Checks and Balances Project Launches Captured Regulators Initiative

Checks and Balances Project Launches Captured Regulators InitiativeInfluence pedaling in America is a $9 billion a year industry. It’s as big as Major League Baseball or NASA’s Mars spacecraft program, changing from direct meetings with lawmakers to a vertically integrated set of businesses that work every stage of government decision making – including the shaping of public opinion.

Many have charted the size, scope, and growth of the influence peddling industry. There’s the definitive, 25-part Washington Post series on the emergence of modern mega-lobbying firms. Ross and Amter’s definitive history of the chemical lobby The Polluters. Merchants of Doubt, by Oreskes and Conway, that laid bare the growth of the lobbyist-funded think tank industry. There are also definitive books by then-reporter Jeff Birnbaum’s, including The Money Men: The Real Story of Fund-raising’s Influence on Political Power in America – though Birnbaum later joined the influence business himself.

The point is that as a growth industry, influence peddling needs to find new ways to grow to accChecks and Balances Project Launches Captured Regulators Initiativeommodate the ever-expanding ranks for former staff and public officials who want to make big money after their public “service.”

So it was only a matter of time before previously sleepy public offices, such state assembly offices, state public utility commissions, and writers of obscure cost-benefit analyses became part of the influence peddling playbook. That’s particularly true now that the big shifts in the energy industry are under way. Rooftop solar on people’s homes has been declared a “moral threat” by the lobbying arm of the utility industry, which has launched a very concerted effort to penalize their customers for buying less of their product.

Regulatory Capture in State Agencies

In many states, commissioners have been lured to ally themselves with the industries they are charged with regulating. There is a term for this, created by Nobel Prize winner Economist George J. Stigler over 50 years ago: “Regulatory capture.”

The financial crisis of 2007-2009 can be explained partly as a problem of regulatory capture. Regulators were so enamored by Wall Street’s risk prevention mechanisms and their way of life that they failed to recognize the enormous risks that were being taken right under their noses until it was too late.

In Virginia, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) is charged with regulating Dominion Resources, a monopoly utility and the Commonwealth’s most powerful corporation. Yet last October, two senior staff members of the SCC wrote a comment letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about the federal Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP is intended to reduce carbon pollution. Although it gives states wide latitude in cutting the pollution and independent studies show it will save money and create clean energy jobs, the staffers attacked the CPP as “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported, and unlawful.” They are thought to have taken Dominion’s 2013 Resource Plan as the basis for their frontal assault.

Death Spiral                                                                              

Utilities nationwide have captured Public Utility Commissions, in whole or in part, just like Dominion has enveloped its own in Virginia. This effort is seems to be encouraged by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the utility industry trade group based in Washington, DC.

In January, 2013, EEI released a man-the-battle-stations white paper that said solar panels on residential or commercial roofs that are not utility-owned or utility-purchased would lead to a death spiral for the utility industry. Since then, the effort to smother the solar baby in its cradle has been stepped up.

Checks and Balances Project Launches Captured Regulators InitiativeNew Captured Regulators Initiative

With renewable portfolio standards, net metering and the CPP, the next two years will decide how many clean energy jobs and energy efficiency savings Americans will see. The stakes are high.

The Checks and Balances Project has noticed that in a number of states, utility commissioners are acting almost as consultants to the utilities they are charged with overseeing. The range of favoritism is wide – from casual remarks to open assistance to help a regulated utility shop for a favorable state judge. There seems to be an emerging trend, which is why we are launching a systemic look to see what’s going on in state public utility and state corporation commissions. Where the influence is going, so should the oversight accountability.

We’re launching our Captured Regulators initiative by asking questions about these officials:

Are there public utility commissioners, public service commissioners or state corporation commissioners in your state that you think are captured by the utility industry? Or commissioners you have questions about like Audrey Zibelman of New York or Virginia’s Mark C. Christie?

If so, tell us more. Send us an email to capturedregulator@checksandbalancesproject.org.

 

Scott Peterson

Executive Director, Checks and Balances Project

Virginia Minority Leader Saslaw Again Declares His Opposition to Ethics Reform

Virginia Democratic Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-35) is a man of strong opinions when it comes to government ethics standards – basically, that we shouldn’t have any. That was clear (again) when I spoke on Jan. 10 at the Fairfax County Delegation’s Annual Public Meeting.

Saslaw-Peterson split screen 1.10.15Senator Saslaw presided. It was an opportunity for citizens of the state’s largest county, like me, to speak to their state senators and delegates before the legislature convened in Richmond on Jan. 14. It happened one week after the historic sentencing of former Governor Bob McDonnell for two years for corruption and bribery. This sad episode showed convincingly that Virginia operates largely on the honors system when it comes to ethics and that the honors system doesn’t work anymore.

I thought it would be a great chance to raise the issue of ethics reform with the most powerful Democrat in the Virginia legislature. The results were revealing.

I was speaker number 43. Each speaker was allocated three minutes and generally received a simple “Thank you,” from Senator Saslaw. I began with a quick explanation of the founding of Checks and Balances in 2009 by people who were concerned about how investigative journalism had shrunk while a tidal wave of lobbying money from the fossil fuel industry undermined the growth of clean energy. (See the entire video here.)

I noticed I had not gotten Saslaw’s attention, as he was talking with others on the panel. But I went on, saying that I wanted to talk about the sad state of ethics in the Commonwealth.

Corruption Risk Scorecard

I pointed out that according to the State Integrity Investigation’s Corruption Risk Scorecard, Virginia ranks 47th out of the 50 states with an overall grade of F.

I seemed, by that point, to have gotten the Minority Leader’s attention. I know I had the attention of Sen. Chap Petersen (D-34), whose ethics reform bills would limit campaign contributions and gifts. Sitting near him was Delegate Marcus Simon (D-53), who was planning on introducing a bill to limit what campaign contributions could be spent on. Simon was quoted in the Fairfax Times as saying:

“If you can go and spend leftover campaign funds on whatever you want, it’s not really any different than taking a bribe.”

Other members of the legislature have ethics reform bills. The Republican leadership has proposed reforms, as has Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe.

None of those proposals went far enough, I asserted. “There’s simply too much coziness allowed with corporations. The General Assembly should pass a law that restricts members from accepting any political contributions from corporations with legislation pending before the legislature.

“Last year, North Carolina installed 13 times the solar photovoltaic capacity as Virginia has in its entire history,” I said. Yet two days before, “the Winchester Star reported that a 20-megawatt solar array—capable of powering 20,000 homes—was scuttled in Clark County. The developer blamed Dominion Virginia and other utilities for their lack of interest in buying the electricity.”

I pointed out that last year, Dominion was the largest donor to state-level politicians with over $1.3 million in campaign contributions.* “No wonder Dominion Virginia gets its way when it comes to energy in Virginia,” I stated.

I had Senator Saslaw’s attention now. In fact, he appeared to be glaring at me.

“Senator Saslaw,” I said. “Last year you were quoted as saying, ‘You can’t legislate ethics…”

“That is correct,” Saslaw interjected.

“… either you’re dishonest or not, OK?’ End quote. I hope you have reconsidered that position…”

“I have not,” the Minority Leader responded.

“…The time to get working on improving Virginia’s “F” grade is now.”

Sen. Saslaw, who said he generally did not comment after speakers, declared that in the 38 years he’d been in office, there had been six or seven episodes that had made the newspapers and “none of them involved lobbyists or a campaign contribution.”

I paused, wondering foolishly if his reform-minded colleagues might come to my aide. “May I respond to that?”

“Nope,” he declared.

Not certain I had heard him correctly, I asked, “No? Or Yes?” The Minority Leader repeated that he would not give me permission to respond.

Missing the Point

Sen. Saslaw clearly missed the point. When it came to “effective monitoring of lobbying disclosure requirements,” “ethics enforcement,” or “legislative accountability,” Virginia got straight F grades. No wonder there have been no scandals involving lobbyists or campaign contributions that had made the papers.

I returned to my seat, but before I could sit down, Senator Saslaw bounded up the aisle toward me. He walked up and leaned in within inches of my face. He told me that he had been interviewed by the FBI who told him that the way he handled campaign contributions was not corrupt.

“Senator, from everything I have learned, you are one of Dominion’s biggest apologists,” I said.

He seemed not to understand, so I repeated the word “apologist.” He then explained how he had gotten Virginia Dominion President Robert Blue and a solar chieftain together to try and work out their differences. I countered with the fact that the Sierra Club’s climate and energy scorecard had given Senator Saslaw an overall grade of D, while three Republican delegates received B’s.

“Well,” Senator Saslaw huffed. “Everyone knows they’re crazy!” He invited me to visit him in Richmond, then walked off.

Who is That Guy?

Later, a teenager sat down next to me who was also attending the meeting. He told me he was a Boy Scout, working on his Eagle Scout rank.

“I thought that was really rude how that guy cut you off,” he said. “Who is he?” I explained that he was the Democratic leader in the Virginia state senate. He looked incredulous, shook his head, and walked away.

 

Scott Peterson is executive director of the Checks and Balances Project, a Virginia-based watchdog that seeks to hold government officials, lobbyists and corporate management accountable to the public.

(* Note:  I should have said “largest corporate donor in 2013.” A report of Dominion’s contributions to state politicians in the second half of 2014 was submitted to the State Board of Elections on January 15. Totals for 2014 are not yet available on the VPAP website. )

Will the American Energy Scorecard Ask Lawmakers to Reject All Subsidies?

The American Energy Alliance announced on Jan. 8 “the nation’s first and only free-market congressional energy accountability scorecard.” But how much of their new scorecard will be devoted to getting mature, highly profitable fossil fuel industries off corporate welfare?

ScorecardIn AEA’s announcement, it declares the new Scorecard will “educate lawmakers” and “empower the American people,” while holding our representatives accountable for their votes on important energy issues. The first issue that it demands lawmakers vote for is the Keystone XL pipeline.

Would an organization that believes so strongly in free markets and stands so firmly against subsidies for the wind industry also declare itself uniformly against subsidies for the oil, gas, and coal industries?

After all, that seems to be the principle of free markets as AEA defines them. If wind energy producers must “stand on their own two feet,” then shouldn’t fossil fuel producers, as well?

$18.5 Billion for Fossil Fuel Subsidies

According to an analysis by Oil Change International, the federal government’s subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and production have increased by 45% since 2009 to $18.5 billion per year.

tom_pyleAEA’s President Thomas Pyle declared in a statement published on its website on Dec. 17 that subsidies like the wind production tax credit (PTC) are like “taking money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans to stuff the stockings of foreign corporations and wealthy investors.” Pyle said we must “unwind this culture of cronyism.”

After more than a century of subsidies by the federal government to encourage the growth of oil, gas and coal, we have to wonder. Is Pyle serious about eliminating energy subsidies? Or is his demand of accountability just a bunch of wind?

I called the American Energy Alliance’s spokesperson Chris Warren and asked him if the scorecard would include lawmakers’ votes against fossil fuel subsidies.

No Straight Answer

“We’re going take these on a vote by vote basis,” said Warren. “I can’t give you a straight answer.”

I tried again. Would the AEA score votes on subsidies for the oil, gas, and coal industries?

“We’re against subsidies in general,” Warren declared. “We believe in free markets. Energy industries should be able to stand on their own two feet and compete.”

So, the American Energy Alliance is against all subsidies. Who knew? Maybe their scorecard might have some value after all.

 

Scott Peterson is executive director of the Checks and Balances Project, a Virginia-based watchdog that seeks to hold government officials, lobbyists and corporate management accountable to the public.

 

Is Virginia Tech’s Coal Center Director Evading Questions to Shield Donors?

Is Virginia Tech’s Coal Center Director Evading Questions to Shield Donors?

(Photo credit: Kingsport Times News)

Professor Michael Karmis is evading basic questions about whether clean energy experts were consulted in his critical cost-benefit analysis of how Virginia can meet its federal Clean Power Plan (CPP) goals.  This raises the possibility that Dr. Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, is shielding donors from legitimate public scrutiny.

The cost-benefit analysis was mandated by the legislature, is relied upon by the Governor, and is included in the Virginia Energy Plan. As we’ve reported before, Karmis is a curious choice to author this foundational document. The Clean Power Plan gives states wide flexibility on how to meet standards. Logically, such an analysis should consider a variety of solutions to cut power plant pollution, including fast-growing renewable energy sources that have created 290,000 jobs in neighboring mid-Atlantic states in recent years.

Is Virginia Tech’s Coal Center Director Evading Questions to Shield Donors?Yet, Karmis’s Coal Center is heavily oriented to only one, highly-polluting energy source – coal. The Center’s website lists a number of significant players in the coal industry as Sponsors that provide “generous financial contributions.” High ranking members of those same companies serve on the Center’s Advisory Board. Of its eight in-house “experts,” seven have strong financial ties to the coal industry – but none to clean energy sources.

State law mandated that Karmis’s Center be consulted, but not be the lead author of the analysis – a big difference in the level of power a coal-centric perspective would have in driving the process.

Evasion of Basic Questions

On Oct. 9, Karmis told me by phone in my only conversation with him, just as he was about to leave for a “site visit” to a West Virginia coal mine, that he had consulted renewable energy experts, but was unable to say who they were due to a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) signed with Virginia’s Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). Professor Karmis said that if DMME’s Energy Director Al Christopher, who “coordinated” the study, gave him permission to tell me who he consulted with, then he would be “glad to tell you.” Unfortunately, several subsequent attempts to obtain that permission from Mr. Christopher went unanswered. Here’s an example:

email Scott re permission

The Plot Thickens

A Freedom of Information Act request sent to DMME on Sept. 29, 2014, produced records showing that an unusual non-disclosure agreement was the result of a request from a Mr. Hayes Fromme to Mr. Christopher. Fromme is an advisor to the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, and the McAuliffe Administration’s point person in creating the Energy Plan. The purpose was to prevent “outside people seeing the study prior to release.”

email Hayes requests NDA

Professor Karmis, on the other hand, could see reasons of his own for a non-disclosure agreement. In the following Sept. 15 email, Karmis’s top aide John Craynon explains Professor Karmis had “already had a contact” about the cost-benefit analysis his Coal Center and hand-picked consultants were producing and wanted an NDA to “minimize what we need to say.”

email re Karmis wants NDA

In response to a FOIA I sent to Virginia Tech on Oct. 3, the justification for not providing me with the information I requested was the non-disclosure agreement.

email VT Norris re NDA

Major Questions Remain

Is Professor Karmis shielding his Center’s coal industry donors from scrutiny about their involvement with the analysis of how Virginia can meet its Federal Clean Power Plan goals? If so, this is a highly inappropriate action.

It raises important questions about who hired Dr. Karmis to author the document, if others were allowed to bid, and how much Professor Karmis’s Coal Center was paid?  More on that soon.

Scott Peterson

Executive Director

Questions Multiply Around Virginia’s Hiring of Coal Advocate to Write Key Energy Study

The Christopher- Karmis Mystery Continues

Dr. Michael Karmis

Dr. Michael Karmis

In my recent post, “Is Coal Center Too Conflicted to Analyze How Virginia Responds to Fed’s Clean Power Plan?” I raised questions about who in Virginia government chose a professional coal advocate to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of how Virginia should best meet the Clean Power Plan standards.

The advocate in question is Virginia Tech’s Michael Karmis. He runs the Center for Coal and Energy Research and has extensively consulted with the coal industry. His Center is sponsored by:

VCERC sponsors 11.3.14

The Center’s “Advisory Board” includes the Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy Director Mr. Conrad Spangler, along with the major players in the state’s fossil fuel industries, including:

Of its eight staff experts, all appear to be closely tied to the coal industry. Neither Dr. Karmis, nor anyone else on the Center’s staff have any discernable experience with energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, which have in recent years created 290,000 jobs in neighboring Mid-Atlantic states.

Foundation Document but No Analysis of Renewables

The cost-benefit analysis that Dr. Karmis was hired is a foundation document for informing how the state will respond to the federal Clean Power Plan standards (CPP). The Governor, his staff, and the Virginia legislature will heavily rely on its findings over the next year, and they were already included in the State Energy Plan, released on Oct. 1, 2014.

In Section 3 of the analysis, Commercially Available Technology (page 49), renewables are not included:

  • Improving the Efficiency of [coal] Power Generation (p.51)
  • Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage Technology Assessment (p.63)
  • CCUS in VA (pg. 72)
  • Energy Efficiency Technology (p.74)

On pages 94-95, Dr, Karmis writes:

“There have not been adequate studies or analysis to demonstrate the practicality of such expansion [of renewable power generation] within Virginia, and few efforts are currently ongoing which can be used as positive examples of the capability of the Commonwealth to meet demand using renewable sources. A study conducted by Virginia Tech in 2005 assessed various sources of renewable power for Virginia, and concluded that… cost and applicability for Virginia must await a detailed assessment.”

Critics have said that this finding clashes with the business world realities of rapidly dropping prices for solar and wind energy.

Questions

The selection of Dr. Karmis begs some straightforward questions:

  • Who made the decision to hire Dr. Karmis?
  • Doesn’t Virginia have someone with experience in a range of energy sources and efficiency expertise to conduct this critical cost-benefit analysis?
  • Was anyone else considered for the task of writing this vitally important study?
  • What was Dr. Karmis paid, if anything, to do this study?
  • Were there clean energy experts that Dr. Karmis consulted with?
  • And, does the coal lobby’s money that heavily underwrites Dr. Karmis’ “Center” and his salary make him too conflicted to write an objective analysis?

On Oct. 9, I contacted Dr. Karmis by phone in his office to ask him the questions above. He was between meetings and was only able to speak with me for very short period of time. Dr. Karmis told me that he had consulted renewable energy experts in producing the cost-benefit analysis, but he could not tell me who they were because there was a non-disclosure agreement. If Al Christopher, director of energy of Virginia’s Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy DMME), gave him permission, he would be glad to tell me. Karmis told me Christopher had “coordinated” the study.

dmme_logoI had sent Freedom of Information Act requests to DMME and Virginia Tech in pursuit of these and other questions. In response, DMME sent me emails and other records that I am in the process of analyzing. The response from VT was disappointing.

I caught up with Mr. Christopher in Richmond on Oct. 14, prior to Gov. McAuliffe’s unveiling of the Energy Plan. Christopher said that state law required that Dr. Karmis write the cost-benefit analysis, and that I should look at the statute, which I’ve posted here. The law in Section 1 A says only that Dr. Karmis’ Coal Center be “consulted,” not that Dr. Karmis should write the entire cost-benefit analysis – a big difference.

I sent Mr. Christopher an email asking for a clear answer about whether or not Dr. Karmis was free to answer my question about which renewable energy experts Dr. Karmis had consulted, but have received no reply.

Christopher email snip 10.14.14

I have also asked Mr. Christopher in a follow-up email to tell me where in the law he was “required” to hire Dr. Karmis to write the cost-benefit analysis, but again with no reply.

This morning, I left a message at Mr. Christopher’s office to confirm he received my emails. I have not received a reply to any of my emails to him or my voice mail. I will continue to press for answers.

 

Scott Peterson

Executive Director

Brookings’ So-Called “Energy Security Initiative” Gets Scrutiny

A front-page story in The Washington Post today states that the Brookings Institution “has grown more reliant on corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign entities,” and that “number of recent Brookings studies have been singled out for criticism by academics and others, some of whom attribute the research results to Brookings’s association with corporate donors and other wealthy interests.”

Letter to Brookings Charles K. Ebinger 10.9.14

Letter to Brookings Charles K. Ebinger 10.9.14

In a letter of inquiry to the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security Initiative (ESI) Director Charles K. Ebinger on Oct. 9, the Checks and Balances Project asked several pertinent questions. We have yet to receive a reply to that letter, but the Post’s article seems to confirm several of our concerns. The letter is attached to this post.

Eight of the nine experts listed on the ESI website have professional backgrounds in the oil, gas or utilities industries. Of those eight, all but one are former industry executives or consultants, while the remaining one is a former government official who promoted shale oil.

Certain Brookings fellows seem to be misinformed about renewable energy. Amory B. Lovins, Chief Scientist at Rocky Mountain Institute, wrote that Charles R. Frank, Jr., whom Brookings describes as “a nonresident senior fellow,” wrote in a working paper published in May “that new wind and solar power are the least, and new nuclear power and combined-cycle gas generation are the most, cost-effective ways to displace coal-fired power—just the opposite of what you’d expect from observing market prices and choices.” Today’s investigation by the Post underlines my concerns by stating that, “Energy companies have escalated their giving to Brookings in recent years, and its Energy Security Initiative has built a team of experts made up in large part of individuals with oil and utility industry ties.”

A chart included with the article shows that Xcoal Energy & Resources, Shell, Statoil, Chevron, and ExxonMobil all donated at least $100,000 each to Brookings in 2013. In addition, several oil-rich countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have donated at least $500,000 each to Brookings.

Lovins noted that by simply updating “the nine most egregiously outdated figures” in Frank’s analysis for Brookings, the rankings would be reversed, with renewable energy offering more net benefits than the other sources. Unfortunately, Brookings’ venerable reputation meant that their misinformed analysis was nonetheless amplified by The Economist.

In January 2013, Director Ebinger, who has “served on the boards of oil and gas companies” according to his biography, called on “pusillanimous” government officials to “stand up” to the renewable energy industry, while making no mention of the incentives that other energy sources receive.

Ebinger, in his own writings at Brookings, misses the cost savings that renewable energy provides to consumers, both on their electric bills and in avoiding costly health impacts; and how rapidly it is expected to shoulder the majority of America’s energy needs as its cost plummets.

The Brookings Institution has been considered a pillar of establishment thought-leadership. That’s why the Post’s investigation, and Brooking’s lack of a response to my letter is so disturbing.

Scott Peterson

Executive Director

The Checks and Balances Project

Is Coal Center Too Conflicted to Analyze How Virginia Responds to Fed’s Clean Power Plan?

I was in Richmond for Gov. McAuliffe’s unveiling of the 2014 Virginia Energy Plan. There, I had an opportunity to pursue questions about why Dr. Michael Karmis, Director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal Research, was chosen to write the critical cost-benefit analysis for Virginia’s response to the federal Clean Power Plan (CPP).

Is Karmis Too Conflicted to Analyze How Virginia Can Respond to Fed’s Clean Power Plan?

Michael Karmis, Ph.D

A cost-benefit analysis would normally be an obscure, bureaucratic document. But this year the Virginia legislature mandated a cost benefit analysis be included in the third annual state energy plan. How Virginia responds to the federal CPP standards is a big deal. People ask me why a coal backer was tasked with writing this foundational document that the legislature will rely upon. I typically respond, “Good question!”

As I see it, here are some important questions that need to be answered:

  • Why was Dr. Karmis chosen?
  • Why did Dr. Karmis choose Clean Air Markets LLC, J. E. Cichanowicz Inc., and Chmura Economics and Analytics and no firms with renewable energy experience?
  • Did Dr. Karmis consult with any renewable energy experts during his execution of the cost benefit analysis?
  • Did anyone on Dr. Karmis’s staff provide input on renewable energy in preparation of the analysis? If so who are they and what are their credentials?
  • Why did Dr. Karmis not ask his Virginia Tech colleague and renewable energy expert Dr. Saifur Rahman for his input on renewable energy?
  • Did any lobbyists recommend to Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) that Dr. Karmis be hired?
  • Was Dr. Karmis too conflicted to write a document the Governor and legislature will depend upon as an unbiased, informed look at how Virginia can best respond to the CPP?

On pages 94 and 95 of his cost-benefit analysis, Dr. Karmis states:

“The EPA’s proposed rules would encourage development of renewable power generation within the state. There have not been adequate studies or analysis to demonstrate the practicality of such expansion within Virginia, and few efforts are currently ongoing which can be used as positive examples of the capability of the Commonwealth to meet demand using renewable sources…. [T]he cost and applicability for Virginia must await a detailed assessment.”

But Governor McAuliffe and people in the Virginia business community are pointing out that Virginia has fallen behind other Mid-Atlantic states, which created a combined 290,000 clean energy jobs in recent years. North Carolina added, in just one year (2013), 335 MW of solar capacity—roughly 18 times Virginia’s total installed solar capacity.  Most of the additions were by residents and other private investors.

Maryland North Carolina New Jersey
  1. Virginia
Tennessee Virginia
Solar 142 592 1,337 N/A 74 13-18*
Wind 120 0 9.6 583 29 0

 Installed capacity measured in megawatts (MW). One megawatt is equal to 1,000 kilowatts (kW).

*Estimated. There is so little solar in Virginia that no one really keeps track.

I spoke with Dr. Karmis by phone at his Virginia Tech office on Oct. 9th. Dr. Karmis’s center lists a large number of significant players in the coal industry as sponsors that provide “generous financial contributions.” I asked him what renewable energy expertise he had used in his work. He claimed that he had consulted with renewable energy experts while writing the analysis, but he was unable to tell me who due to a nondisclosure agreement he had signed with DMME. Dr. Karmis said that DMME’s Energy Director Al Christopher “coordinated” the analysis and asserted that if Mr. Christopher allowed him to tell me who he consulted with, then he would be “glad to tell me.” Unfortunately, however, Karmis told me that he would be away at a visit to a West Virginia coal mine until the day of the formal unveiling of the State Energy Plan and would be unable to speak to me until after then.

On Tuesday, during the plan’s unveiling in Richmond, I was able to catch up with Christopher. He asserted that Dr. Karmis had consulted with renewable energy experts that are on the coal-industry sponsored center at Virginia Tech. Christopher also stated that DMME was required to hire Dr. Karmis’s Center.

Later, I read the legislation that Christopher referred to. In Section 1A it states:

“The Division [of Mines, Minerals and Energy], in consultation with the State Corporation Commission, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Center for Coal and Energy Research, shall prepare a comprehensive Virginia Energy Plan….”

Notice the phrase “in consultation with.” DMME was to consult with Karmis’s coal center. Some people might take that to mean getting input on drafts.

I learned more by reading the Fiscal Impact Statement that states in Section 8:

“DMME has indicated that [sic] would need to hire expert consultants with skills and knowledge not currently available in house to conduct a comprehensive analysis.”

Did Christopher take that to mean he had to hire Dr. Karmis?

The Virginia legislation required there be “(d), an analysis of… (iii) the commercial availability of technology required to comply with such regulations.” Yet Dr. Karmis’s anaylsis focuses almost entirely on coal technology, with only a short section on energy efficiency and nothing on renewable energy. The federal Clean Power Plan suggests four tools that can be used to achieve carbon pollution reduction:

  • Making existing coal plants more efficient.
  • Using existing gas plants more effectively.
  • Increasing renewables and nuclear energy.
  • Increasing end-use energy efficiency.

Going forward, as the discussion of Virginia’s compliance with the federal CPP heats up, it is important to understand more about why Dr. Karmis and his team were chosen to write the pivotal cost-benefit analysis. I have submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests; one to DMME and another to Virginia Tech. Perhaps we will learn more.

 

Scott Peterson

Executive Director, The Checks and Balances Project

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers