Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The Virginia legislature just passed the Clean Economy Act. The Virginia CEA (VCEA):

• Mandates 100% clean electricity by 2045
  • the first mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in Commonwealth history
  • Will shut down must coal powered plants no later than 2030 and all fossil-fuel (including fossil gas) electricity no later than 2045
• Implicitly requires the use of social cost of carbon by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for future regulatory decisions
• Has real energy efficiency targets (in one of the least-energy efficiency states in the Union)
  • Has viable environmental justice elements, notably a meaningful allocation of energy efficiency resources for lower-income households

Hats off to those who have been fighting long and hard to get this bill written, negotiated and passed.

This is a huge change in a state that has been essentially ruled by the primary regulated utility, Dominion (which is now ‘just’ a very (if the most) powerful player on the table), who has concentrated, with laser-like focus, on profitability before efficiency, addressing climate change, and otherwise serving the public interest.

And, to be clear, this was made possible due to #BlueWaveVA2019 and Virginia Democrats having the trifecta: majorities in the House and Senate along with Governorship.  Elections have consequences.

Now, let’s be clear, the VCEA is far from perfect and far from comprehensive. It has many clauses favorable to polluters; could be more aggressive in timing; and does not cover the entire economy (just the electricity sector). It is an epitome of ‘progress — not perfection’. As Lowell Feld put it at Blue Virginia,

let me just emphasize that passing VCEA has to be only the start, NOT the end, of Virginia’s efforts at transitioning to a 100% clean energy economy and doing our part to fight the climate crisis. Thus, while VCEA addresses the power sector, it’s still not aggressive enough. Nor is it comprehensive enough, as it doesn’t really address the transportation sector, building sector, etc, etc. In other words, this is a great start, but there’s a LOT more work left to do. And let’s not forget that.

Today is a day to celebrate progress.

Tomorrow, we turn from celebration to figuring how to leverage this achievement for more progress in the days, months, and years to come.

To be clear, Virginia Democrats are making progress in many, many arenas

The 2020 legislative session might just be the busiest (most bills) and most significant legislative session in the Commonwealth’s history. The bill count is huge and there has been legislative action on a broad swath of issues that will impact people’s lives in quite tangible ways. This isn’t ‘just’ about energy. Amid the 1000s of pieces of legislation considered and 100s passed already, a moment to appreciate just one:

And, for just a taste (from weeks ago) of what Virginia’s elected Democrats are working on and getting done:

The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Virginia state government agencies do not mandate seat belts on school buses. School bus design, over the years, has focused on providing a safe space without seat belts.  School buses are already the safest form of road transportation in the United States and it is quite unclear, when one considers all the impacts, whether the sizable fiscal cost to have seat belts (or three point restraints) leads to increased safety.

Within the Dominion Electric School Bus (ESB) program is a requirement that all participating school systems accept seat belts if they want to participate in the ESB program. As far as can be seen, Dominion has provided no analytical basis for this requirement other than it aligns with their safety culture (even as Dominion’s work trucks and other vehicles have essentially nothing in common with school bus design, usage, and safety characteristics).

ESB legislation (HB75 and SB1096), being considered at this last minute in the Virginia legislature’s last hours, would put into law this restraint requirement.

F. Any school bus associated with an electric school bus project shall be equipped with an active lap-and-shoulder belt occupant restraint system for each designated passenger seating position.

While any parent (count me in on this) has an immediate ‘why aren’t there seat belts for my kids on the school bus’ gut reaction, there is — at best — very unclear analytical basis for this sort of mandate.

And, this is not a minor issue.  Adding “an active lap-and-shoulder belt occupant restraint system” will be in range of $10,000 more per each bus, will reduce the number of passengers per bus (thus perhaps increasing the numbers of buses), increase maintenance costs, and reduce bus usage efficiency.  With all those costs, at the end of the day, due to the complex set of interactions, the introduction of such restraints might not even save lives.

With about 17,000 buses for Virginia’s public K-12 schools plus thousands of private school buses, the ESB demonstration program’s two sentence line requiring restraint systems could end up creating a 200 million bill for Virginia’s public schools. Again, a $200M requirement that might not serve the interest of providing safer transportation for Virginia’s children.

To summarize:

• Neither the US Department of Transportation nor the Commonwealth of Virginia have a requirement for school bus seat belts/passenger restraints.
• Dominion is requiring them as part of the ESB program without a public policy analysis to justify this.
• This Dominion requirement would create roughly a $200 million (if not greater) additional acquisition cost for school buses across the Commonwealth.
• The Legislature faces a question: should a private entity drive its decision-making about public investments.
• This is a quite complex arena with uncertainty as to whether school bus seat belts pass any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. It is, when all factors are considered, unclear that school bus seat passenger restraints end up in an overall safer transportation system (especially if one considers opportunity costs and other investments to improve safety/reduce risks).

Rather than mandating restraints within the ESB demonstration program, the legislature should mandate a Virginia Department of Education and Department of Transportation study to assess available school bus seat belt cost-benefit analyses so that legislators can consider the issue in the 2021 session.

To be clear, the assessment and cost-benefit analysis might well find the $200M investment to be fully justified. Amid the reality that school system resources are stretched, creating such a mandate without basic due diligence should not happen.

The legislative session is about to close in Richmond. Lawmakers are working late hours. Deals are being cut. Good bills are being left on the table amid the end of season rush. And …

Virginia is on the cusp of becoming a national leader in electric school buses (ESBs). Dominion has announced plans for a major program, en route to providing 100% ESBs in its service area, and has already initiated the first 50 ESBs with participating school districts. Governor Northam has taken portions of the VW diesel settlement fund for a small ESB demonstration program. The legislative session had multiple ESB bills in play.

At this time, the last one standing seems to be HB75 with Senate and House conferees announced earlier today.

Upfront, to be clear, even as it has weaknesses, this legislation should be supported.
It helps move Virginia down a better path
with multiple benefit streams.
It is progress, not perfection

Delegate Kory’s original HB75 might best be described as having been a legislating of Dominion’s desired program. Since then it has been amended in ways that could enable local school districts to wrest some power away from Dominion but which likely will leave Dominion in the driver’s seat.

In short, HB75 would enable Dominion (the Commonwealth’s sole “Phase II Utility”) to move forward with an ESB demonstration project as “in the public interest”. Defining it, in law, as “in the public interest” limits the State Corporation Commission’s ability to provide oversight and restrict Dominion’s charging of ratepayers for the program’s costs. The bill will enable Dominion to ask for rate adjustments relative to ESB program costs.

Let’s be clear, ESBs have tremendous benefits for the public across multiple domains from improved student health to reduce noise on the streets. For ratepayers, the ESBs will help foster a more resilient and better operating grid. Thus, ‘charging back’ to the ratepayers isn’t necessarily a bad thing and reducing the SCC’s ability to do a stove-piped analysis that only considers ratepayer interests is probably in the general interest of all Virginians.

Looking at this legislation, there are several oddities that merit questioning and at least one merits change even at the last moment by conferees:

• 40 Percent: The program is limited to a maximum of forty percent of school buses procured by involved school districts in any specific year. There is, well, simply no good justification for this. Consider some scenarios:
  • This is a structure mandating, in essence, that school districts can’t determine that they want to go 100% electric school buses and do so via this program.
  • What if the most sensible set of projects, one year, is a set of smaller school districts which are each buying a small number (10? 15?) of buses. The 40% would, it seems, preclude these smaller school districts from buying in reasonable scale.
  • Thus, conferees — cross out lines 46-49 creating a percentage limitation on any year’s projects.
• 2025 Sunset: The legislation (section [G]) sunsets the program as of 31 December 2025.
  • Sigh, when we should be mandating an accelerating path toward 100% ESBs, we are going mandate an end to the program? Really?
  • Honestly, what this really ties to is Dominion’s poorly structured plan for 200 ESBs per year through 2025 to then move to perhaps 1000 ESBs per year starting in 2026. That structure, honestly, is far from ideal nor is a legislating an end to the program.
  • However, 2025 is a long way away in electric vehicle years. The 2025 Sunset really is relatively meaningless as expanding and accelerating ESBs should (will) be part of the 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, … legislative cycles. Thus, conferees, please ignore any complaints about this sunsetting provision. ESB proponents will, in any event, be back again and again and …
• Absence of evaluation and reporting
  • HB75, as amended, has no provisions for assessing, evaluating, and reporting on ESB demonstration projects.
  • A simply reality, while it is clear that ESBs will provide significant (co)benefits, there is not truly robust understanding as to what these are and how significant they might be. As put in another discussion:

There are a wide range of issues surrounding ESB deployment and operations. Understandably, a ‘Facilities’ assessment will be stove-piped assessment of direct ‘facilities costs’ streams (acquisition (purchase), operations, and maintenance costs). However, ESB benefit streams go far beyond lowered fuel costs and reduced maintenance. They include reduced student exposure to diesel fumes (and thus reduced asthma and cancer rates), reduced absenteeism due to illnesses, reduced noise, reduced CO2 levels inside the bus, improved bus performance and safety, and other impacts with real implications for improved educational performance.

A simple truth: we don’t have a meaningful handle on these value streams. Without such an understanding, how can we determine whether and how fast to go electric?

It is possible that ESB educational performance implications, alone, could be significant enough to justify a significant acceleration of any ESB program.

• • The absence of an assessment requirement is a serious gap in the legislation. We don’t know what we don’t know. And, the legislation doesn’t provide guidance for filling the gaps in knowledge. As per above, the 2020 legislative session is far from the last time legislators will be dealing with ESBs. Created a learning process, to enabled more informed decision-making in the years to come, almost certainly would have tremendous value.
  • Conferees, if you can, consider adding in a statement requiring regular public reporting by involved entities (both the “Phase II Utility” and the involved school districts) with a requirement for the Virginia Department of Education to provide a consolidated ‘summary’ analytical report well prior (perhaps 1 October of each year) to the legislative session.

Is HB75 the electric school bus bill that the Virginia legislature could and should have fostered and passed? No.

Does HB75 merit passage as ‘progress’ (even as not perfection) toward safer, healthier, better performing, less polluting, and more user-friendly public school transportation? Absolutely.

UPDATE: In Richmond today:

Since November 2016, election after election has made clear that Democratic voters will crawl over broken glass to get to the polls to defeat Trump and #Cult45-enabling Republicans. Massive turnout and voters waiting up to seven hours to vote in many Super Tuesday primary states is the latest tangible sign of that.

One of the reasons for this is that Donald Trump is the epitome, a real-life version of the stereotype of the rather lunatic, self-centered, loud, and arrogantly ignorant Cranky Uncle to be put in a corner by himself at family events in hopes that his rantings and rudeness don’t blow the event.

George Mason University’s Center for Climate Communication research Assistant Professor John Cook has just published a book that should be useful in putting that Cranky Uncle into the corner — at least when it comes to the issue of climate science denialism (which is one of the (perhaps too numerous to mention) spaces of Trump’s worst Cranky Uncle ravings).

Now, for some quick background …

When it comes to climate and GMU, many are well aware of the Koch Brothers uber-funding of George Mason and the fostering of climate-science denialism and confusion within portions of the University. (A tip of the hat to UnKoch My Campus and Transparent GMU (T-GMU twitter) for their efforts to expose and fight this.)  At the same time that there is part of GMU that is a center for climate confusion fostering, the GMU Center for Climate Communication is a font of wisdom about key climate communication challenges and has done truly stellar work in some domains to foster improvements in how climate issues are communicated to the broad public. For example, this group has been central to and had some real success in a decade-long effort to engage and educate TV meteorologists about climate.

Cook is an Australian academic brought to GMU a few years ago. Perhaps without realizing it, you know of his work. He did (okay, was a key player in) the analytical work to show that at least (and, more recent work shows more than) 97% of the relevant world’s scientists agree with the consensus that (a) climate change is happening and (b) human actions are the primary cause of the global warming.

Less visible to most, Cook also is a key player in the website Skeptical Science, which seeks to identify, dissect, and provide the actual science to refute climate science denialism talking points. (For some of us, that work has provided a “Science Denialism by the Numbers” shorthand for summarizing inane comments from scientific luminaries like Cranky Uncle Donald.)  John is also the author of the Debunking Handbook. While focused on climate science issues, this short and thoughtful piece is extremely useful for dealing with ‘myth’ and falsehood busting. (I highly recommend it.) Unknowingly to me, until recently, Cook is also a cartoonist. He has now combined his specialization in tackling climate science denialism with that skill set.

With  Cranky Uncle vs Climate Change, Cook has provided an extremely digestible illustrated guide to the climate science denier tactics and arguments, how one can think about them, and how to engage with (or against) them.  (Or, well, how to engage them to influence and educate onlookers because that Cranky Uncle is unlikely to be convinced they are wrong and best kept in the corner.)

Now, rather than provide a full book review, I’d recommend Greg Laden’s excellent discussion.

This book gives us the whole ball of wax that is the science of climate science denial in a very funny, really well produced, and compelling wrapping. It will amuse you, and it will advise you. Your cranky uncle is done for.

Last evening, Cook held a book-release event at GMU’s Arlington Campus. Cook’s talk and the following question and answer session provided some richness as to how John became a foremost expert about dealing with (climate science) denial, the purpose and potential impact of the book, and the forthcoming Cranky Uncle app.

• A “Cranky Uncle” actually sparked John’s focus on refuting climate-science denialism.  John got a BS in physics and then, quite naturally, became a cartoonist.  This cartoonist’s father-in-law regularly spouted climate science talking points and, as per “what any nerdy, competitive son-in-law” would do, John pushed backed. And, to prove the “nerdy”, Cook put together a spreadsheet with the denialist truthiness-laden arguments and the debunking, with sourcing, of them. The father-in-law eventually gave John a book by a US Senator to ‘prove’ that global warming was a made up hoax.   This led Cook to realize that he wasn’t alone and that others might benefit from his debunking spreadsheet. That realization led to creating the valuable Skeptical Science site (which is, to be clear, far from just Dr. Cook but involves numerous climate scientists).
• Inoculation is the point.  Cognitive science research has shown that, like with a biological disease, the mind can be inoculated against illogical disinformation viruses.  An exposure to mild versions of the disinformation — along with making clear, in humorous ways the absurdity — can improve ‘resistance’ to the disinformation.  Amid a major cold snap, denialists will spout off jokes about ‘where’s global warming when you need it?’ The analogy to show it’s absurdity: nighttime proves that daylight doesn’t exist.

• Deniers FLICC us off.  Cook’s shorthand support of science deniers’ illogical is FLICC. They promote Fake experts; use Logical fallacies; create Impossible expectations; incessantly Cherry pick; and are tin-foil hat wearing Conspiracy theorists.  John hopes to educate about and inoculate against FLICC methods.  And, recognize that this is far from just climate science denial at play — these are all among gaslighting techniques. Cranky Uncle Trump and his co-conspiracists use FLICC about coronavirus, industrial pollution, (Trump campaign collusion with) Russian interference in U.S. elections, and so much more in their efforts to gaslight America.
• The developing Cranky Uncle app (should be available in June) will take this to a new level. A book and a lecture like last night’s are ‘passive’ inoculation paths.  Studies of gaming experiences show that they are active. Cook and collaborators are developing (with testing going on in university and high school classrooms) a Cranky Uncle app that rewards players for being a Cranky Uncle while educating them about the illogic of their argumentation. Testing, to date, indicates that this is providing some degree of inoculation against FLICC techniques that perhaps will extend well past an ability to fend off climate science denialism but to Cranky Uncle rantings and ravings across so many other issues.
• A key takeaway is the necessity to speak about climate change. A large majority of Americans recognize and are concerned about climate change. Due to the noise that Cranky Uncle climate denialists make and ‘climate silence’ (in the media, by political elite, by ‘us’), too many don’t recognize this and, in many cases, even those who are deeply concerned about climate change are too often silent (whether in social circles, work, or engaging with politicians).  Ending that climate silence is, in itself, a virtuous cycle path to fostering greater public understanding of climate issues and support for action to address the climate crisis.

In no small part, the climate crisis is a problem of money and it is a challenge where better use and management of money could do much to address the crisis. Sunday, Elizabeth Warren released Stop Wall Street from Financing the Climate Crisis. Simply put, powerful, actionable, and effective measures that would do much to address that ‘problem of money’.

Forget that “invisible hand” malarky, the reality is that economies have structures — rules, regulations, and even norms that provide the context in which economic interactions occur. Sometimes that is gang rule (think Libertarian Paradise of Somalia), sometimes dictatorial (think North Korea), and, for most of the world’s economies, this is dominated by laws and regulations (even as perverted by corruption, illicit actions, cronyism to a greater or lesser extent everywhere) in various forms of (most often some degree of Social Democratic) capitalism. The key is to have a well-regulated economy that enables the positive aspects of capitalism while constraining or addressing its problems.

As someone who has extremely strong understanding of how markets can skew to the advantage of the powerful along with developing paths to create balance between large/small players (think CFPB), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Warren has considered the linkages between financial (mis)regulation and the climate crisis … and that she ‘has a plan for that’.

Warren(‘s team) cogently lays out reasoning and provides tangible and actionable measures to address how financial markets foster, rather than help address, the climate crisis. These include:

• Fostering pension fund divestment: Investing in fossil fuels inherently is at odds with the long-term concepts that should drive pension funds — while putting money to work creating a more risky future environment for retirees, it is fossil foolish in another way: fossil fuel stocks have been underperforming, compared to the rest of the market, and that underperformance will worsen with moves to address the climate crisis.
• Tightening bankruptcy laws to reduce the ability of polluting firms to privatize profits while socializing costs. From inadequate funds to reclaim coal fields to abandoning commitments to retirees, coal firm bankruptcies have exemplified how the system shouldn’t work. Warren will seek to address this.
• Requiring insurance companies to disclose (and address) climate risks

• Putting climate central to international engagement and trade negotiations
• Declaring that “Personnel is Policy”, Warren commits to appointing key personnel (such as Treasury Secretary and financial regulators) who understand climate change and will incorporate that in their work.

The size and the scope of the risk that climate poses to our financial system requires immediate action. I’ve committed to transitioning us away from Donald Trump’s climate-denying administration at a speed unmatched by any transition in modern history, so that we can begin tackling the urgent challenges ahead on Day One. As part of that transition, I will announce my choices for Cabinet, including a Treasury Secretary who understands the financial risks of the climate crisis, by December 1, 2020. And I’ll staff all senior and mid-level White House positions, like financial regulators, by Inauguration Day—so that we can begin de-risking our financial system from the moment I’m in office. 

Oft-hidden from public eye, so many elements in the financial system foster worsened pollution and weakening of our ability to address the climate crisis. To address this, robustly, will required Congressional action and, with all that will be required and all the obstacles to legislative progress, this is far from a guaranteed route even as Warren lays out items for working with Congress. When it comes to stopping the financial system’s funding of the climate crisis, from incorporating a social cost of carbon in government decision-making to appointing regulators who understand (grok) climate implications, there is much that the President can do through executive action to right the situation. Warren gets this.

Elizabeth Warren has released a series of serious proposals to tackle the climate crisis, in no small part building on the work done by Jay Inslee’s campaign.

Putting aside whomever you support in the primary election, the combination of Inslee’s and Warren’s work should become the template for the Democratic Party’s platform and for the next President’s tackling of the climate crisis.

“To grok something” states a deep understanding and implies an incorporation of actual knowledge so deeply “that it has become part of you, part of your identity”.

“To Gok something” is a far newer and far more hazardous entry into the lexicon: to introduce uncertainty and deceit into scientific discussion about life and death issues.

While Grok emerged from fiction, created by Robert Heinlein and introduced to the world in Strangers in a Strange Land, Gok comes from the Trump Administration‘s unending effort to undermine science and confuse Americans about critical science-related issues.

Gok is the nickname for Indur M. Goklany, a Department of the Interior appointee promoted to a gatekeeper role of Interior publications. In what has been coined “Gok Uncertainty Language” within the Department, Goklany has been inserting misleading truthiness and outright falsehoods about climate change into numerous scientific reports.

As politely put by the New York Times,

 “Goks uncertainty language” … inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming. In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it “may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;” climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not.

Goklany has been a long-time bit player in climate-science denial from within the government, a minor bureaucrat with cameo roles with the libertarian CATO Institute’s efforts to undermine climate science and heartless Heartland Institute‘s outright science denialism.

In terms of a War on Science, perhaps Goklany could best be considered a mole lying in wait for an anti-expert, anti-knowledge, anti-science coup. With Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office, Goklany’s years of waiting were over. And, his efforts are having impact — impact that will likely resonate for years.

The Interior Department reports expressing uncertainty about the risks of global warming “become part of the record” … “They’ll be able to say, ‘We’re not going to consider climate change.’”

Three little monkeys at play — see, speak, hear nothing about climate change. Team Trump, hard at work To Gok climate science.

Goklany is just another soldier in Trump’s War on Science. To Gok is a weapon being employed in that war.

Update NOTE: One of the links above is to a Washington Post story about Goklany. Worth highlighting this more explicitly as I just realized / found out after writing this blog post that Juliet Eilperin had tweeted about this

Media norms and practices (even from serious professionals seeking, in their own way, to achieve excellence) are clearly part of the reason ‘why’ Donald Trump occupies the White House. And, such norms are also clearly part of why it has been so hard to achieve paths to address (mitigation and adaptation) Global Warming over past decades and, now, the mounting urgency of the climate crisis. From both sides framing to accommodating angry voices (promoting falsehood and deception) to embracing controversy as a path for boosting reach (e.g, #clickbait), the February 24th Washington Post front page section provided horrific examples from page A1 “reporting” to page A17 opinion by the editorial page editor.

• On the OPED section, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt falsely makes an equivalency between Trump’s climate science denialism and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ advocacy of policies Hiatt disagrees with.
• In the ‘news’ section, reporters Desmond Butler and Juliet Eilperin promote a young German climate science denialist, being promoted by climate-science denial institutions, as ‘the anti-Greta”.

Upfront, both of these are textbook quality examples of how not to do journalism and it is stunning to have such horrific mediocrity — after so many years of clear discussions about the problems these exemplify — bookending the front page section of one of the most important newspapers in the world.

Very shortly, while neither merited publication, rather than ‘both sides’ equivalency, here is roughly an accurate framing (even if sadly staying with ‘both sides’):

• OPED on presidential candidates representing a stark choice
  • Trump denies the science and pursues policies at odds with the science that are worsening the actual situation
  • Sanders understands the science, promotes a policy agenda aligned with the science that would ameliorate the situation although those policies might be unrealistically aggressive and unachievable politically.
• Article on astroturf young German:
  • Greta Thunberg’s core message: respect the science, listen to the scientists
  • Naomi Siebt’s core message: dismiss the science, disrespect the scientists.

That is an honest summary of the situation rather than the false equivalency both sides that bookended The Washington Post‘s front section.

Human beings sometimes have a hard time celebrating progress. Somewhat as an analogy to loss aversion, what didn’t occur that we wanted or expected can have far greater prominence to us than the partial desires which were met.  And, we (often unconsciously) can move the goal posts such that progress have led popping champagne bottles just a short time ago leaves us underwhelmed and dissatisfied.

We see this at play with the current legislative session in Richmond where Democratic lawmakers are working on (and passing) record-setting numbers of progressive bills.

The Democratic legislators are working on and passing measures that cover almost all arenas of legitimate government engagement. And, writ large, things are moving in a better direction.  For any involved with or watching Virginia politics for more than few years, the extent and rapidity of progress being seen right now might best have been described as pipe-dream fantasies just a few years ago. That’s something that’s often forgotten (or not known in the first place), but is an important point to keep in mind.

Even so, understandably, many of us are frustrated to not see happening what we think is required, what we hoped to see. Focusing on the “missing” can lead us to ignore the “progress,” while instead bemoaning the fact that we haven’t achieved the “perfect” (or, at least, much better). In turn, this can lead us to disappointment and disillusionment – even anger – with the relatively limited progress, obviously falling short of “perfection.”  To be clear, it is a hard balance to celebrate “progress” while maintaining the battle to achieve what we know and feel needs to be done. Thus, while overselling/over-celebrating “progress” can be damaging, so too can failing to acknowledge and celebrate what progress is being made.

Consider that the legislative session seems possible – although certainly not guaranteed, given the likelihood of tough negotiations between the more progressive House of Delegates and the more conservative State Senate – to end this session with in two weeks with:

•  Marijuana decriminalization.
  • Just a few years ago, decriminalization would have been seen as a tremendous win, yet the goal posts were moved to full legalization, with developments around the nation and the Democrats winning the trifecta of the Governor’s Office and majorities in the House and Senate.
• At least five gun control measures
  • Good news, but…disappointment in that significant restrictions on (let alone an outright ban on) assault weapons are unlikely to pass.
• Mandates for a clean energy transition (including solar, wind, energy efficiency, use of a social cost of carbon (SCC) for future energy infrastructure decisions)
  • Even as Dominion Energy will still be able to extract excess profits and the targeted time frame for the clean energy transition is slower than the economics warrant and the climate crisis requires.
• And so on and so on and …

Let’s be clear that the Virginia legislature packs a lot of work into a very short time.  Between now and March 7th, the end of the session, a lot will happen and some of the progress could be wiped away. Writ large, the Democratic Senate caucus is older and more conservative than the House, and the Senate Democratic majority (21-19) is much smaller than the House Democratic majority (55-45). Thus, while the House passed all eight of the Governor’s gun control package, the Senate only passed five.  And on the Virginia Clean Economy Act, the House version is stronger than the Senate version. In general, House measures – not surprisingly, given that body’s makeup – represent more progress than Senate measures.  The question is, how do negotiations between the House and Senate play out over the final two weeks, and what are the results of this potentially ugly “sausage making?”

Still, even with all this, I’d argue that our underpaid (come on, Delegates are paid $17,640 per year and Senators a whopping $18k) legislators are — imperfectly, haltingly in some cases — getting plenty of good stuff done, including much that we have been advocating for and dreaming for many years.  Even as we yearn for, advocate for, and fight for much better, it is worth pausing for a moment to recognize and appreciate better.

As Lowell put it,

When Democrats are in charge, we actually make progress (albeit imperfect). When Republicans are in charge…we don’t make progress.

Virginia elected Democrats.

And, Democrats are getting things done.

We are making progress together.

Let’s not forget that.

Shallow language has, for too long, hindered our understanding of and valuing of core institutions and capacities. “Bureaucracy” and “bureaucrats” are viewed negatively by most even though these institutions and people, with failures and inadequacies to be acknowledged and reformed, do work that enables society to function. In the past few years, “Deep State” has become an even-more pejorative term of discussion (for one political party). A simple fact, however, is that bureaucracy, bureaucrats, and the Deep State truly matter for a well-functioning society — providing expertise to support decision-making and the capacity to execute direction effectively. And, a “Deep State” means multiple layers of existing and developing capacity enabling tackling of complex issues and ability for continuity of function even amid personnel turnover and other disruption.

Engagement related to energy and climate-related issues in Virginia over the several few years (especially into the 2020 legislative session) is driving home that:

Whether discussions of electric school buses or looking at the potential implications of and options for the Virginia Clean Energy Act, there is a striking element that comes forth in discussions with firms, elected officials, interest groups, and activists: almost never is a government office pointed to as the key organization providing analytical support to decision-makers and/or the critical information resource. Expertise seems to come, all too often, from interested parties (contributors, businesses, non-profits). This does not seem how government should work.

Let’s be clear, there are many competent people and offices in the Commonwealth’s government (in DMME, the Attorney General’s office, the State Corporation Commission and thus the requirement for a “deep(er) state”). Yet, there are clear gaps and shortfalls that are made quite clear during the legislative cycle when, for example, the lead discussant (who legislators turned to to ask questions and get clarifications) for an electric school bus program was a Dominion lobbyist rather than a government (whether legislative or executive) policy expert. This is repeated time after time — in public session, rather open work groups, and behind the scenes conclaves.

One role for such a deep(er) state would be for providing quality, up-to-date information to support governmental decision-making and public understanding. Searching for this when it comes to energy issues quickly leaves one shaking one’s head.

The Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy “energy resources” page lays out Virginia’s “natural resources”. Some lines from that:

The amount of energy produced from Virginia’s resources accounts for less than one-half of the total amount of energy consumed in the State (VEPT, 2007) …

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated total energy consumption in Virginia during 2004 to be about 2,558 trillion Btu (British thermal unit).  …

EIA) estimated total energy consumption in Virginia during 2004 to be about 2,558 trillion Btu (British thermal unit).  During the same annual period, the total energy produced as fossil fuels mined in Virginia was about 722 trillion Btu, about 28% of the amount consumed …

Based on EIA estimates of power generation during 2005, coal-fired power plants remained the most important source of electricity in Virginia, with nuclear power generation a close second 

Notice anything odd here? “2007 … 2004 … 2005”? Sorry, but WTF?!?!? Amid a rapidly changing energy world, DMME is providing 15 year old information as the base (ground truth?) information Virginia’s energy resources. And, by the way, coal is not the “most important source of electricity in Virginia”, it hasn’t been for many years and (I write assuredly) it won’t ever be that again. To get more accurate information on this, we shouldn’t have to go to the New York Times.

DMME sends people to Virginia Tech’s Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends Electronic Database as a go-to for “up-to-date information on energy production, distribution, and use within the state of Virginia”. Up-to-date as of what happened in 2006. VEPT is within the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, which was created by legislative mandate in 1977 with many missions including the “Dissemination of coal and energy research information and data to users in the Commonwealth”.

Scratching my head, sure that I was missing something, I asked a number Virginia and Virginia-focused energy wonks the following question: “Who do you see as the Virginia equivalent of the Energy Information Administration (EIA)? With charter to do independent analysis and reporting to support Governor/Admin & Legislature?”

A response from an expert (with numerous articles and oft-cited by others):

There certainly isn’t an equivalent. SCC, DMME, AG, and DEQ all have pieces. And I couldn’t tell you the extent of who does what or even how to find the information. Not helpful, I know.

Another more simply put it

“We don’t believe there is an equivalent to EIA for Virginia.”

Despite the niches with specific expertise, this gap seems to handicap — seriously — Virginia’s ability to develop best-in-class policy paths forward.

Staying solely within the energy domain, critical as we seek to foster increased prosperity while reducing pollution (especially climate) impacts and improving resiliency, think about legislation the legislature has been considering and is working on:

• Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) with mandates for eliminating carbon emissions within the power (electricity sector) with a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandate, energy efficiency requirements, and other elements with decades of interaction and impact on the Virginia economy, billions of dollars at stake, and literally (due to pollution impacts on health) life and death implications.
• Offshore Wind (as much as 5.2 gigawatts of capacity) as in the public interest with a potential direct investment implication in excess of 10 billion dollars and 10,000s of jobs.
• Electric School Bus (ESB) program authorization with significant public-private relationship management, 1,000s of jobs, and many billions of dollars of implications.
• And numerous other energy(-related) bills such as the Green New Deal, Solar Freedom, and so on and so on.

These are pieces of legislation with: many (MANY) billions of dollars at stake; 10,000s of jobs at play; and, significant health and pollution implications. Across all of these, something notable: the most significant voices and influencers are almost always not government experts but lobbyists and representatives of special interest groups (from polluting business to environmental activist). Am I alone in thinking that this is not how the People’s business should be done? Am I alone in seeing a need for augmented Virginia government expertise, with a true center for research and expertise to Administrative and legislative requirements while providing more accurate information to government officials, businesses, and citizens?

For development of better energy and climate policy and legislative proposals and decision-making, there is a simple truth:

Virginia needs a Deep(er) State

I appreciate, seriously, the efforts to develop, draw attention to, pass the sort of legislation that required in our times.  Within my space, two bills have represented two overlapping visions and paths for moving Virginia toward a cleaner, climate-sensible future: the Virginia Green New Deal (GND-VA) and the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA).