Latest news with #VirginiaCleanEconomyAct
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The war on woke…energy?
An electrical substation near Imboden, Va. (Sarah Vogelsong/Virginia Mercury) I've been thinking a lot about language lately, and the strange way words that used to mean good things are now attacked as bad, and vice-versa. Diversity, equity and inclusion are radioactive. Mentioning environmental justice or climate change will get your federal program canceled. Coal is clean, even beautiful, and pointing out the connection to global warming makes you an alarmist, because speaking up when your government steers you towards disaster is now a bad thing to do. Recently I received an email excoriating 'woke' energy policy, which seemed especially curious. I can see how awareness of historic racial injustice against Black people might nudge policy makers into greater support for renewable energy, given that pollution from fossil fuels tends to have a disparate impact on communities of color. But judging from the hostile tone of the email, I believe we may have different understandings of wokeness. Sometimes, though, words mean different things to different people without anyone realizing they aren't using the same definition. That may be the case when Virginia leaders talk about the reliability of the electricity supply. Everyone agrees reliability is critical – but they may not be talking about the same thing. We suspected data centers were creating an energy crisis for Virginia. Now it's official. Virginia's need for power is growing at a terrific pace. Data centers consume so much electricity that our utilities can't keep up, causing them to increase imports from out of state. That's okay for now; West Virginia is not a hostile foreign nation. Also, Virginia is a member of a larger grid, the 13-state (plus D.C.) PJM Interconnection, which manages thousands of generating facilities to ensure output matches demand across the region. But even across this wider area, demand is increasing faster than supply, pushing up prices and threatening a shortfall. Unless we tell data centers to go elsewhere, we need more generation, and fast. Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to increase the power supply. Democrats remain committed to the Virginia Clean Economy Act, which requires Virginia's electricity to decarbonize by 2050. Meeting the VCEA's milestones requires investments in renewable energy and storage, both to address climate change and to save ratepayers from the high costs of coal and fracked gas. Gov. Glenn Youngkin and members of his party counter that fossil fuels are tried-and-true, baseload sources of energy. They advocate abandoning the VCEA and building more gas plants, arguing that renewable energy just isn't reliable. Note that these Republicans are not alarmists, so they ignore climate change. If they were the proverbial frog in a pot of water on the stove, they would consider it a point of pride that they boiled to death without acknowledging the reason. Youngkin takes every chance he gets to slam the VCEA. As I've previously described, the governor sought to amend various energy-related legislation to become VCEA repeal bills, regardless of the original subject matter or how much good it could do. With vetoes and destructive amendments, Youngkin acts to deepen Virginia's energy woes Last month, Youngkin's Director of the Department of Energy sent a report on performance-based utility regulation to the State Corporation Commission. With it was a cover letter that had nothing to say about performance-based regulation, but a lot to say about the big, bad VCEA. The letter insists that 'By all models, VCEA is unable to meet Virginia's growing energy demand' and urges the SCC to 'prioritize ratepayer affordability and grid reliability over long-term VCEA compliance.' Unfortunately for the Youngkin administration, affordability hasn't been an argument in favor of fossil fuels for many years now. A new solar farm generates a megawatt of electricity more cheaply than a new fossil gas plant, and that will still be true even if Congress revokes renewable energy subsidies – though doing so will make electricity less affordable. The argument from fossil fuel defenders then becomes that the cheapest megawatt is not a reliable megawatt. And that's where meaning matters. Reliability is so important that even the decarbonization mandate of the VCEA contains an important exception: a utility can build fossil fuel generation under certain circumstances, if it is the only way to keep the lights on. Dominion Energy is relying on this escape clause as it seeks regulatory approval to build new fossil gas combustion turbines on the site of an old coal plant in Chesterfield. The move is opposed by local residents, environmental justice advocates and climate activists. (No word on whether they are alarmists or simply alarmed.) They argue Dominion hasn't met the conditions set out in the VCEA to trigger the escape clause, including achieving energy efficiency targets and proving it can't meet its needs with renewable energy, energy storage and demand response programs. Virginia Republicans not only side with Dominion on this, they increasingly favor building gas plants over renewables as a general matter, urging the reliability point. It's an argument that never made much sense for me, given that renewables make up only 5% of PJM's electricity. That's way less than the national average of over 21%, and other grids aren't crashing right and left. The light bulb went off for me while I was watching the May meeting of the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation. A PJM representative showed a chart of how the grid operator assigns numbers to different resources according to how they contribute to the electricity supply. Nuclear plants get the highest score because they run constantly, intermittent wind and solar sources get lower scores, with fossil fuel plants in the middle. PJM calls that a reliability score. For some Republicans, that's a slam-dunk: the chart proves renewable energy is unreliable. But in spite of its label, the chart doesn't actually measure reliability; it gives points for availability, which is not the same thing. As I once heard a solar installer testify, few things are as reliable as the sun rising every morning (or rather, the earth rotating). With modern weather forecasting, grid operators can predict with great precision how much electricity from solar they can count on at any given time from solar facilities arrayed across the region. Solar energy is highly reliable, even though it is not always available. Add storage, and the availability issue is also resolved. Obviously, the grid would not be reliable if solar were the only resource operators had to work with. But it isn't. PJM calls on a mix of different sources, plus storage facilities and demand response, to ensure generation precisely matches the peaks and valleys of demand. Reliability is a matter of keeping resources in sync and ensuring a robust transmission and distribution system. The threat to reliability today comes from the mad rush to connect new data centers. PJM has been roundly criticized for not approving new generating and storage facilities' connection to the grid at a fast enough pace to keep up with the increase in demand and retirements of old, money-losing fossil fuel plants. Scrambling to recover, recently it decided to prioritize a smaller number of big, new gas plants over the thousands of megawatts of renewable energy and storage still languishing on its waiting list. Meanwhile, PJM wants utilities to keep operating coal plants even though it will make electricity less affordable and violate state climate laws. In this it is joined by the Trump administration, which wants to require utilities to keep running coal plants explicitly to support the coal industry. Analysts say this is the wrong way to achieve reliability. A recent report from the consulting firm Synapse estimates that PJM's approach will raise residential electricity bills by 60% by 2036-2040. By contrast, reforming its interconnection process and enabling more renewable energy and storage to come online would lower bills by 7%. By Synapse's calculation, Virginia would see the most savings of any state. In other words, Virginia Republicans are pursuing reliability the wrong way. Instead of pressuring Democrats to back away from the VCEA, they ought to be pressuring PJM to reform its approach. Reliable power doesn't have to be expensive, if you take the politics out of it. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Youngkin vetoes clean energy bills supported by Dominion, environmental groups
The Virginia House of Delegates gather during the reconvene session on April 2. (Photo by Charles Paullin/Inside Climate News) RICHMOND, Va.–Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed two bills for the development of small solar projects and energy storage that had won bipartisan votes and support from Dominion Energy, environmental groups and farm and forestry representatives. The bills would have encouraged private homes and companies to initiate solar projects and bolstered the existing utility's efforts to capture electricity from renewable sources for later use. Dominion said in April, in an application to purchase electricity from third-party suppliers, that enhanced solar production and its own plans to store electricity would result in billions of dollars of fuel savings through 2035. Youngkin has described himself as an 'all-of-the-above' energy supporter with plans to support fossil fuel sources as well as renewable technologies. Critics said the vetoes last week raise questions about his commitment to clean energy and illustrate his disdain for the state's landmark decarbonization law, the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). The Republican governor, enthusiastic about the development of data centers in the state, has in the past year supported a proposed natural gas peaker plant and renewable sources to encourage such development. But Youngkin rejected the current legislation over his concern that ratepayers for existing utilities, which are reliant on fossil fuel, would bear in part the cost of increased solar production, according to a statement released Tuesday. 'He does not support legislation that puts rate payers at risk,' Peter Finocchio, Youngkin's press secretary, said in an email. Regarding battery storage efforts, Youngkin said that he was relying on market forces. 'Long-duration energy storage is an expensive technology and if utilities believed it to be the best technology to meet demand, they would actively be seeking permission to build them. We must be vigilant to limit cost increases to Virginia's residents,' he said in a 'veto explanation' released on a state website. Josephus Allmond, a staff attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the governor's action fit a pattern. For months, Youngkin has supported legislation to weaken the VCEA or completely repeal it, he said. 'I think the amendments just show who he truly is: not an 'all-of-the-above' guy. He just doesn't like clean energy,' Allmond said. 'It's disappointing that the governor chose to engage with [the energy legislation] in such an unserious way. We thought we had good meetings.' Dominion Energy spokesperson Aaron Ruby did not respond to requests for comment. Legislation sponsored by Del. Katrina Callsen (D-Charlottesville) and Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-Henrico) would have increased small solar projects to further diversify the state's energy mix. 'Regrettably, Governor Youngkin's veto indicates a prioritization of political motives aligned with Washington rather than the interest of Virginians,' Callsen said in a statement. The VCEA, passed in 2020, mandates that Dominion and Appalachian Power Company have carbon-free energy portfolios within three decades. The state utility regulator oversees an evolving system of credits that encourages utilities to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy production. Beginning in 2021, Dominion was required to obtain renewable energy credits, equaling a percentage of its electricity sales, from renewable energy sources. Dominion satisfied its annual credit requirement, including a 1 percent stipulation for small solar projects, according to a 2023 regulatory filing. Callsen and VanValkenburg's bill aimed to increase credit payments toward small solar projects and, in turn, generate such projects. Under the bill, Dominion would have been required by 2028 to pay 5 percent in renewable energy credits for small solar projects. From 2029 through 2031, and every three years after, the state utility regulator would have set the energy credits levels for utilities. The bill also considered some broader solar aims for Virginia. It sought more commercial solar projects, capable of providing up to 3 megawatts of electricity each, to comprise 1,100 megawatts in total. Those projects by private developers would contribute to the overall goal of 16,100 megawatts in solar power across the state by 2035. Solar projects planned for brownfields, including landfills and former industrial sites that are underutilized, would have been required to have a capacity for 600 megawatts, tripling the current 200-megawatt minimum. Dominion Energy, which supplies electricity in parts of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, supported the expansion of home solar users in part because the utility could benefit. The bill would have extended a deadline for Dominion to recover costs for its strategic program to install distribution lines underground from 2028 to 2032, and delayed a demand for Dominion to recover deficiency payments, or penalties for shortfalls in obtaining credits, from ratepayers. The utility expects an offshore wind project to be operational in 2026, which would offset its credit payments. Youngkin, in his veto memo, balked at the renewable credit plan. Customers would likely have to bear the cost of Dominion's renewable payments, he said, equalling billions of dollars over 10 years. Allmond, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said Youngkin's cost numbers were inflated and ignored the benefits of new renewable sources, 'including lower fuel costs.' 'If you actually look at those benefits and put it in context—Dominion customers will pay over $20B for fossil fuel costs alone over the next decade,' Allmond said in an email. 'That number … does not include the health costs that those fossil fuels impose on the communities in which they are combusted.' Clean energy industry representatives saw the veto as a lost chance. The bills would have increased an individual's options for solar at home—by adding rooftop panels—and ease the overall demand in the state, said Jim Purekal, a director at Advanced Energy United, a national trade organization that represents clean-energy companies. 'If I'm putting solar panels on my house, I'm not charging Joe down the road for the solar panels. I'm paying for the solar panels,' Purekal said. 'The energy that I'm generating off of the solar panels, I'm contributing to the grid. I'm not asking for Joe to pay for my solar panels, I'm just asking Joe to pay for the electricity that I'm providing to the grid.' There are costs to changing the energy landscape, but time eases the burden, according to a recent report by the federal Energy Information Administration. 'Distributed generation systems often cost more per unit of capacity than utility-scale systems,' it said in a 2024 report, but noted that savings would follow. 'Cost reductions are expected to continue in the coming years as component markets stabilize, component efficiencies continue to improve, customers and developers take advantage of federal and state incentives, and developers achieve economies of scale through alternative sales strategies,' the report said. The second veto affected an energy storage and distribution bill, joint legislation from Del. Rip Sullivan (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Lamont Bagby (D-Richmond). Their bill would have almost doubled traditional battery facility targets for Dominion as well as Appalachian Power Co., which serves a million customers in West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. Dominion's goal for battery storage facilities would have increased to 5,220 megawatts from 2,700 megawatts. Appalachian Power's goal would have risen to 780 megawatts, from 400. The bill would have also created long-duration energy storage targets so that electricity could be dispatched over a 10- to 24-hour period, including when sunshine and wind are not available. Sullivan described the veto as dismissive of clean energy and the VCEA: 'The governor just couldn't bring himself to do the right thing for Virginia.' 'Instead of signing 2537, or even suggesting to us constructive changes, which of course we'd have entertained,' Sullivan said, 'he has used it to give the Clean Economy Act one last sort of derisive swipe at the back of his hand as he prepares to walk out the door toward his next campaign.' Virginia's utility regulator, the State Corporation Commission, had approved Dominion's proposed construction of long-duration energy storage facilities in 2024. On April 15, Dominion was approved to purchase electricity from third-party storage suppliers. In its application leading to the regulator's approval in April, Dominion said its plan for a combination of solar and the storage projects would 'result in fuel savings of approximately $6.6 billion over the period of 2022 through 2035. Fuel savings for the full lives of all resources in this Development Plan which extend through 2073 are approximately $118.5 billion.' Tension over the VCEA has percolated for years. Youngkin has called the VCEA a 'quagmire,' and Republicans have derided the VCEA as a force that will increase electricity costs. Environmental groups have consistently played defense to prevent weakening of zero-carbon goals. Beyond the vetoes, Youngkin approved a bill from Sen. Ghazala Hashmi (D-Richmond) and Rep. Phil Hernandez (D-Norfolk) to expand a 'virtual power plant' pilot program to be designed by the state regulator. The program would allow ratepayers to agree to share electricity with utilities during peak strains on the system. Utilities then would draw electricity from home or business battery storage devices and adjust on-site smart thermostats to ease demand on the electric grid. Angela Navarro, a former State Corporation Commission judge who has since opened up her own energy policy law firm, said thousands of customers could participate and help cope with electricity demand and their own energy costs. 'It's expensive to provide power during those peak events,' Navarro said. 'There's scarcity on the grid. You are providing value, you are alleviating some of that scarcity and therefore you should be compensated for it.' This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News (hyperlink to the original story), a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Appalachian Power's effort to undermine rooftop solar meets stiff opposition
(Photo by) Virginia's investor-owned utilities thought 2025 would be the year they put an end to net metering – and with it, rooftop solar installers' modest competition with their monopoly.. The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) removed many barriers that residents and businesses installing solar panels under the state's net metering law had faced, but it also called for the State Corporation Commission to reevaluate the program, beginning right about now. Not surprisingly, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power are seizing this opportunity to push for changes that would undermine the economic calculus supporting customer-owned solar. Since at least 2007, Virginia law has required that customers of Dominion and APCo who have solar panels on their property be credited for surplus electricity they supply to the grid at the same retail rate they pay for electricity. The credit is applied against the cost of the electricity the customer draws from the grid at times when the panels aren't generating, reducing what they owe on their electric bill. But now that they have the chance, both utilities have filed proposals to end net metering. Both essentially propose to charge new solar customers the full retail rate for the electricity they draw from the grid (with Dominion using a more complicated half-hour 'netting'), but compensate them for electricity fed to the grid only at the utility's 'avoided cost,' or what it pays to buy electricity from other generators. By law, existing customers and new low-income customers with solar would be unaffected. Appalachian Power Company requests reduction to pay rate for net-metering solar customers APCo calculates avoided cost as the wholesale cost of energy and capacity, plus transmission and ancillary services, for a total of less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Thus, a homeowner with solar panels would now pay the full retail rate of about 17 cents/kWh for electricity drawn from the grid, while being credited at less than one-third that amount for electricity put back on the grid. Dominion's approach instead pegs avoided cost to what it pays for solar generation and associated renewable energy certificates (RECs) bought from certain small producers under power purchase agreements, an average of about 9.5 cents/kWh. Dominion's residential rate currently averages about 14 cents/kWh, but would go up to more than 16 cents if its latest rate increase request is granted. The VCEA gave APCo the first swing at the piñata. APCo filed its proposal in September, and the SCC will hold an evidentiary hearing on May 20. Dominion only filed its petition last week, and no hearing date has been set yet. Not surprisingly, APCo's proposal generated fierce opposition from advocates and solar installers. They point out that it's hard enough to make the economics of home solar work with net metering at the retail rate; slashing the compensation for electricity returned to the grid by more than one-third, as Dominion proposes, or two-thirds, as APCo wants, would make solar a losing proposition for most homeowners. Maybe economies of scale and other factors would allow the market for commercial solar to survive under Dominion's program, though Dominion's insistence on confiscating customers' RECs won't make anyone happy. If solar owners definitely lose under APCo's plan, advocates say other ratepayers don't necessarily win. A homeowner's surplus generation travels only the short distance to the nearest neighbor, lessening the need for the utility to generate and transmit power to meet the neighbor's demand. Since the utility charges that neighbor the regular retail rate for the electricity, without having to bring it from somewhere else, the utility saves on transmission costs. On top of that, the surplus solar comes in during the day, when demand is typically higher than at night and electricity is more costly, making solar more valuable to the utility. Plus, it is clean and renewable, and the customer bears all the cost and risk of the investment. Utilities do not share this rosy view. By their way of thinking, solar customers use the grid as free energy storage and backup power, without paying their fair share of grid costs. Not only does this deprive the utility of revenue, but those grid costs now have to be spread out among the remaining customers. This, they say, creates a cost shift from solar owners to everyone else. More than a decade ago, Virginia took tentative steps towards resolving the dispute, with the Department of Environmental Quality setting up a stakeholder group to work towards a 'value of solar' analysis. The process was never completed — the utilities walked away from the table when it appeared the results weren't going to be what they wanted, and the group's work product did not include numeric values or policy recommendations. Virginia is hardly alone in navigating these clashing narratives. Other states and regulators have arrived at very different conclusions as to the 'correct' value of distributed solar to utilities, ratepayers, and society as a whole. States like Maryland kept net metering after a value of solar analysis concluded the benefits outweighed the costs. On the other hand, California famously ended its net metering program in 2022 when solar comprised almost 20% of electricity generated in the state and created a mid-day surplus without enough storage to absorb it; at the time, 45% of that solar was distributed. That same year, however, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed an unpopular bill that would have phased out net metering in the state. The experience of other states, combined with an abundance of research and analysis conducted over the years, gives the SCC a lot to work with as it considers the fate of net metering for APCo's customers this year, and later for Dominion's. Will Virginia's residential solar market survive the coming year? Countering the arguments of the utility's hired witnesses, solar industry and environmental organizations have weighed in on the APCo docket with testimony from experts with nationwide experience. The experts pointed out a range of errors and omissions in the utility's work product. They also presented their own benefit-cost analyses demonstrating a value for distributed solar in excess of the retail price of electricity, using tests often applied to energy efficiency and demand-response programs. Perhaps even more significantly, SCC staff also filed an analysis that found many of the same problems with APCo's proposal, including failures to comply with statutory requirements. The staff report did not include a quantitative analysis, but it urged the importance of considering benefits that APCo had ignored. Like the intervenors, staff recommended the commission reject APCo's plan and retain its net metering program as it is, at least for now. Although the staff report would seem likely to carry weight with the commissioners, it's never easy to predict what the SCC will do in any case before it. But in Virginia, unlike California, distributed solar makes up vanishingly little of total electric generation. Even taking the utilities' arguments at face value, it seems foolish to upend this small but important market to remedy a perceived harm that is, at least for now, more theoretical than real. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
With vetoes and destructive amendments, Youngkin acts to deepen Virginia's energy woes
Gov. Glenn Youngkin took action on more than 900 pieces of legislation Monday. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury) This year's General Assembly session notably failed to produce legislation addressing the widening gap between electricity demand and supply in Virginia. Legislators shied away from measures that would address the growing demand from data centers, but they also couldn't bring themselves to improve the supply picture by supporting landowners who want to host solar facilities. By the time the session ended, a mere handful of bills had passed that could improve our ability to meet demand. Still, the initiatives that did pass offered positive steps forward on energy efficiency, distributed generation, interconnection of rooftop solar, energy storage, EV charging and utility planning. In addition, two data center-related bills passed requiring more planning and transparency during the local permitting process and tasking utilities with developing a demand response program to relieve some of the added burden on the grid. Governor unleashes veto storm to drown progressive legislation Sadly, however, Republican Gov. Glen Youngkin decided to use his powers of veto and amendment to water down or scuttle the limited (and mostly bipartisan) progress legislators made. The only two data center bills were effectively killed, as were most energy bills – some by veto, others by amendments that made them worse than no action at all. There's nothing very subtle going on here. The governor loves data centers and isn't about to limit their growth, regardless of the consequences to residential ratepayers and communities. He's also stuck in a rut of attacking the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which prioritizes low-cost renewable energy over legacy fossil fuels. He won't be in office when the chickens come home to roost in the form of an electricity shortfall and skyrocketing rates, but he's setting up his party to cast blame on the liberal climate agenda. The General Assembly failed to pass legislation that would have shifted responsibility for sourcing clean energy onto the data center operators. The only bill to pass that even makes energy a consideration in the siting of data centers is HB 1601, sponsored by Del. Josh Thomas, D-Gainesville. In addition to site assessment provisions at the permitting stage, it requires the utility serving the facility to describe any new electric generating units, substations and transmission voltage that would be required. Facing data center sprawl and an energy crisis, Virginia lawmakers leap into action. Just kidding. Limited as these provisions are, the governor proposed amendments to further weaken the bill, then added a clause requiring that for the bill to take effect, it has to be passed all over again in 2026. That's a veto by another name. SB 1047 from Sen. Danica Roem, D-Manassas, requires utilities to implement demand-response programs for customers with a power demand of more than 25 MW, a way of relieving grid constraints during times of high demand. The governor vetoed the bill, deeming it unnecessary. The only data center-related bill that did get the governor's approval is one of questionable utility. HB 2084 from Del. Irene Shin, D-Herndon, merely requires the SCC to use its existing authority during a regular proceeding sometime in the next couple of years to determine whether Dominion and Appalachian Power are using reasonable customer classifications in setting rates, and if not, whether new classifications are reasonable. The SCC seems to be doing this already anyway, but maybe this lets our leaders claim they are doing something to protect residential ratepayers. Plus, they can now call it a bipartisan effort! With Virginia fixed on a collision course between growing demand for energy from data centers and our leaders' refusal to support low-cost solar to provide the power, it is more important than ever that our utilities engage in transparent and comprehensive planning through the integrated resource plans (IRPs) filed with the State Corporation Commission. Over the course of last fall, the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation hammered out what I think is truly good legislation to ensure Dominion and APCo present the information the SCC and the public need to be sure our utilities are making the decisions that will improve our energy position and put the needs of ratepayers ahead of corporate profits. In vetoing SB 1021 from Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, and HB 2413 from Del. Candi Munyon-King, D-Dumfries, the governor offered this muddled statement: 'The State Corporation Commission has the expertise and the authority to make requirements and changes to the integrated resource plan process. The Virginia Clean Economy Act is failing Virginia and those that champion it should stop trying to buttress this failing policy. But rather should be focused on procuring the dependable power needed to meet our growing demand through optimizing for reliability, affordability, and increasingly clean power generation.' We get it: Johnny One-Note doesn't like the VCEA. He said that already. But right now, APCo isn't filing IRPs at all, and the SCC has been so frustrated with Dominion's filings that it didn't approve the last one, and demanded a supplement to the most recent one even before it was filed. Clearly the SCC could use a little help here. Advocates for small-scale solar were more successful this year than their colleagues who focus on utility-scale projects. Bipartisan majorities seemed to agree that if we can't or won't site large solar farms, at least we should make it easier to put solar on rooftops and other small sites close to users. Utility regulator recommends suspension of Dominion's rules for connecting new solar to grid Sadly, however, only one bill survived the governor's scrutiny relatively unscathed, though it's an important one for customer-sited solar. HB 2266 from Del. Kathy Tran, D-Springfield, resolves the interconnection dispute that has stalled commercial solar projects in the 250 kW to 3 MW size range, which includes most rooftop solar on schools. Tran's bill requires the SCC to approve upgrades to the distribution system that utilities say are needed to accommodate grid-connected solar, a safeguard that will prevent the utility from larding on costs. The utility must then spread the costs across all projects that benefit from the expanded capacity. Youngkin's proposed amendment rearranges the language a bit and places it into a new section of code, but does not otherwise change it. He then adds a provision in the tax code to make grid upgrades tax-deductible. I would have thought they would be anyway, as business expenses, but it can only be helpful to spell it out. Unfortunately, that's it for the good news. HB 1883 from Del. Katrina Callsen, D-Charlottesville, and SB 1040 from Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Richmond, contain several provisions aimed at increasing the amount of distributed solar in Virginia. Among other things, the legislation increases the percentage of Dominion's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) obligation that must be met with renewable energy certificates (RECs) from behind-the-meter small solar projects, a change that would make rooftop and other distributed solar more profitable for homeowners and businesses. HB 1883 also increases to 3 MW from 1 MW the size of solar projects that could qualify for this favored category. Additionally, for the first time it would give all residential ratepayers the right to use power purchase agreements (PPAs) to install solar with no money down, and would increase the amount of electricity Dominion would build or buy from solar facilities on previously developed project sites. To give the market a chance to ramp up, Callsen's bill excuses Dominion from having to meet its REC obligations from Virginia projects for an additional two years, pushing that date from this year to 2027. Among all those changes, the only one the governor liked is the idea of softening the requirements around REC purchases. His proposed amendment would make all REC compliance voluntary for four years. Effectively, Virginia would have no renewable energy requirements until 2028, undercutting solar development of any size. His preferred version scraps all of the provisions of Callsen's bill, leaving no provisions to support solar development and replacing them with an open attack on the VCEA. I checked in with Callsen by email to get her reaction. She responded, 'We sent the administration bipartisan legislation that protects ratepayers, gives Virginians more options for solar on our homes and businesses, and saves rural land. Rather than sign HB 1883 into law,' Callsen wrote, 'the governor used this opportunity to attack the Clean Economy Act from 2020. Instead of looking at the past, our Administration should look around; we have a developing energy crisis and are reliant on importing energy to meet our needs.' The governor also offered a destructive amendment to HB 2346 from Del. Phil Hernandez, D-Norfolk, and SB 1100 from Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, legislation establishing a pilot program in Dominion territory for virtual power plants (VPPs), which aggregate customer solar and storage resources and demand response capabilities. Although VPPs don't by themselves add electricity on the grid, they allow time-shifting and other efficiencies that make it easier for utilities to meet peak demand without having to build new generation. The payments utilities make to customers for this service can justify customers' investments in things like solar, battery storage and smart appliances. Instead of improving on the pilot program, however, the governor's amendment scraps it and calls for the SCC to convene a proceeding to talk about VPPs. On the plus side, Youngkin suggests that the conversation include Appalachian Power as well as Dominion, and consider allowing the service to be provided by either the utilities or third-party aggregators, the latter being the favored approach of many industry members. Still, the amendment pushes off any hope of a program for at least another year, until the SCC has made its recommendations. Since it would have been feasible to both start a pilot program this year and have the SCC consider parameters for a broader program in the future, it's hard to see the governor's amendment as a step forward. When I asked her for a comment, Hashmi did not mince words, saying it was 'incredibly disappointing' that Youngkin chose to offer a substitute instead of signing the legislation. 'This legislation was the result of several months of conversation among a variety of stakeholders, including our utility companies, energy partners, and environmental groups. The Virtual Power Plant has the promise of helping Virginia meet the goals of our increasing energy demands. The Governor's substitute shows that he is not serious about responding to the growth of Virginia's energy needs,' Hashmi wrote. Other solar bills drew outright vetoes, including Munyon King's HB 2356, establishing an apprenticeship program to help develop a clean energy workforce. The bill requires participants to be paid prevailing wages, a provision that was a certain veto magnet for Youngkin, whose veto statement reads, 'This bill will increase the construction costs which will ultimately be passed along to ratepayers, raising costs for consumers.' Another bill that drew an outright veto was HB 2037 from Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax. His bill would allow local governments to include in their land development ordinances a requirement that certain non-residential applicants install solar on a portion of a parking lot. The governor vetoed it because, he said, it would be expensive for developers, and if it weren't, they would do it without having to be told. (It's a strange objection. Does he not understand the whole concept of government acting in the public good? Well, maybe not; see the veto.) Also vetoed was Shin's HB 2090, changing the rules around multifamily solar. Admittedly I was not crazy about this bill; although it allows solar facilities to be placed on nearby commercial buildings instead of being restricted to the multifamily building itself, it also imports the requirement for minimum bills that has made other shared solar programs in Virginia unworkable for all but the low-income customers who are excused from the minimum bills. Maybe the trade-off would have opened new opportunities for apartment buildings serving low-income households, which would make it a plus on balance. But among his objections to HB2090, the governor noted that excusing low-income customers from high minimum bills would shift costs onto other customers. The governor vetoed SB 1342 from Sen. Lamont Bagby, D-Richmond, and HB 2744 from Del. Mark Sickles, D-Franconia, that would have pushed Dominion and APCo harder to provide energy efficiency upgrades to low-income homes, setting a target of 30% of qualifying households. He also vetoed SB 777 from Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, and HB 1935 from Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling, D-Richmond, which would have established a task force to address the needs of low-income customers for weatherization and efficiency upgrades. The governor said it isn't needed. If you notice a pattern here when it comes to helping low-income households with their energy burden, you are not alone. Reached on maternity leave, LeVere Bolling had this to say: 'Across our Commonwealth, high utility bills are forcing Virginians to choose between essentials like groceries and medication and keeping their home at a safe temperature during hot summers and cold winters. Virginia has the 10th least affordable residential energy bills in the country. Over 75% of Virginia households have an energy burden higher than the 6% affordability threshold.' She added that the governor's veto represents a 'missed opportunity to address the pressing energy needs of Virginia's most vulnerable communities.' The governor offered a substitute for a bill intended to support electric vehicle charging. As passed by the General Assembly, Shin's HB 2087 requires Dominion and APCo to file detailed plans to 'accelerate transportation electrification,' including for rural areas and economically disadvantaged communities. It also allows the utilities to file proposed tariffs with the SCC to supply the distribution infrastructure necessary for EV charging stations. The utilities are also authorized to develop their own fast-charging stations, but only at a distance from privately-owned charging stations, with the SCC determining the proper distance. This provision responds to the request of gas station chains like Sheetz that say they want to expand their EV charging options, but don't want to face unfair competition from utilities that can rate-base their investments. The governor's amendment would prohibit Dominion and APCo from owning EV charging stations at all; in addition, it would allow retail providers of EV charging stations to buy electricity from any competitive service provider. However, the amendment repeals the section of code that allows the utilities to recover costs of investments in transportation electrification. According to Steve Banashek, EV legislative lead with the Virginia Sierra Club, that 'negates the purpose of the enrolled bill.' The amendment, he told me in an email, 'removes the requirement for utilities to file for tariffs to support implementation of EV charging and to plan for transportation electrification growth via the IRP process, which is critical for speeding up the transition to electric transportation.' As for the prohibition on the utilities owning charging stations, Banashek noted that there are areas of the state where private businesses aren't likely to do it, including in those economically disadvantaged and rural communities. If we don't want these areas left behind, either the utilities have to step up, or the state does. Apparently, however, Youngkin doesn't intend for the state to do it either. Along with his amendments to Shin's bill, the governor also vetoed HB 1791 from Sullivan, creating a fund to support EV charging in rural areas of the state. The need for more energy storage seems like it would be one area of bipartisan consensus. Batteries and other forms of energy storage are critical to filling in the generation gaps for low-cost, intermittent forms of energy like wind and solar. But storage is also required to make full use of baseload sources like nuclear that either can't be ramped down at times when there is a surplus of energy being produced, or where doing so makes it harder to recover the cost of building the generation. (The already-high projected cost of electricity from small modular nuclear reactors becomes even higher if you assume they don't run when the power isn't needed.) Sullivan's HB 2537 increases the energy storage targets for Dominion and APCo, and includes new targets for long-duration energy storage. Unfortunately, Youngkin's substitute language repeals the entire section of code that includes Virginia's renewable portfolio standard as well as even the existing storage targets. It's another bit of anti-VCEA flag-waving that won't help anyone. Just in case you thought Youngkin might be adhering to conservative free market principles with some kind of consistency, I note that he signed HB 2540 and SB 1207 from two Republicans, Del. Danny Marshall of Danville and Sen. Tammy Brankley Mulchi of Clarksville, which provides a $60 million grant to a manufacturer of lithium-ion battery separators. I asked Sullivan for a comment on the governor's action on his bill. He replied, 'The Governor's ridiculous 'recommendation' on HB 2537 was disappointing, but hardly surprising. This was not an amendment; he deleted everything – everything – having to do with energy storage, and turned it into a one-sentence bill which would repeal the entire Clean Economy Act.' Moreover, wrote Sullivan, 'HB 2537 was the most closely and extensively negotiated bill among stakeholders that I've been involved with since the VCEA. It had broad support – including from Dominion – and should have easily fit into the Governor's 'all of the above' energy strategy and his economic development goals, since it would have brought all sorts of business, jobs, and companies to the Commonwealth.' Sullivan concluded, 'Needless to say, we cannot agree to the amendment. We'll easily pass this bill next session, and I suspect Governor Spanberger will sign it.' Sullivan may be right that it will take a new administration before Virginia gets serious about meeting its energy challenges – if it does even then – but this session needn't have ended in a partisan stalemate and near-zero progress. Most of the bills the governor vetoed or gutted were passed with the help of Republicans, making Youngkin's actions less of a rebuke to Democrats than to the members of his own party who were simply trying to do their job. The results, sadly, are bad for everyone. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
As power demand surges, Va. lawmakers seem ready to add more energy storage to the grid
Dominion Energy's Scott Storage and Solar facility in Powhatan County. (Courtesy of Dominion Energy) Virginia lawmakers want to more than triple the amount of energy storage capacity Virginia's two public utility companies — Dominion and Appalachian Power (ApCo) — must procure under the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). Passed in 2020, the VCEA required Dominion to supply electricity from only carbon-neutral sources by 2045. It gave ApCo until 2050 to meet the same standard. As part of its strategy to decarbonize the grid, the VCEA also set targets for public utilities to add capacity to store excess energy produced from renewable sources to dispatch during times of high demand. House Bill 2537 and companion Senate Bill 1394 would increase targets set by the VCEA for Dominion and ApCo energy storage capacity from a combined 3,100 megawatts to 10,000 megawatts. Del. Richard Sullivan, D-Fairfax, who proposed HB 2537, said more energy storage would bring down energy costs — which Dominion projects will rise by 50% for its residential customers by 2039 — and help maintain grid reliability. 'This will position the commonwealth as a real national leader in developing energy storage … reduces the need to develop peaker plants, and ensures the best use of renewable technologies,' Sullivan said. He added that increasing storage capacity 'ensures the lights stay on for constituents during natural weather events.' Sullivan's bill passed the House 54-44 along mostly partisan lines, with two members not voting. The Senate version, brought by Sen. Lamont Bagby, D-Henrico, passed unanimously, with a nearly 50-50 bipartisan split. The two bills now await further action in the other's chamber. Dominion has warned that to keep up with increased power demand, it may need to build up to eight natural gas peaker plants — designed to be used when needed during demand peaks — over the next 10 to 15 years. Last year, Dominion announced plans to build a peaker plant in Chesterfield but has faced opposition from community members and environmental activists who say the plant could stall Virginia's decarbonization mandates. Investments in energy storage have paid off in other states. In Texas, through record summer heat waves in 2023 and winter storms in 2024, energy storage systems saved the state $750 million in energy costs and prevented grid shutdowns, according to separate analyses by Aurora Energy, energy market research consultants, and Clean American Power, a clean energy industry lobby. Renewables and energy storage batteries make up half of Texas' energy mix, the Clean American Power report states. Republican lawmakers in Virginia's House are also concerned about rising energy costs but said investments to develop energy storage technology would mean additional costs to ratepayers. Del. Israel O'Quinn, R-Bristol, also took issue with VCEA requirements that public utilities pay penalties for not meeting clean energy goals, including battery storage requirements — costs that could be passed on to ratepayers. 'It's time we step back and take a holistic look at where we are as it relates to utility regulations — as it relates to the ratepayers who are depending on us to try to make good decisions here and control the costs that are within our control,' O'Quinn said. The bills require Dominion to apply for available federal Department of Energy grants to offset part of the development costs. Sullivan said investment in energy storage will bring future savings and is needed due to growing demand on the grid in Virginia. 'We must increase storage development so that renewable energy produced at times it may not be needed can be stored to be put on the grid at the most useful time,' he said. 'Investments in storage today will pay large dividends for ratepayers and grid stability for decades to come.' Under the VCEA, Dominion, Virginia's largest public utility, is required to procure at least 2,700 megawatts of energy storage capacity by the end of 2035. The utility's first interim goal is to petition the State Corporation Commission by the end of this year for approval to bring 250 megawatts of storage capacity online. Dominion says it is ahead on its year-end target and has petitioned the SCC for 557.1 megawatts of storage capacity, much of which is operational. One megawatt of storage capacity can power 250 homes at peak output, Dominion says. The utility's 557.1-megawatt storage portfolio includes projects in various stages of development. Across four facilities in Chesterfield, New Kent, Powhatan and Hanover, Dominion currently has 36 megawatts of battery energy storage capacity in operation, 16 megawatts of which pre-date the VCEA, so are not factored into Dominion's storage targets. Also factored into VCEA targets is an additional 78 megawatts of storage capacity in various stages of development at five facilities across Virginia, including a 50-megawatt facility at Dulles International Airport that when completed will be the largest storage facility in Dominion's fleet. Dominion acquired an additional 459.1 megawatts of capacity through power purchase agreements. In addition to increasing capacity requirements, the bills call on public utilities to acquire specific amounts of both short-duration and long-duration energy storage capacity. The bills define short-duration as less than 10 hours of generation, and long-duration as 10 or more hours. Differentiating between short- and long-duration storage in Virginia code ensures that short-duration batteries are deployed soon to meet current energy needs, while long-duration technologies are being improved and developed, says Bennett Fuson, a spokesperson for American Clean Power. 'We've primarily seen short duration energy storage, we haven't seen a significant roll-out of [long duration systems],' Fuson says. 'What we do know is having the resources to hold more power that's cheaply generated and dispatch it for longer periods of time to offset those costs does help … as we're thinking about that next generation of energy consumers.' If the new storage targets are adopted, Dominion would have a lot of catching up to do. By year-end 2045, Dominion would be required to petition the SCC to buy or purchase 3,480 megawatts of long-duration storage, half of which must be petitioned for by the end of 2035. And half of the 2045 long-duration energy storage target capacity would be required to supply more than 24 hours of power. The legislation would also establish short duration energy storage capacity targets for 2045 and interim targets. The SCC would have authority to determine the feasibility of the long duration energy storage targets and adjust the targets as needed. The SCC's assessment would be based on a demonstration of pilot projects by Dominion that show energy storage technologies of at least 3,000 megawatts in capacity by 2029. Adopting new targets would depend on factors such as cost and reliability. Dominion is working with energy storage developers to pilot three long duration storage projects, including two battery systems at its Darbytown Power Station in Chesterfield — one of which could potentially discharge energy for 100 hours, according to Dominion. But the pilots — a combined 12.3 megawatts — would make a very small dent in 2029 technology demonstration goals. Christine Noonan, a lobbyist for Dominion, says the legislation would give Dominion the opportunity to study long-duration energy storage, which 'could be an important tool for [grid] reliability going forward.' 'Ultimately, after that technology demonstration [in 2029] the commission will have full authority to agree with the targets set in the code or alter them up or down and we think that is the right approach,' Noonan adds. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
