and has authority to make changes to it. I’m not aware the SCC has reviewed the program to date.

Although the program got off to a slow start, PPA projects are beginning to come online at a rapid clip, and solar companies say an increase in the program size will be needed so installations don’t suddenly stall.

Outside of Dominion territory, the story is less rosy. Appalachian Power and the electric cooperatives declined to participate in the PPA deal-making. In 2017, the legislature passed a bill to allow private colleges and universities—but no one else—in APCo territory to use PPAs to install a maximum of 7 MW of renewable energy. This year a bill to expand the program for APCo customers was scuttled at the last moment due to APCo’s opposition.

Meanwhile, Secure Futures has developed a third-party-ownership business model that it says works like a PPA for tax purposes but does not include the sale of electricity. This allows the company to install larger projects in more parts of Virginia (including most recently a 1.3 MW solar array at Carilion New River Valley Medical Center in Christiansburg, which I have to mention here because the project combines solar and sheep farming and therefore will make for cute photos). Currently Secure Futures is the only solar provider offering this option, which it calls a Customer Self-Generation Agreement.

Solar schools. The availability of PPA financing has had a direct and noticeable impact on the ability of pubic schools to install solar. The projects that I know about include the following; most (but not all) of these use the PPA structure.

  • Bath County (three schools)
  • Arlington County (two schools; county is currently evaluating bids for other schools)
  • Albermarle County (six schools)
  • City of Lexington (one school)
  • Middlesex County (two schools)
  • Augusta County (seven schools)
  • City of Richmond (ten schools)
  • City of Harrisonburg (RFP issued)
  1. Personal property tax exemption for solar developers

In 2014 the General Assembly passed a law exempting solar generating equipment “owned or operated by a business” from state and local taxation for installations up to 20 MW. It did this by classifying solar equipment as “pollution abatement equipment” under §58.1-3660 of the Code. Note that this applies only to the equipment, not to the buildings or land underlying the installation, so real estate taxes aren’t affected.

The law was a response to a problem that local “machinery and tools” taxes were mostly so high as to make third-party PPAs uneconomic in Virginia. In a state where solar was already on the margin, the tax could be a deal-breaker. A separate code provision (§58.1-3661) permitted localities to exempt solar equipment from taxation, but seeking the exemptions on a county-by-county and city-by-city basis proved crushingly onerous for small developers.

The initial 20 MW cap was included at the request of the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties, and it seemed at the time like such a high cap as to be irrelevant. However, with solar increasingly attractive economically, Virginia’s tax exemption rapidly became a draw for solar developers, including Virginia utilities.

In 2016 Dominion proposed changing the exemption to benefit its own projects at the expense of those of independent developers. In the end, the statute was amended in a way that benefits utility-scale projects without unduly harming smaller projects. Many new projects are now only 80% exempt, rather than entirely exempt. However, the details are complex, with different timelines and different size classes, and anyone looking to use this provision should study it carefully.

The exemption applies only to solar, not to wind.

  1. Dominion-owned distributed solar

Solar Partnership Program (commercial customers). In 2011, the General Assembly passed a law allowing Dominion to build up to 30 MW of solar energy on leased property, such as roof space on a college or commercial establishment. The demonstration program was intended to help Dominion learn about grid integration. The SCC approved $80 million of spending, to be partially offset by selling the RECs (meaning the solar energy would not be used to meet Virginia’s RPS goals). The “Solar Partnership Program” resulted in several commercial-scale projects on university campuses and corporate buildings, but the program did not offer any economic advantages, and it seems to have fizzled out. The Dominion Energy web pageon distributed generation still mentions it, but the link does not lead to more information (and didn’t last year either).

Dominion seems to be ready to try again. The 2018 legislation (SB 966) contains language saying it is in the public interest for utilities to develop or own up to 500 MW of distributed solar. Elsewhere in the same legislation the limit is shown as 50 MW, and it is not clear which one is the typo. Either number gives Dominion plenty of leeway to try out fancy technology involving grid integration of renewables to enhance system reliability and community resilience, or just make another go at undercutting customer-owned solar.

Dominion Solar Purchase Program (residential and business customers). The same 2011 legislation that enabled the “Solar Partnership” initiative also authorized Dominion to establish “an alternative to net metering” as part of the demonstration program. The alternative Dominion came up with was a buy-all, sell-all deal for up to 3 MW of customer-owned solar. As approved by the SCC, the program allows owners of small solar systems on homes and businesses to sell the power and the associated RECs to Dominion at 15 cents/kWh, while buying regular grid power at retail for their own use. Dominion then sells the power to the Green Power Program at a hefty markup. It is not clear whether the program continues to be available; as with the Solar Partnership Program, the links on the Dominion Energy website don’t lead anywhere helpful.

I ripped this program from the perspective of the Green Power Program buyers who pay for other people to install solar on their homes. While some installers advertised it as an option, others felt it was a bad deal for customers, given the costs involved, the likelihood that the payments represent taxable income, and the fact that selling the electricity could make new system owners ineligible for the 30% federal tax credit on the purchase of the system.

There are many good ways Dominion could work with the General Assembly to offer alternatives to net metering that also support customer solar. This program isn’t one of them.

  1. Utility renewable energy tariffs for large customers

Large customers that want wind and solar have had to force the issue in the past. In 2013, Dominion Power introduced a Renewable Generation (RG) Tariff to allow customers to buy renewable power from providers, with the utility simply acting as a go-between and collecting a monthly administrative fee. The program was poorly designed and got no takers.

In 2015, Amazon Web Services made Dominion’s RG tariff irrelevant. Amazon contracted directly with a developer for an 80 MW solar farm, avoiding Dominion’s monopoly restrictions with a plan to sell the electricity directly into the PJM (wholesale) market. Dominion Energy bought the project, and negotiated a special rate with Amazon for the power. This contract became the basis for an “experimental” tariff (Schedule MBR) that Dominion Energy Virginia offered to customers with a peak demand of 5 MW or more, with a program cap of 200 MW.

Since that first deal, Dominion and Amazon have followed up with contracts for an additional 180 MW of solar in five Virginia counties.

Dominion used a different approach for a deal with Microsoft. After the SCC turned down Dominion’s application to charge ratepayers for a 20-MW solar farm in Remington, Virginia, Dominion reached an agreement with Microsoft and the Commonwealth of Virginia under which the state buys the output of the project, while Microsoft buys the RECs. This seems to have been done as a favor to Dominion by then-governor Terry McAuliffe, as a way to move the Remington project forward, and I wouldn’t expect to see it repeated.

In the fall of 2017, Facebook negotiated its own terms with Dominion for 130 MW of a 300 MW solar project. With this as its basis, Dominion created yet another new tariff, Schedule RF.

The alphabet soup of tariffs suggest Dominion is still finding its way in serving large corporations. The utility has a strong incentive to make deals with large corporations that want a lot of renewable energy: if they don’t like what Dominion is offering, they can make an end run around the utility by working through the PJM wholesale market, as discussed above in section 2. This appears to be Microsoft’s plan for a 500 MW solar farm announced last year. Perhaps we should watch for Dominion to propose yet another new tariff, if they haven’t run out of letters.

For a customer without the market power of Amazon, Facebook or Microsoft, buying renewable energy from Dominion remains challenging. As noted in section 2, the SCC already rejected one set of voluntary schedules Dominion had proposed for customers with a peak demand of at least 1,000 kW (1 MW). The rejection can’t be called a loss for customers, since the plan was to use a mix of sources that count as renewable under the Virginia Code but still pollute, including biomass—making it only sort-of green. The SCC said the tariff was too expensive, possibly because biomass is expensive compared to other kinds of renewable energy.

While that particular renewable energy tariff was more an effort to close off competition from Direct Energy than to serve the needs of customers, Dominion seems serious about finding solar options for large customers. One of the tasks the Rubin Group says it plans to take on this year is considering further changes to help large customers who want solar.

  1. Dominion plans for utility-scale solar

As early as 2014, Dominion had announced it wanted to begin developing large-scale solar projects in Virginia. In 2015, two bills promoted the construction of utility-scale solar by declaring it in the public interest for utilities to build or buy solar energy projects of at least 1 MW, and up to an aggregate of 500 MW. This year’s legislation increased that number to 5,000 MW and included wind in the total.

Dominion got off to a rocky start when the SCC rejected the company’s plan to charge ratepayers for its first project, a 20 MW solar farm in Remington, Virginia because the company had not considered cheaper third-party alternatives. Governor McAuliffe helped save the project by working out a deal with Microsoft, as discussed above. Further projects fared better, however, and Dominion is now so enthusiastic about solar that its 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) calls for up to 480 MW per year, all for the benefit of its regular ratepayers.

Dominion’s website currently lists several solar projects in Virginia, but only three of them, totaling 56 MW, serve the Dominion Energy Virginia rate base. Even with the boost from the General Assembly, future projects will still have to gain SCC approval. And while Dominion will be able to charge ratepayers for projects that do get approved, the SCC will probably insist that the RECs be sold—whether to utilities in other states that have RPS obligations, or to customers who want them for their own sustainability goals, or perhaps even to voluntary green power customers. If this happens, the result will be that Dominion still won’t use solar to meet the Virginia RPS, and ordinary customers will still not have solar as part of the electricity they pay for. That’s the weird world of RECs for you.

  1. Governor McAuliffe’s program to purchase solar for state government will be continued under Northam

Following a recommendation by the Governor’s Climate Change and Resiliency Commission, on December 21, 2015, Governor McAuliffe announced that the Commonwealth would commit to procuring 8% of its electricity from solar, a total of 110 MW, with 75% of that built by Dominion and 25% by private developers.

The first deal to count towards this goal was an 18 MW project at Naval Station Oceana, announced on August 2, 2016. The Commonwealth will buy the power and the RECs. (The Remington Project did not count, because as the buyer of the RECs, only Microsoft can claim the right to be buying solar power.) Two solar farms supplying the University of Virginia and its Darden School of Business also counted towards the 8%.

Although no other projects have been announced since McAuliffe left office, Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade Angela Navarro confirmed to me that the 110 MW goal remains in place. She adds, “We also have around 2 MW of agency-owned solar installed or slated to be installed this year. We’re still working toward the 110MW goal, and we hope to announce an even more ambitious goal through the Energy Plan process.”

  1. Onshore wind

No Virginia utility is actively moving forward with a wind farm on land. Dominion Energy’s website used to list 248 MW of land-based wind in Virginia as “under development,” without any noticeable progress. The current web page doesn’t mention specific projects or sizes, only that “we are evaluating wind energy projects in Virginia.” If so, none of them has made it into any recent IRP.

On the other hand, Appalachian Power continues to try to add wind power to its mix, though so far not from any Virginia sites. In April of this year, the SCC denied APCo’s request to acquire two wind projects in West Virginia and Ohio, saying the company didn’t need the power.

With no utility buyers, Virginia has not been a friendly place for independent wind developers. In previous years a few wind farm proposals made it to the permitting stage before being abandoned, including in Highland County and on Poor Mountain near Roanoke.

Nonetheless, Apex Clean Energy has obtained a permit to develop a 75-MW Rocky Forge wind farm in Botetourt County. The company says the project is construction-ready and believes it can produce electricity at a competitive price, given its good location and improved turbine technology. However, the company will not move forward until it has a customer.

Looking forward a few years, the ability of wind to complement solar may give it a role as solar dominates new capacity additions in Virginia. Currently, Dominion’s IRP proposes to pair solar with gas combustion turbines, not battery storage. Wind energy paired with solar would reduce the need for gas back-up, perhaps tilting the equation in favor of battery storage instead.

  1. Offshore wind

Progress towards harnessing Virginia’s great offshore wind resource remains slow. Dominion won the federal auction for the right to develop about 2,000 MW of wind power off Virginia Beach in 2013, and last year the company received approval for its Site Assessment Plan (SAP).

We had originally been told the federal government’s timeline would lead to wind turbines being built off Virginia Beach around 2020. Later, however, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said Dominion has five years from approval of the SAP to submit its construction and operations plan, after which we’ll have to wait for review and approval. Presumably the project will also require an environmental impact statement.

That would put first construction in the mid-2020s—if Dominion can be prodded into going forward. Right now the company’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) does not include offshore wind in any of its scenarios for the next 15 years, except for 12 MW from two test turbines.

Those test turbines may become a reality, now that Dominion has partnered with the Danish energy company, Ørsted, formerly known as DONG Energy, to see the 12 MW project through to completion. Dominion is expected to make some sort of filing with the SCC this summer to move the project along. The IRP lists an in-service date of 2021.

All this is promising, as Ørsted clearly has its eyes on the commercial lease area. Governor Ralph Northam also seems keen to reignite offshore wind in Virginia. This spring DMME issued a Request for Proposals for a plan “to position Virginia as the East Coast offshore wind supply chain industry location of choice,” the first step in what advocates hope will become a Master Plan for Virginia offshore wind.

DMME is also including offshore wind as one focus of the 2018 Energy Plan, with plans for a public listening session and a facilitated stakeholder group.

  1. State carbon trading rules

The Trump administration’s pullbacks on the Paris accord and the Clean Power Plan prompted Governor McAuliffe last year to order the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to write rules lowering carbon emissions from Virginia power plants by 30% by 2030. Under draft rules set to be finalized this fall, Virginia power plants will trade carbon allowances with those in member states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Any rules that put pressure on carbon-emitting power plants should be good for wind and solar, but at this writing there is still some uncertainty about what the final rules will look like.

Governor Northam pushed for legislation this year that would have had Virginia formally join RGGI, rather than just trading with it. Joining RGGI would allow Virginia to auction carbon allowances instead of merely handing them out free to power plants. Auction money would support investments in wind and solar, among other priorities. Republicans in the General Assembly defeated the legislation, but advocates expect it to be re-introduced next year.

Virginia buys Dominion’s pig in a poke

How Dominion sees the bill.

A pig in a poke is defined as “an object offered in a manner that conceals its true value, especially its lack of value.” The expression is said to go back about five hundred years to English marketplaces. A poke was a sort of sack, but why 16th century people bought pigs in sacks, and why they would have bought a sack without looking inside, is not at all clear. I’m guessing the seller was the local pig monopoly, and the buyers were timid leaders who meekly paid their farthings and hoped for the best. After all, that is how we do it in the marketplace of Virginia’s General Assembly when Dominion Energy Virginia comes peddling legislation.

And indeed, the true value (or lack of value) of this year’s boondoggle bill (HB 1558/SB 966) will probably not be understood for months or even years to come. The General Assembly passed this legislation that will govern billions of dollars of new spending paid for by Virginia customers after just a handful of hearings over a few weeks, and with no study or input from outside experts. If you will excuse the expression, this is a lousy way to make sausage.

Arguably, the only thing worse than this bill is the law it seeks to fix, the infamous “rate freeze” legislation of 2015 that simply let Dominion keep a billion dollars of customer money to line its own pockets. You’d think legislators would have learned something about legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.

But the legislation could have been worse. We know this because it was worse; the bills Dominion originally put forward returned even less money to consumers, gave the utilities even more leeway on spending, and included the infamous “double dip” that the SCC said would let Dominion charge customers twice for the same projects. The bills improved over the next few weeks under pressure from progressive Democrats, conservative Republicans, the SCC, the Attorney General’s office, the Governor, and consumer and environmental groups.

Whether it is good enough now remains a matter of debate. Conservatives for Clean Energy and the League of Conservation Voters support the bill, especially the provisions relating to investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Sierra Club, an early opponent, used what leverage it had to get the worst provisions changed before removing its opposition late in the game (while still not supporting the bill). The AG’s Office of Consumer Counsel and Appalachian Voices never dropped their opposition.

Nevertheless, the poke has been bought, so you should definitely take a look at the pig. The Virginia Poverty Law Center and the Southern Environmental Law Center produced a handy summary of the bill’s final provisions compared to both the original bill and the status quo under the 2015 law (and sometimes also to the pre-2015 law).

The summary describes the categories of new spending authorized by the law, but a lot is left to interpretation—Dominion’s interpretation, mostly. Customers don’t seem to have any say in how their money gets spent. They are just supposed to feel happy with the provisions granting them some initial refunds reflecting a portion of the overearnings from past years, plus the utility’s savings from the federal tax cut. Going forward, though, the likelihood of further refunds or rate cuts seems remote. The whole point of the bill is to allow utilities to spend overearnings and avoid refunds. And as always, rates can continue to go up through “rate adjustment clauses” (RACs) like the ones that tacked new charges onto electricity bills even when base rates were frozen.

Moreover, what VPLC’s summary (understandably) lacks is a comparison to what ought to be in there: full refunds based on a review of past earnings rather than legislative guesstimates; mandatory—and much higher—levels of energy efficiency, wind and solar; proper regulatory oversight of rates and spending; and an independent assessment of grid modernization needs rather than blanket permission for a utility to indulge in projects that benefit itself most.

We’ll have to wait until next year for any new legislation, but it is not too early to start laying the groundwork. Governor Northam should direct his administration to begin working with national experts on a comprehensive grid modernization study. The goal should not be to tinker around the edges of current law and policy, but to draft a new and better approach from the ground up. (For a great discussion of why we need this study and what it should look like, see Tom Hadwin’s blogpost from last week.)

Meanwhile, legislators should promise their constituents that they will never again allow a public utility to write our energy laws and force through massive and complex changes over the course of a few weeks of the legislative session. Next time Dominion offers a pig in a poke, the answer should be no.