Bacon's Rebellion

If you want a good cross-section of the issues swirling around the move to re-regulate the electric power industry, read Michael Shear’s article today in the Washington Post, and then my column, “Power Politics,” in Bacon’s Rebellion. Shear emphasizes the conflict between power generators and electric customers over how electric rates will be determined. I focus on Dominion’s rationale for wanting to re-regulate the industry in the first place, and then discuss the issues that aren’t getting talked about… but should.

Here’s the Cliff Notes version of my column: Electricity consumption in Virginia is increasing. Dominion, which has been importing electricity from out-of-state to meet rising demand over the past decade, now wants to build new power plants to ensure “energy independence” for Virginia. To compete in the financial marketplace to borrow some $4 billion over the next decade or so, Dominion wants the security that goes with a regulated Return on Investment for its power plants. Dominion submitted its preferred legislation late last year, which is now being chewed over in the legislative process by the other vested interests: the power companies, the industrial customers and the citizen rate payers.

The resulting “hybrid” regulation — regulation lite, with financial rewards for Dominion to continue pursuing cost savings — will represent a evolutionary change from the status quo. What’s not getting serious consideration is anything that would encourage (a) conservation and energy efficiency, (b) a move from “Big Grid” power plants and transmission lines to a system of distributed generation, or, despite a rogue legislative proposal, (c) a move to renewable energy sources.

Virginia’s legislative process is designed to sort out the differences between the major vested interests, making sure that nobody walks away too happy. What’s entirely missing is a vision for Virginia’s energy future.

The Feb.5, 2007, edition of Bacon’s Rebellion is now online. Don’t miss a single issue — sign up here to get the e-zine delivered to your in-box for free.

Features include:

Power Politics

Dominion touts electric re-regulation as a way to ensure energy independence for Virginia. But its vision requires building more power plants, not conservation, energy efficiency or renewable fuels.

by James A. Bacon

Listening to Generation Next

Students’ online dialogue in Northern Virginia mirrors official discussions on state priorities.

by Doug Koelemay

Solving the Commuter Problem

There are no magic technological fixes for rush-hour traffic congestion. The only real solution is building balanced communities that support fewer, shorter automobile trips.

by EM Risse

Down the Wrong Road

The GOP transportation plan would employ “subject-to-appropriation” bonds similar to the “pledge” bonds that voters rejected in 1990. Very bad idea.

by Patrick McSweeney

How the GOP Lost its Majority

Republicans became the majority party in Virginia by hewing to their small-government principles. They will revert to the minority by abandoning those same principles.

by James Atticus Bowden

His Way or No Highway

By killing the GOP compromise plan, tyrannical “King John” Chichester has shut down Virginia’s best chance to address the transportation crisis — all for what? Not increasing taxes enough?

by Geoff Segal

Plenty of Work Left to Do

Only three weeks left in the 2007 General Assembly session and there’s so much left to be done.

by Mike Thompson

The Politics of Self Destruction

The transportation impasse in the General Assembly is not about what’s best for Virginia. It’s a raw struggle for power.

by Phil Rodokanakis

Free the Roads!

Want to solve the transportation “crisis”? Get VDOT and state government out of the equation: Devolve, privatize and outsource.

by Mike Smith

Virginia Royalty

Kings and Queens in Virginia

by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

Q&A: Building 14
The crucible of innovation in corporate real estate is a non-descript office building in San Jose, Calif. Inside, Mark Golan is redefining the relationship between worker and work space.

by James A. Bacon

By torpedoing the Republican transportation compromise late last week, Sen. John H. Chichester, R-Northumberland, has steered internal GOP politics into a radical new direction. Terrified about facing the voters this fall, Republicans of disparate political viewpoints had overcome their differences to craft a far-reaching package of transportation funding and reforms. By allying with Democrats to kill the deal, Chichester deprived his fellow Republicans of their political cover.

Chichester critics have been calling the old warhorse a RINO, Republican In Name Only, for several years now. Defenders responded by disparaging his foes as ideologues opposed to a “big tent” party. If the Republicans wanted to stay in power, the argument went, they had to accommodate the moderates in the party.

What happens to that argument now that Chichester has abandoned the party? GOP legislators’ backs were against the wall this winter to devise some kind of transportation solution. (For the record, I’m not defending that legislative package, which was a mess. I’m writing purely as an observer of political dynamics right now.) Unless some new, last-minute compromise can be cobbled together, a dozen or more Republican lawmakers look like sitting ducks in the upcoming elections. There is no disguising the fact that Chichester put his priorities above those of the party. When the survival of the GOP majority was at stake, he joined the enemy.

Understandably, many Republicans are enraged. In the previous post, I published a letter by Mike Wade, chairman of the Third Congressional Committee, expressing his dismay. Wade’s call to “take action against Sen. Chichester” will be the first of many. Says Wade: “We must work statewide to remove this pariah.”

Emotions are raw, and I anticipate a blood-letting in the Republican Party during the primaries. Sen. Russell Potts, R-Winchester, Chichester’s faithful big-government ally, has attracted two opponents. Sen. Emmett Hanger, R-Mount Solon, and Sen. Walter Stosch, R-Henrico, two other soft-on-taxes Republicans, also have credible challengers. I would be amazed if Chichester did not inspire a substantive opponent as well.

In his last election campaign, Chichester won easily over an unknown candidate who came across as a far-right cultural conservative. But running for re-election this time will be much tougher for several reasons. First, Chichester has showed his true colors: He can no longer pretend to be opposed to tax increases, which, astoundingly, he did four years ago. Second, having abandoned the GOP on the crucial transportation issue, he has angered many in the rank and file, the people who dominate the primary process. Third, by putting GOP control of the General Assembly in jeopardy, he has incurred the animus of Republicans across the state, not merely in his district. Any credible candidate who chose to run against Chichester in the GOP primary would be showered with money.

In time, it will become clear that the “failure of Republicans” to govern in the General Assembly was not a failure of “Republicans” — it was the refusal of John Chichester, the Byrd machine veteran turned Republican who never lost his penchant for big government, to compromise with members of his own party. A growing number of Republicans will conclude, I predict, that dumping Chichester is essential to the survival of the GOP as majority party. As long as he occupies the powerful post of Senate Finance chair, the GOP will never be able to govern. Purging Chichester and sub-alterns like Potts is the only way to establish a functioning majority, as opposed to a nominal majority, and pass the kind of legislation that will win credibility with voters.

Update: In a sign of the times, there’s a new blog, Chichester Must Go. Let’s see how much traffic it gets.

This letter comes from Mike Wade, chairman of the Republican Party of Hamption and chairman of the Republican Third Congressional District Committee. I will post my own observations in a follow-up post. — Jim Bacon

With every political pundit focused on the transportation issue in the General Assembly, it seems fitting for his Excellency, Senator John Chichester to steal the stage. His collaborative effort with other Senators to squash any hope of compromise transportation legislation seems at this point to have succeeded.

I must admit that I too have many problems with the specifics of HB3202 and do not support its passage as presented. I do, however, believe that there are some parts worth saving and that these components are fundamental to solving the transportation problems Virginians face daily. Unlike Sen. Chichester, I honestly look to amendments and substitute language to achieve a needed piece of legislation. The Senator’s preferred legislation was nothing more than a smack in the face of those who work in earnest for a solution to congestion.

It is true that Sen. Chichester did not accomplish this alone but it is under his leadership that it has taken place. Senator Quayle helped negotiate the “Compromise Package” and then proved to be nothing more than Chichester’s lap dog.

What part of being a team player eludes John Chichester? How does he consider himself a Republican? I guess we should expect this sad legacy he has created as a supposed Republican. Rumor has it that Wikipedia will soon use his name as a definition of a RINO — you know, those folks who trample the core Republican philosophy of “smaller government and lower taxes”.

These are the same folks that argued that Russ Potts is a “good guy” and should remain at his committee post. Potts should have been run out of the Republican Party for challenging our nominee. Instead Chichester gave him a free pass and further alienated grass root volunteers who donate their time and resources freely to the beliefs they hold dear.

This is the same Senator that made a political nothing, Gov. Mark R. Warner, a presidential hopeful. What good is it to be a Republican if all you do is ally with the opposition and further their liberal socialist message? I see no difference between John Chichester and that scoundrel Jim Webb who believe that taxes are the only solution to the problems facing Virginia.

Simply put, John Chichester needs to be removed from the Republican Party. He is motivated only to benefit himself or special interests, surely not the people of Virginia. He is deluded by his own arrogance, fortified at every chance he gets to demean the Republican name he wears.

I ask all members of the Republican Party in Virginia that truly believe in Ronald Reagan’s great legacy to rally. I ask those members who believe as Jefferson did that government is a burden upon the people who own it, to take action against Sen. Chichester. Sen. John Chichester has no honor and knows no shame. Chichester and his cohorts are the reason the Republican message has been lost and diluted in Virginia. If we are to maintain a majority based on Republican principles and the understanding of who owns the government then we must work statewide to remove this pariah.

At this point in history, the Republican Party of Virginia can not afford to have a leader in the Senate who is a political coward. If Chichester does not have the tenacity to support the values of the party name he wears, then he should change parties or better yet, simply get out of politics. All members of the Republican Party across the state should call for Senator John Chichester to remove himself from the Party.

The General Assembly would express “profound regret” for Virginia’s role in slavery and for “historic wrongs visited upon native peoples” in the latest version of a proposed apology that cleared the House Rules Committee yesterday, reports Pamela Stallsmith with the Times-Dispatch. The revised version of an apology originally authored by Del. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, passed unanimously.

The new verbiage sounds like an improvement over the original, in which McEachin had called upon the General Assembly “to atone for the involuntary servitude of Africans and call for reconciliation among all Virginians.”

The substitude, submitted by Del. John M. O’Bannon III, R-Henrico, would express the General Assembly’s “profound regret for the commonwealth’s role in sanctioning the immoral institution of human slavery, in the historic wrongs visited upon native peoples, and in all other forms of discrimination and injustice that have been rooted in racial and cultural bias and misunderstanding.”

I can live with that. I’m still concerned about other language in McEachin’s bill that attributes the social ills of African-Americans today to past injustices like slavery and Jim Crow while skipping over the impact of the modern welfare estate. I can’t find the revised bill online. Can someone point me to the revised apology?

Update: Jim Bowden has posted the text of the revised apology, HJR 728, on his website, Deo Vindice. The language does not sugar coat the injustices of slavery or Jim Crow in the least, yet avoids the pitfalls of McEachin’s original.

I don’t know how practical his idea is, but you’ve got to admire Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta, for his moxie. Reports Hugh Lessig with the Daily Press:

[Landes] wanted higher education institutions to report back on policies that would ensure academic freedom in support of intellectual diversity. The reports were optional, and Landes said he wanted to tread carefully because the issue was controversial.

Committee members voted to table the bill after considering it for nearly an hour, hearing from a list of supporters and critics.

It’s a litany of political conservatives that U.S. colleges and universities are dominated by liberals and leftists. Political opinion polls of college professors tend to confirm the stereotype. (As a one-time graduate student in history at the Johns Hopkins University, I lived the bias — that’s why I bailed out with a Master’s Degree instead of Ph.D.)

It wouldn’t surprise me to find that professors in public Virginia colleges lean left as well. But it’s my impression that there is more intellectual diversity in our college campuses than in other public systems. Conservatives and free-marketeers may be a minority, but they’re not an endangered species. Conservative students can find intellectual mentors if they seek them out.

As for the history profs I was closest to at the University of Virginia, two were avowed Marxists and two were mainstream liberal. But they were superb teachers who instilled a love of learning and taught me how to think logically and rigorously for myself. Not much of their politics rubbed off, but their teaching did.

Update: This issue is of more than “academic” interest. To quote from today’s Petersburg Progress-Index:

Last week, Dr. Jean R. Cobbs, a former sociology professor, received a $600,000 settlement from the university. Cobbs, who filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in 2005, claimed she was discriminated against due to her conservative political beliefs. Cobbs has open relations with the Republican Party. In a report from the American Association of University Professors, Cobbs began reporting “repeated acts of ‘professional, political and personal harassment’” in the early 1990s.

Bills that would begin to dismantle the state’s innovation-stifling process for approving and regulating health-care facilities died in the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee yesterday, reports Tammie Smith with the Times-Dispatch. Del. John M. O’Bannon III, R-Henrico, a physician, asked that his deregulation bill be stricken after a key stipulation was removed during a hearing. Smith provides some of the background:

Lobbyists for hospitals, nursing homes, physician specialties and other groups spoke for and against aspects of O’Bannon’s bill, which would have made several significant changes. For instance, projects would no longer need approval from regional planning agencies. Also, equipment valued at less than $500,000 would be exempt from the regulatory process.

As it stands, proposals for new medical facilities or costly pieces of equipment must go through a regulatory process, with local planning agencies considering how the service or equipment will affect the health-care market and recommending for or against approval. The state health commissioner ultimately signs off on regulated
projects.

Critics have charged that this regulatory process protects existing health care providers by restricting the entry of new players into the marketplace. Some say the future of health care is to evolve from a system of general hospitals, whcih provide a wide range of services, to medical “factories” specializing and excelling in particular disciplines and procedures. The specialists tend to have higher productivity, lower costs and better patient outcomes. But hospitals, which dominate Virginia’s health care industry, claim that such competition would “skim the cream,” and make them less profitable. As a consequence, Virginia has very few focused medical enterprises.

The health care system is so complex, of course, that no one set of changes will bring health care inflation under control. But a good starting point would be to encourage new business models in a sector where such innovation is conspicuously lacking.

Does anyone seriously think that an economic sector regulated by state government and policed by the established health care constituencies can build a better mousetrap? As O’Bannon put it: “The question is how tightly are we going to control health care in Virginia? Are we going to control it down to every blood pressure cuff?”