Bacon's Rebellion

  • Dominion Shifts Course, Will Run Transmission Line to the South

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Dominion has changed course in its plans to wheel more out-of-state electricity into Northern Virginia: Instead of running high-voltage power lines through the hunt country of the northern piedmont, it will route the line along existing right of way, according to the Washington Post.

    The change would add about 28 miles to the length of the power line and add $60 million to the cost, which would be passed on to rate payers. But it would avoid disrupting the viewsheds of one of the country’s most historic and scenic areas.

    No doubt Dominion hoped that the decision also would dampen growing political opposition. There were no immediate signs, however, that the power line’s foes were backing off. Write Michael Shear and Amy Gardner:

    Spokesmen for both said they remain unconvinced that the power line is needed and believe Dominion’s proposed solution simply moves the problem from one place to another. “Their whole strategy is divide and conquer,” said Wolf’s chief of staff, Dan Scandling. “Dominion still hasn’t proven that this power is needed for Northern Virginia.”

    Piedmont Environmental Council spokesman Robert W. Lazaro Jr. said running the new line along an existing right of way does not protect nearby homeowners from transmission lines that he expects to be significantly taller than existing ones.

    He also wondered whether the existing path was wide enough to accommodate the new line or additional private property would have to be acquired.

    “The fact is the state has a failed energy policy,” Lazaro said. “Dominion is a huge player in the politics of this state and is able to run roughshod over consumers and responsible legislators.”

    Dominion’s problem now is that it has unleashed the genie from the bottle and can’t put it back. Galvanized by the Piedmont Environmental Council’s opposition to the power line, Virginians have awakened to the reality that, as Lazaro says, Virginia has a failed energy policy. Current policy favors investing in generation and transmission over investing in conservation and energy efficiency. Most people would agree that we need a balance.

    What Dominion really needs to worry about is that skeptics of the transmission line won’t just retreat to their farms and estates. Now that their consciousness has been raised, the skeptics will take a critical look at Dominion’s plans to re-regulate the electric power industry as a means to finance a $4 billion expansion of electric generating capacity in Virginia.

  • Why Can’t Virginia Try Conservation and Energy Efficiency?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The General Assembly is charging ahead with legislation to “re-regulate” the electric power industry in Virginia. The driving force is Dominion’s need to expand its electric generating capacity in the state by some 20 percent over the next 15 to 20 years — some $4 billion worth of capital expenditures that it would finance largely through borrowing. By allowing the State Corporation Commission to set rates based on a methodology that would aim for a Return on Equity of roughly 12 percent, the power company argues it can borrow the massive sums at a lower interest rate.

    Dominion’s expansion plans are predicated on anticipated increases in demand for electricity — increases that will likely prove accurate in the absence of any meaningful conservation initiative.

    If conservation and energy-efficiency programs could offset a portion of that anticipated demand for less than it would cost to build new nuclear and coal-fired plants, rate payers would come out ahead — and so would the environment. But Dominion has little interest in conservation. The problem, as I have noted in previous posts, is that Dominion is rewarded for selling more electricity, not less.

    That problem, it turns out, is endemic in the electric utility industry. As the Wall Street Journal reports today, “In the electric power business, the more electricity you sell, the more money you make.” Faced with growing demand for electricity, states and utilities are inventing new regulatory regimes that would remove the incentive for selling more power and give utilities a stake in saving energy.

    The first step is “decoupling,” a regulatory scheme that would give utilities a predetermined profit each year, separating profitability from the volume of electricity sold. The second step is rewarding utilities for investing in conservation and energy efficiency. Right now, most regulators allow utilities to recover their spending on conservation and increasing efficiency, but not to earn a profit on it. If regulators allowed utilities to generate a profit on energy-efficient investments, one California regulator told the Journal, “the people running the energy-efficiency departments in these utilities will become on a par with those running the transmission and distribution departments.”

    There are endless cool ideas for conserving energy, if only the incentives and regulatory structure existed to support them. Many can be seen in a United Technologies ad in the same WSJ section, which touts the concept of a “zero net energy building” that “produces as much energy as it uses over the cost of a year.” Buildings account for 40 percent of an economy’s total energy demand. UTC sees photovoltaic solar arrays, green roofs (green, as in grass, which absorbs sunlight and reduces roof temperatures), and Gen2 elevators with regenerative drives that, like hybrid technology in cars, captures the energy of descending elevators.

    To the best of my knowledge, the General Assembly is considering nothing like these alternatives. One “green” proposal, which would mandate the use of renewable fuels, would do nothing to encourage conservation or energy efficiency. The legislature is hurtling ahead with plans to encourage Dominion to build, build, build. The environment will suffer, and so will rate payers.

  • More Local Opposition to the House Transportation Compromise

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    A key to the House transportation compromise is legislation that would create transportation authorities in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads and allow them to raise revenues to fund regional road projects. Hampton Roads would have power to impose tolls highways, increase vehicle registration and inspection fees, and boost the commercial real estate tax — and slap a $5-per-night fee on hotels rooms.

    As Tom Holden with the Virginian-Pilot reports, a Hampton Roads transportation authority would require support from at least six of the 11 Hampton Roads cities or counties. A letter from Virginia Beach Mayor Meyera Oberndorf to the region’s General Assembly delegation suggests that the region’s most populous localities has doubts about the plan.

    The tax, said Oberndorf, would have “an exceptionally negative effect on our ability to compete for conventions.”

    Del. Kenny Melvin, D-Portsmouth, who voted against the House compromise last week, suggested that the regional financing plan was doomed even if passed into law. “I don’t believe there are six jurisdictions that will buy into this package.”

    Update: Of course, there are local Republicans in Northern Virginia raising hell, too. Marc Fisher with the Washington Post interviews Corey Stewart, the new chairman of the Prince William County board of supervisors, who is mad as hell at statewide Republicans and isn’t going to take it anymore. Other than orchestrating a moratorium on rezonings and trying to pry a larger share of state transportation revenues out of Richmond, he doesn’t offer any solutions that address underlying problems — at least none that appear in Fisher’s column.

  • Details Emerge on the Chichester-Potts Stuff-Back

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Legislative maneuvering in the General Assembly reached a theatric climax earlier this month when Sen. Russell Potts, R-Winchester, withdrew a transportation-tax proposal that threatened to derail the comprehensive GOP transportation package supported by the House of Delegates and elements of the state Senate. Newspaper accounts alluded only briefly to Potts’ explanation for his retraction: the fact that Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling was prepared to rule that his amendment was not “germane” to the underlying legislation.

    Potts’ retreat represented a decisive defeat not only for the Winchester maverick but for Senate Finance Chair John H. Chichester, R-Northumberland, and his allies in the Axis of Taxes who see higher taxes and more spending as the best antidotes to what ails the Commonwealth. Remarkably, no one in the press corps, which normally loves high drama, never felt moved to delve behind the scenes of this legislative turning point.

    A few new details have emerged from Bolling himself, who wrote about the incident in his weekly newsletter, “The Bolling Report.” In this week’s edition he writes:

    The Chichester/Potts bill set up a potentially divisive battle with Chichester, Potts and Senate Democrats on one side and the vast majority of Senate Republicans on the other side. At the last minute Senator Chichester and Senator Potts asked that their alternative transportation proposal be returned to the Committee on Finance and not voted on by the full Senate.

    The decision to forgo a floor fight on this issue appeared to be influenced by two factors: 1) a desire to avoid a potentially bitter battle between Senate Republicans, who have historically stood united on important issues such as this, and 2) a desire to avoid an adverse parliamentary ruling that could have prevented the bill from moving forward.

    At issue was whether or not the Chichester/Potts substitute was “germane” to the underlying bill it was attached to by the Committee on Finance. Germaneness is an important parliamentary principle which requires that committee amendments relate to the general purpose of the underlying bill and that they do not unreasonably expand the general purpose of the underlying bill.

    In this case the Committee on Finance had added the Chichester/Potts substitute to an underlying bill introduced by Senator Potts that was much narrower in its focus than the committee substitute. Because of this, I had been asked, as the presiding officer of the Senate, to determine if the committee substitute was germane.

    After completing extensive research on this question I had decided that the Chichester/Potts substitute was not germane to the underlying bill it was attached to. As such, I was prepared to rule that the substitute was not properly before the Senate and order its return to the Committee on Finance.

    To avoid this ruling, and to avoid a bitter floor fight among Senate Republicans, Senator Chichester and Senator Potts chose to voluntarily recommit their substitute to the Committee on Finance. The good news is that a vote on the Chichester/Potts substitute, which would have seriously harmed our efforts to reach any agreement on transportation funding this year, was avoided.

    As of this morning, Bolling was making no predictions as to whether the full Senate would approve the compromise package.

  • Hampton Roads Traffic Trends: Are Vehicle Miles Driven Flat-Lining?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    There is some interesting data presented in “The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads,” published by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. I doubt that the author, Dwight L. Farmer, draws the same conclusions from the data as I do — the PDF file I extract these charts from doesn’t contain any commentary — but that’s the beauty of raw data. It can be interpreted in many ways.

    Let’s start with a chart that shows how the total number of Vehicle Miles Driven between 1996 and 2005 in Hampton Roads has outpaced the growth in population and the number of licensed drivers.


    What could account for such a dramatic increase? Well, let’s look at people’s commuting habits.


    This chart shows a continuation in recent years of a long-term trend of people driving to work in locations outside the localities where they live. Translation: Instead of living in compact urban areas with a balance of housing and jobs, an increasing percentage of Hampton Roads residents have been living in bedroom communities and driving longer distances to job centers closer to the urban core.

    Why are Hampton Roads residents living in bedroom communities? Because they enjoy driving longer distances? Of course not. They’re living in bedroom communities because that’s where the bulk of new housing is being built.

    There’s one more factor at work: More Hampton Roadsters are driving solo, while a smaller percentage are walking, biking, carpooling, riding buses or –and this surprises me — working at home.


    There are two reasons for the increasing number of solo drivers. The first is prosperity: More households can afford to buy and maintain cars for every licensed driver in the family. Prosperity is a good thing. The other reason, however, is not. New development is increasingly scattered, disconnected and low-density, which effectively precludes walking, biking and mass transit as transportation options. In other words, people are forced to drive automobiles because the prevailing pattern of land use reduces their transportation options.

    There is one sliver of potentially good news. The rate of increase in VMT has slowed since 1999 and plateaued for the most recent two years measured. Given the increase in gasoline prices in 2005 and 2006, it’s possible that VMT might have actually declined in 2006.


    Are there forces at work that could be reversing the remorseless increase in VMT? Are human settlement patterns changing in Hampton Roads in ways that we don’t fully appreciate? Are jobs migrating away from the urban core along with housing? Does the aging of the population and increasing number of retirees mean that a growing percentage of the population actually is driving less?

    More to the point, if VMT is leveling off, is the transportation “crisis” in Hampton Roads being overblown? Stay tuned. We’ll have to see what story the 2006 data tell us.

    (Hat tip to Reid Greenbaum for bringing this document to my attention.)

  • GOOD STUFF ON EMINENT DOMAIN

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Some may miss the useful discussion on Eminent Domain (ED) found in the comments on “Your Legislature at Work” Thurs 8 Feb below.

    EMR

  • The Case Against Norment: Suggestive but Not Yet Persuasive

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    In 2000, Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-Williamsburg, patroned a bill (SB 453) that instituted procedural protections for landowners in condemnation cases. As summarized by Roanoke attorney David Nixon, the bill allowed landowners to receive a copy of property appraisals prepared for the condemnors, and changed the decision makers in disputes from commissioners to juries. In other words, Norment sided with landowners over government and utilities.

    Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court made its infamous “Kelo” ruling, which broadened the power of local government to condemn land for public purposes, including such for nebulous justifications as “economic development” and increasing the tax base. Did Norment once again take up the cause for landowners? No, says Nixon, the Williamsburg legislator used his influence in the Senate Courts of Justice committee to dilute or kill legislation that would have narrowed the application of eminent domain in Virginia. Indeed, Norment went so far as to introduce a bill, SB 1297, that tilted the procedural playing field in the interests of condemnors.

    What could account for the difference between the “old” Norment and the “new” Norment? Nixon traces his change of heart to his connections to the energy company Dominion and his employment with Kaufman and Canoles, the leading law firm in Hampton Roads. He cites the fact that Norment owns “significant holdings” in Dominion stock and that he accepted an invitation to a hunting trip to Georgia, valued at $1,722, as a gift from Dominion in 2001. Furthermore, states Nixon, Norment works as a rainmaker for Kaufman and Canoles, a firm that litigates for local government and government entities on such issues as “unlawful taking of private property,” “condemnation,” and “eminent domain.”

    Norment, suggests Nixon, has a conflict of interest as defined by the General Assembly Conflicts of Interest Act. Among other sections of the act, he quotes Section 30-103 (5), which states that no legislator shall “Accept any money … or business or professional opportunity that reasonably tends to influence him in the performance of his public duties.”

    (Read Nixon’s full complaints against Norment and his fellow senator and law partner Kenneth W. Stolle.)

    I do not highlight Nixon’s complaint because I agree that Norment and Stolle have a conflict of interest. I don’t have enough information to agree or disagree. I don’t know enough about the history of eminent domain legislation to know whether Norment’s change of heart between 2000 and 2005 was as dramatic as Nixon portrays it. More to the point, I haven’t heard either Norment’s and Stolle’s side of the story.

    But I do think that Nixon raises a legitimate issue. Although it would be premature on the basis of the evidence found in his complaints to assemble a lynch mob and exact mob justice, Nixon does present enough information to warrant further inquiry. As citizens and bloggers, we should be asking questions. Here are some that I have:

    • What is the history of Norment’s legislation regarding eminent domain issues? Is his about-face as dramatic as Nixon suggests? Or has Nixon cherry picked bills to make his case?
    • If Nixon’s portrayal is fair, what could account for Norment’s change of heart? A hunting expedition in 2001? That sounds a trifle simplistic. As memory serves me, Norment has been closely aligned with Dominion since long before 2001 — he was a key player in engineering the utility de-regulation that Dominion wanted. How deep does his relationship with Dominion go?
    • Kaufman and Canoles clients include local governments and utilities. Who are those clients? Name names. What eminent-domain litigation have they been involved in? Cite cases. Has Norment performed any actual legal work for those clients, or has he brought any of them to the firm in his capacity as rainmaker? Again, name names.

    Nixon has a lot of homework to do, it seems to be, before he can make a conflict-of-interest case against Norment or Stolle. At the same time, the close connections of these two lawmakers to companies like Dominion do warrant closer attention. One place to start digging is the Virginia Public Access Project. Another is Richmond Sunlight.

    Update: The Washington Times and Virginian-Pilot have covered this story. The Pilot says that Norment and Stolle sought an opinion last week from Attorney General Bob McDonnell, “who advised them they are permitted to debate and vote on condemnation bills.” State law requires legislators to abstain from action only when they, their immediate family members or their business clients have a personal interest.

    Both senators told the Times that they do not practice eminent-domain law and that the lawyers in their firm who do overwhelmingly represent landowners fighting efforts to have their land taken through eminent domain. “I think it is without merit,” Mr. Stolle said. “I have never practiced eminent-domain [law] and have no financial interest in eminent domain.”

  • Controlling Development: Why “Just Say No” Won’t Hack It

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Local governments in Virginia say they can handle the stresses and strains of growth: just give them the power to ban growth where roads and schools are crowded. Sounds reasonable. Until you look at what’s happening in Maryland’s Washington suburbs.

    That’s what Alec MacGillis with the Washington Post has done. And the results aren’t always pretty. Writes MacGillis:

    Here is what that method has accomplished in Anne Arundel County: More than one-third of its school districts are closed to new subdivisions, even in areas intended to absorb construction under the state’s much-touted “slow-growth” laws. As a result, development is being pushed to more rural parts of the state less suited to handle it.

    The shortcomings of Maryland’s growth policies are just one sign of what frustrated officials are finding in both [Maryland and Virginia] — that controlling development is not as easy as just saying no. Three months after voters in the D.C. suburbs elected candidates who vowed to slow growth, reform proposals are floundering amid political inertia and resistance from developers.

    If you halt growth here, it will move over there. The trouble is, “there” is usually some outlying district or county farther from the center-weighted location of jobs in the metropolitan area. Stopping growth might alleviate localized congestion — temporarily — but it makes regional congestion worse. As people move farther from the core in search of housing, they clog the Interstates and freeways for greater distances, putting even greater strain on the transportation system than they would otherwise.

    Blocking development in the fast-growth counties could conceivably avoid this problem if there were more in-fill and re-development projects closer to the urban core. But rampant NIMBYism in established neighborhoods, buttressed by local zoning codes and comprehensive plans, limits the number of such new projects to a trickle. The solution to Virginia’s infrastructure woes is not giving fast-growth governments more power to abuse. It’s re-restructuring our governance systems, tax codes and zoning codes.

  • Is There Conflict of Interest in the State Senate? Or Is this Just a Cheap Political Shot?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, and Sen. Thomas K. Norment, Jr., R-Williamsburg, both work for the Norfolk law firm, Kaufman and Canoles. According to Roanoke attorney David Nixon, both men, who are powerhouses in the state Senate, represent public utilities and government clients who use the power of eminent domain to take property from private citizens and business owners. If they have a vested interest against bills that would curtail the rights of their clients to condemn land, should they be allowed to vote on those bills?

    Nixon thinks not. He filed ethics complaints yesterday alleging a conflict of interest, arguing that both men “used their positions and influence … to get themselves appointed to the Eminent Domain subcommittee, where meaningful eminent domain reform legislation is buried year after year.” Eminent domain has been a particularly contentious issue since the Kelo ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which expanded the rights of local governments to condemn land for public purposes.

    Nixon contends that “K&C clients could easily construe K&C’s website as promising that the Senators will use their influence in the General Assembly to advance the interests of their clients.”

    Here’s how Stolle’s profile reads on the K&C website:

    For Kaufman & Canoles, Ken works closely with colleague Tommy Norment — the Senate Majority Leader — in presenting the firm to prospective corporate and governmental clients. He has, over his years in the Senate, developed a vast knowledge of state government and a network of business, government, and law enforcement leaders who respect him and his work.

    In addition, he’s experienced in civil, criminal, and administrative litigation as well as in business law, particularly for the hospitality industry. This combination of political know-how, business acumen, and personal relationships, boosts Ken’s value to his clients. Says Ken, simply: “We have the ability to make things happen.”

    I am not familiar enough with the General Assembly’s conflict-of-interest guidelines to know if Nixon’s charge has any merit. However, I do not read into the wording of Stolle’s profile what Nixon reads into it. The profile says that Stolle would use his “political know-how, business acument and personal relationships” but that’s a far cry from saying he would influence legislation. The potential for abuse certainly exists, but that’s true for any lawyer-legislator.

    Nixon presents no solid evidence in his press release for his charge that Stolle and Norment used their influence to kill eminent domain legislation. They may have, for all I know, but Nixon doesn’t spell it out in his press release. I’m trying to get the details of his complaint. If he offers any substantive evidence, I’ll update the blog.

    Update: Here is the Norment complaint and the Stolle complaint.

  • The Other Power Line Controversy

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Dominion is running into more resistance to building high-voltage transmission lines, this time in Fredericksburg. Last year the power company stirred up a hornet’s nest with a proposal to build a parade of 100-foot-plus towers through 40 miles of northern Virginia piedmont. Now it’s poked a bee’s nest in the Fredericksburg area.

    Dominion would seem to have a much stronger case in the Fredericksburg area, where it has owned an easement since the 1960s, than in the northern piedmont, where it still needs to condemn the land. Yet the power company has said it would “consider” burying five miles of line in the Fredericksburg area, according to the Free Lance-Star, while it has declared that it would be uneconomical to bury the northern piedmont power line.

    Still, not all locals are impressed with Dominion’s willingess to discuss the issue. “Right now, we’re at the ‘check is in the mail’ stage,” said Hampton Oaks resident Al Tierney, as quoted by writer Edie Gross.

    We can expect to see more of these conflicts as Dominion embarks upon a massive expansion of electric power generation and transmission capacity in Virginia in the years ahead. The conservation option is looking better and better.

  • Your Legislature at Work

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Judged by the volume of significant legislation passed, this has been a productive session for the House of Delegates. I have major quarrels with the transportation-financing scheme the House wants to adopt, as I have illuminated in numerous posts. But there are other bills that might actually do more good than harm. These descriptions come from a summary issued by the Speaker of the House at cross-over. (My comments in italics.)

    HJ 18. Transportation Trust Fund. Marshall, R-Prince William). Passed 96-0. Locks up the Transportation Trust Fund by a Constitutional Amendment securing funds dedicated for transportation cannot be diverted and can only be used for transportation purposes. Remember the constitutional amendment for Transportation Trust Fund? Let’s hope the Senate sees eye-to-eye with the House and can get this passed.

    HB 2314. Tolls on Interstates. Lingamfelter, R-Prince William. Passed 76-22 Allows the Commonwealth Transportation Board to impose and collect tolls for the use of any component of the Interstate Highway System, with the proceeds to be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund and allocated by the Board. If this enables congestion tolls for the purpose of optimizing Interstate capacity and encouraging alternatives to Single Occupancy Vehicles, it’s a good thing. If it’s used just another revenue-raising tool, it’s a bad thing.

    HJ 723. Eminent domain. Bell, R-Albemarle. Passed 67-30 Protects Virginians’ property rights by amending the Constitution to establish what constitutes a taking of private property for a public use in response to the 2005 Kelo v. New London case. Prohibits eminent domain use for economic development, increased tax revenue or job creation purposes. Eminent domain is justified when it’s for a legitimate public use; it’s a bad thing when used to increase the tax base — as in Kelo-style decisions.

    HB 2954. Eminent domain. Bell, R-Albemarle. Passed 87-10 Safeguards individual private property rights by defining “public use” for eminent domain purposes, restricting it from being used to generate tax revenue. Same as above. I would note, however, that some private-property advocates say this bill does not do enough. I don’t know enough about the issue to have an informed opinion.

    HB 2311. Charter schools. Lingamfelter, R-Prince William. Passed 90-8 Establishes Public Charter School Fund for the purposes of establishing or supporting public charter schools in the Commonwealth to stimulate the development of alternative public education programs. This falls far short of the major shake-up we need for public education, but at least it would introduce a modicum of innovation to our sclerotic system.

    HJ 729. Universal Pre-K. Cox, R-Colonial Heights. Passed 92-4. Directs JLARC to study the effectiveness and performance results of the Virginia Preschool Initiative and evaluate the cost and effectiveness of universal pre-kindergarten programs. Subject Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s Universal Pre-K initiative to a little cost-benefit analysis before rolling out the idea statewide. Good idea.

    HB 2623. Illegal immigration. Reid, R-Henrico. Passed 74-23. Prohibits illegal aliens from eligibility for in-state tuition rates at Virginia’s public colleges and universities. This will be denounced as “anti-immigrant,” of course. It’s not. It’s anti illegal immigrant. We can barely afford the welfare/medical/education net benefits we provide our own citizens. We can’t afford to make them available to anyone/everyone who makes it illegally into the state.
    HB 2687. Illegal immigration. Reid, R-Henrico. Passed 62-37. Discourages businesses from knowingly hiring illegal aliens by making it an unfair employment practice to knowingly employ an unauthorized alien within the Commonwealth. If you’re going to crack down on illegal immigration, you can’t target only the illegals themselves — you have to shut down the people who hire them. As a bonus for the politically correct, this means you’re indicting people with white skin, not just people with brown skin.

    HB 1710. Saving the bay. Callahan, R-Fairfax. Passed 99-0. Provides new, innovative and flexible funding options for $500 million in grants for the installation of nutrient removal technologies at specified publicly owned water treatment plants as part of House Republican’s ongoing commitment to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. Sounds like a good idea. Virginia needs to show flexibility and innovation in finding cost-effective ways to clean up pollution.

    HB 2708. Electric restructuring. Hugo. R-Fairfax. Passed 98-0 Requires the electric utility provider to enter into an agreement to purchase any excess electricity generated by an eligible customer-generator upon the request of the customer. Excellent idea in the abstract. Key questions: Should customer-generators get paid retail or wholesale rates for their electricity? Why impose a 0.1 percent cap? One tenth of one percent is insignificant — that’s less than the increase in electricity demand Virginia experiences in one month. I acknowledge that we should proceed cautiously in order to maintain the integrity of the power distribution grid, but 0.1 percent seems awfully small.

    HB 2198. Medical records. Nixon, R-Chesterfield. Passed 97-0. Facilitates increased and improved usage of electronic health records systems throughout the Commonwealth by requiring interoperability. This is way overdue. But it’s only a first step. The interoperability extends only to state agencies. The Commonwealth needs to convene a task force that sets standards (voluntary, perhaps) that would enable all health care providers to share medical records.

    There’s a whole lot more — including some worthwhile pieces to Speaker William J. Howell’s massive transportation compromise bill, which I have described in previous posts — but these are the provisions that I deem worthwhile.

  • Big Trouble in Loudoun County

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The Washington Post reports:

    Federal prosecutors have launched a far-reaching investigation into potential public corruption in Loudoun County, where officials have overseen billions of dollars’ worth of development projects in one of the nation’s fastest-growing areas. …

    The investigation and board action come after reports by The Washington Post last month that detailed how major land-use decisions in Loudoun have been dominated by a small network of public officials and their allies in the development industry. Developers, landowners and others profited as they coordinated with public officials to influence land-use decisions in the county, e-mails and other records showed.

  • It’s Alive… It’s Dead… It’s Alive…

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The Tysons underground-railroad option arose from the dead yesterday when Frederal Transit Authority officials said that Virginia has until spring 2008 to submit its plans for the Rail-to-Dulles extension of the Metro system. Reports Alec MacGillis with the Washington Post:

    Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) warned last summer that the delays involved in switching to a tunnel could throw the $4 billion project out of the current federal funding cycle, greatly jeopardizing the $900 million that Virginia hopes to receive. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) cited such warnings last fall in his decision not to support a tunnel.

    But top federal transit officials, who have made few public comments on the project and its deadline, offered a different picture yesterday. They said the state would have until May 2008 — 15 months from now — to submit its final plans and pricing for the project and still qualify for the current funding cycle, assuming the submission is acceptable.

    Running the tunnel underground is critical for plans to re-develop Tysons along the lines of a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly community. But it’s premature for anyone to celebrate. Matthew O. Tucker, director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, said that concerns remain, including potentially higher costs of a tunnel and the delay of waiting another year to begin construction.

  • Subsidies for the Driving Class

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The state Senate has spiked a proposal to slap a 5 percent sales tax on gasoline, and the House of Delegates has passed its package of transportation taxes, land use reforms and VDOT restructuring. Now it’s time for the House package to cross over to the Senate for consideration.

    So, this is what it’s like making sausage. The process is truly nauseating… Read the coverage and reach for your vomit bag:

    Richmond Times Dispatch
    Washington Post
    Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star
    Virginian-Pilot
    Associated Press
    Northern Virginia Daily

    As I plow through the details of the legislative process, I am reminded of the observations of fellow Bacon’s Rebellion columnist Ed Risse, who long ago discounted the possibility of anything meaningful emerging from the session this year. I had maintained hope that some incremental progress would be made, and that legislators might demonstrate a growing understanding of the problems we’re dealing with. But the awful truth has dawned upon me: Legislators will succeed only in raising our taxes this year, not in addressing traffic congestion. Once again, it appears, the forces of Business As Usual will prevail. The citizenry will wind up poorer and still stalled in traffic.

    I have dedicated many pixels to flaying the Axis of Taxes proposal to boost the gasoline tax as a way to preserve the massive, non-transportation spending programs funded by the General Fund. But at least a gasoline tax has one undeniable virtue: Those who drive are the ones who pay. By contrast, the Republican supporters of the compromise plan avoid the gas tax at all costs. Why? The only justification I’ve heard is that it would be burdensome to drivers, often those who can least afford it.

    Instead of a gas tax, the GOP proposes increases auto registration fees, boosting the tax on diesel fuel, taking $250 million from the General Fund instead of rebating the surplus to taxpayers, and giving regional authorities in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads power to impose their own grab-bag of taxes. Are those taxes going to impact Virginians any less than a gas tax? No! Taxes are going to come out of the pockets of taxpayers one way or another.

    The difference is that while the gas tax is transparent — motorists are reminded of it every time they top off their tanks — the GOP revenue flows from so many different sources that taxpayers are only dimly aware that their pockets are being picked. Where the gas tax is open and honest, the GOP tax mix is furtive and sly.

    Transparency is critical. When you raise the gas tax, taxpayers can see what’s happening. If they don’t like paying the tax, they can change their driving habits in ways that benefit the public good. They can start car pooling, ride a bus or take the Metro. If they’re looking for a new house, they can move closer to where they work. If they have an office job, they can ask their boss to let them telecommute a couple of days a week. If the gasoline tax induces even a few people to change their behavior, it reduces congestion.

    By contrast, raising the registration fee on cars imposes costs on all car owners without respect to whether they drive 3,000 miles a year or 30,000. Raiding the General Fund to pay for roads is even worse: It obliterates any vestiges of a connection between those who drive and those who pay. The end result: The GOP compromise package will subsidize those who drive the most — those who contribute the most to traffic congestion — at the expense of those who drive the least. Such an approach is incomprehensible.

    In a desperate bid to stave off an election debacle, to say that they’ve “done something,” the GOP legislators have abandoned any pretense of economic rationality. Their compromise package does have elements worth saving: particularly the proposals that would restructure the way roads are built and maintained in Virginia. But those reforms, as useful as they are, won’t begin to un-do the damage of continued subsidies for the driving class.

  • Pardon Me While I Gloat

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Looks like Senators John Chichester, R-Northumberland, and Russell Potts, R-Winchester, got their derrieres handed to them. I don’t know who said what to whom, but Potts moved earlier today to kill his own bill — the one that the Axis of Taxes in the state Senate had used to derail the GOP transportation package.

    Judging by the press releases and more informal feedback that I’ve received, a lot of people must have been highly ticked off — not just the rank and file, but the Republican senators like Kenneth Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who’d labored to craft a compromise with the House of Delegates. Chichester and Potts must have realized just how alone they were.

    This is great theater. This is what the capitol press corps lives for. I’m really looking forward to reading the treatment of the story in tomorrow’s newspapers.

Now Available

Book cover of 'Dust Mites: A Second American Revolution' by James A. Bacon, featuring astronauts planting a flag with a blue and white emblem on a lunar landscape, with Earth visible in the background.
For sale on Amazon.com

The year: 2075. The American colonies on the Moon are getting restless under Washington’s tyrannical rule….

This second edition of “Dust Mites” has a snazzy new cover, includes helpful lunar maps, and is 5,000 words tighter than the original. The sequel, “Trogs,” is scheduled for publication this summer.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

About

Bacon’s Rebellion is Virginia’s leading politically non-aligned portal for news, opinions and analysis about state, regional and local public policy. Read more about us here.

Fund the Rebellion

Shake up the status quo! Your contributions will be used to pay for faster download speeds and grow readership. Make a one-time donation by credit card or contribute a small sum monthly.

Can’t wait until tomorrow

For your Bacon’s Rebellion fix?

Enter your email address to receive immediate notifications of new posts by email.

SUBSCRIBE

Search Bacon’s Rebellion

Categories

Archives

The Jefferson Council

Protecting Thomas Jefferson’s Legacy at the University of Virginia

Forgot Your Password?

Shoot me an email and I’ll generate a new password for you.

Latest