Category Archives: Commentary

When and Why Can the SCC Say No?

When the General Assembly and Governor pass a law that states a source of electricity – or even a specific power project – is in “the public interest,” what is the State Corporation Commission left to do?  Does that mean the SCC must approve the project even if it turns out to be unreasonable, imprudent or not needed?

Since 2007 the Assembly has designated several aspects of generation and transmission “in the public interest,” this year adding to the list up to 5,000 megawatts of renewable generation and a small and expensive demonstration project for off-shore wind for Dominion Energy Virginia.  Before going further on that wind project, Dominion filed a petition seeking a declaratory judgement on the question of prudence.  Just because one parent said yes, best to check with the other one.

The two SCC commissioners then turned the tables and asked all participants in the matter to give their legal opinion on seven specific questions.  Lawyers for the two major electricity providers, for environmental groups and for the Office of the Attorney General all took a crack at questions such as this one:

“6. Do the statutorily-mandated public interest findings under either Subsections A or E override a factual finding that the project’s: (a) capacity or energy are not needed for the utility to serve its customers; and/or (b) costs to customers are unreasonable or excessive in relation to capacity or energy available from other sources, including but not limited to sources of a type similar to the proposed project?”

Before Dominion dictated a new regulatory approach in 2007,and before Virginia legislators developed a taste for micromanaging the state’s energy economy, such questions never came up.  The SCC had unlimited authority to decide what was needed, prudent or reasonable, subject to appeal.

The briefs are all buried in this pile of documents and they were supplemented with oral arguments on Thursday, drawing a packed house.  There was agreement that a finding of public interest is distinct and does not override questions of prudence or reasonable cost, and the SCC can reject a project for those reasons.  But picking up a phrase used before, Joseph Reid III of McGuireWoods said Dominion views the legislative blessing as “a thumb on the scale” and that phrase in the law “strongly encourages a result.”

The petition dealing with the wind project is filed under a new process for testing prudency. “It would be illogical for the General Assembly to first declare solar or wind generation facilities to be in the public interest and provide for a prudency determination if the General Assembly meant for the terms to be treated synonymously. There would be no need for a prudency determination if such was the case,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Mitch Burton of the Consumer Counsel’s staff.

Burton also pointed to the part of the new bill dealing with putting residential power lines underground.  The General Assembly years ago deemed that underground program in the public interest, and directed the SCC to interpret the law liberally, yet the SCC scaled back the project based on cost.  This year the Assembly added a hard mandate that those costs had to be deemed reasonable,  but that implies SCC discretion remains in other areas.

At times the argument focused on the general issues, but at other times it focused on the project at hand – the 12 megawatt, two-turbine wind project planned for 27 miles off Virginia Beach and projected to cost $300 million.  Supporters of the project argued that the SCC should not reject it just because the tiny energy output is not needed.  Given this has been billed all along as a small demonstration project, not a major source of electricity, the question of need may not apply in its case.

But need will be a question in other cases, and projected demand growth is a major dispute in the pending Dominion integrated resource plan.  The rapid move to renewable sources may be accompanied by the early (and costly) retirement of existing fossil fuel generation. This part of the discussion produced the strongest disagreement among the parties.  They had different answers to part (a) of the question set out above.

Continue reading

Has NoVa Finally Woken Up?

VA-10.  State Senator Jennifer Wexton (D) hopes to unseat Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R) in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District.  A typically gerrymandered Virginia district, the 10th stretches from inside the Capital Beltway to well west of Winchester.  As a resident of the 10th I watch the elections in that district closely.  This one is shaping up to be a doozy.  Far left Jennifer Wexton is running on an anti-Trump platform while trying to avoid taking a position on any issue relevant to the constituents she hopes to represent.  Meanwhile, Barbara Comstock is running as an embarrassed Republican who tries to avoid gazing east at the current occupant of the Oval Office.  Think Nelson Rockafeller in drag.  All in all I think Barbara Comstock has done a better job of explaining herself and focusing on issues that are relevant to her district.  One issue in particular stands out for me – the allegation that Wexton has sold out Northern Virginia during her time in the General Assembly.

Don’t get Wexton’ed.  Recent negative ads run by the National Republican Congressional Committee (presumably) on behalf of Barbara Comstock hit a point that hasn’t been hit before.  The ads call out Jennifer Wexton for her role in the General Assembly’s massive rip off of Northern Virginia.  The 30 second ads are punchy and direct.  One ad has a graphic that shows money raining out of NoVa into Richmond.  It cites high tolls and NoVa – only taxes.  Needless to say, Jennifer Wexton is the highlighted villain.  Another ad shows traffic jams and tolls in NoVa then cuts to a single car effortlessly driving down an otherwise empty road claiming, “The rest of the state rides for free.”  As far as I’m concerned, the ads are completely on target and finally call out the gutless NoVa politicians we have elected for selling out their constituents.

I wish I could drive I295.  For many people from Northern Virginia there certainly seems to be a vast sucking sound coming from the General Assembly in Richmond.  There also seems to be a two class system when it comes to a lot of things including transportation.  Take Richmond for example … the city, not the state government.  The OMB defines the greater Richmond area as comprising thirteen counties, including the principal cities of Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell, and Colonial Heights. As of 2016, it had a population of 1,263,617.  Somehow, this qualifies the area for a 4 lane “beltway” called I295.  Meanwhile, the greater Washington area has a population of 6.1m as of 2016.  It also has a 4 lane beltway in NoVa.  An area with 4.7 times the population of Richmond somehow ends up with the same sized highway encircling it as Richmond gets?  And Jennifer Wexton thinks that’s all fine and dandy?  Comstock’s right – let’s not get Wexton’ed.

Thanks, Barbara.  Jennifer Wexton is hardly alone in selling out her constituents.  All 140 seats in the Virginia General Assembly are up for election in 2019 including every state politician claiming to represent Northern Virginia.  It’s high time that all of NoVa’s politicians are taken to task for selling out their constituents.  Hopefully these ads and others like them will continue to haunt the comfy re-election dreams of our political class in Northern Virginia.  If our politicians want to argue about their role in grifting NoVa the approach is easy … clearly and quantitatively document the amount of money taken by state and local government in NoVa and compare it to the amount of money spent by state and local government in NoVa.  Then … defend the difference.  I happen to know that a number of General Assembly members from NoVa read this blog (at least occasionally).  Any of you who read this – are you up for the challenge of demonstrating the fairness of your actions vis-a-vis inflows and outflows of money from NoVa?  I won’t hold my breath.

— Don Rippert

Limousine liberalism in Alexandria, Va

Stinking to high heaven.  The City of Alexandria spews an astonishing 11 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River every year.  The overflows happen just about every time it rains.  This is the result of a combined sewer system that is designed to collect sewage and runoff in a single system.  When it rains, the runoff spikes and Alexandria’s treatment plant can’t handle the volume.  The excess of mixed runoff and sewage is intentionally overflowed into the Potomac River in four separate dumping locations.  This has been happening for 100 years.

Raising procrastination to an art form.  Many U.S. cities have combined sewer overflow (CSO) problems.  The environmental damage is well understood and the approach to solving the problem is well understood.  You basically build a great big underground holding tank to catch the excess sewage and runoff until the treatment plant can catch up to demand. Washington, D.C., Richmond and Lynchburg join Alexandria in needing to deal with their CSO problem.  The difference between Alexandria and the other three cities is that the other cities are well along in solving the problem while the well-heeled progressives in Alexandria were content to spew human waste into the Chesapeake Bay watershed without any more than a pretense of a plan to remedy the situation.  However, in a stunning stroke of clarity, the Virginia General Assembly changed all that.  They boxed Alexandria’s ears leaving the snowflakes in that city’s government with an epic case of tinnitus.

Our glorious General Assembly.  During the 2017 session the Virginia General Assembly essentially told Alexandria that “enough was enough.”  The legislature passed bills setting a fast-paced schedule for Alexandria to fix its disgusting sewer system.  The city has eight years to attend to a problem that should have been addressed a decade ago.  The Mayor and City Council members of Alexandria cried like babies after being told they needed to stop dumping raw sewage into the river.  Alexandria has a median household income of $89,200 and can afford an “Office for Women” along with hybrid buses that cost $750,000 apiece (twice the cost of a normal diesel bus and they idle all the time anyway).  However, they can’t fund a fix to dumping raw sewage?

Odd bedfellows. The Alexandria sewage affair made for some odd bedfellows.  Progressive Democratic state Senator Scott Surovell, D-Mount Vernon, launched a Twitter offensive against his lefty pals in Alexandria over the matter.  Of course Surovell represents the district immediately downriver from Alexandria!  Conservative Republican state senator Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland, patroned the initial legislation, which was much more draconian than what was ultimately passed.  Stuart also represents a district downriver from Alexandria.  Support for the bill in both the House and Senate came primarily from Republicans while opposition was primarily from Democrats. Governor McAuliffe tried to elongate Alexandria’s schedule but was rebuffed by the General Assembly and ultimately signed the strict bill.

Update. After insisting that the city needed five years to study the matter Alexandria’s plan was written and approved within a year. After insisting that the eight-year schedule was an engineering impossibility the city now says the schedule is doable. Funny what happens when liberals are forced to do the things they insist everybody else must do.

Warning. Before any of you wizards in the peanut gallery start carping about my anti-liberal bias … remember this post.  I am anti-two-faced politicians who espouse a political philosophy like property rights or environmentalism but then backtrack on their supposed beliefs when it comes time to act.

Hero award: Scott Surovell.

— Don Rippert

Weak Growth Makes Conformity Revenue Tempting

Virginia economic performance measures 2017 and 2018. The U.S. exceeded expectations while Virginia lagged.

I called it correctly back in June: Conformity to federal tax reform produces a major boost in state revenue which the state’s leadership on both side of the aisle is strongly tempted to keep because the state remains strapped for cash.

The signs of economic stress are all over Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne’s August 17 presentation to the General Assembly’s money committees. At the end of perhaps the longest U.S. bull market in history, following a tax cut designed to stimulate growth and a major shift in regulatory climate, Virginia continues to under-perform the national economy. The employment growth figure of less than one percent stands out.

Yes, Virginia ended fiscal year 2018 on June 30 with $555 million more general fund revenue than projected in the budget – a 2.7 percent cushion. But Layne explained a large part of that came from $120 million in last-day deposits  made earlier than normal because of the July 4 holiday timing. It also appears many taxpayers boosted their withholding because of uncertainty over whether or how Virginia would conform to federal tax reform.

The report shows Virginia missed its forecasts on corporate income, recordation, insurance premium and other smaller taxes tied to economic activity, and only exceeded the sales and use tax projection by one-tenth of one percent. Layne, always candid, mentioned the growing prevalence of sales and use tax exemptions as business incentives as one reason that revenue source can’t seem to grow.

The chart above shows the basic problem:  Virginia missed its own forecasts on employment and wage growth, while at the same time the national forecasts – higher to begin with – were being beaten. The similar chart for the new fiscal year shows the same expected result – Virginia trailing the national averages into next year.

The overall general fund growth target for fiscal year 2019 is an anemic 1.4 percent. The first month of the new year, July, was down from last year.

This continued weak economic performance explains why Virginia seems unable to refill its mandatory revenue stabilization fund, or rainy-day fund. There are no large surpluses to direct to that purpose, so only a trickle of money is flowing in. By law, Virginia also has dedicated portions of any surplus revenue to several other uses.

Virginia has avoided the wrath of the Wall Street rating firms over its small reserves by setting aside a second, non-mandatory revenue reserve with what would otherwise be operating cash. Only with the help of that will the reserves exceed $1 billion by 2020.

Failure to Launch: Virginia’s Rainy Day Fund must be supplemented by diversion of operating funds to even approach its prior totals. Source: Layne presentation.

Much of this was overlooked because the discussion Friday promptly turned to tax policy and Governor Ralph Northam’s call for full conformity with the federal changes, projected to increase state tax revenues by $3.6 billion over five years.  But the link between the two issues is strong.

At the end of his presentation Layne went through several risks facing the state, and these did not include the giant risk of an economic downturn or stock market crash (which came up in response to a question from Del. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg).

Virginia has apparently made some major economic development promises, a package of incentives large enough to lead Layne’s list of revenue risks should the deal be sealed and announced  Is it Amazon? He was careful not to mention names, but such an open discussion was unprecedented. It must be a huge incentive promise.   Continue reading

The Truth Is Out There (To Be Revealed Friday)

So it’s going to be politics, not economics. Perhaps it was inevitable.

On Friday Governor Ralph Northam and Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne will be presenting to the House and Senate money committees, part of their report looking back (at the completed fiscal year), but the key parts of their message looking forward. Both are expected to put some flesh on the bare-bones announcement made last Friday about how the Governor wants Virginia to respond to the opportunities created by federal tax reform.

The announcement was telegraphed by the left-leaning Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, which endorsed converting Virginia’s Earned Income Tax Credit into a fully refundable version, putting cash in people’s pockets, discussed in a previous Bacon’s Rebellion post.  The political angle was described well this morning by the Democrats’ Virginia media strategist Jeff Schapiro, also of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, who tagged the EITC proposal as aimed at the 2019 legislative elections.

Finally you can see the strategy in the Governor’s own guest column today, this from the Roanoke Times.

“The recent federal tax changes have benefited mainly higher earner. These tax policy changes from Washington will result in additional revenues to Virginia. We can use this opportunity to invest in those who need it most— hard working Virginians. We can do this by making Virginia’s existing earned income tax credit refundable, ensuring that 600,000 working Virginians, including thousands of veteran and military families, can get the full tax benefit for which they qualify.”

What the Governor and Secretary Layne know that we don’t yet is, well, everything. The state commissioned a detailed study of the state-level financial impact of the various federal tax rules changes. That was the apparent basis for the Governor’s announcement Friday that about $500 million plus in new state revenue will result, half of which he wants to use to finance the EITC refunds and half of which he wants to keep in the General Fund.

Secretary Layne assured Bacon’s Rebellion after that press conference that the full report from the consultant will be released and available online Friday after the Governor speaks. Until that report is picked apart, anybody who hasn’t read it is just speculating. I won’t join in that yet.

Probably the best analysis of the issues – written without access to the new report on the numbers – was released this week by Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation. Come Friday it should be clear where that $500 million estimate came from, which tax provisions produced additional revenue and which taxpayers may pay more in the long run.  And it may be clear whether that windfall results from full conformity to the myriad federal changes, no conformity to the federal changes, or from cherry-picking which provisions to accept or reject – meaning a different combination produces a different revenue result.

There has been no mention so far, but expect news on Friday, about the potential state revenue boost from requiring more out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax on goods they ship to Virginia customers.  And until Friday we really won’t know the size of any surplus from fiscal year 2018, or the status of the reserve funds. Those are also key parts of this coming tax debate.

This is the best opportunity in a generation Virginia has seen for some intelligent tax reform, something positioning our economy for this century. And tax reform does not mean cut my taxes and raise somebody else’s. As previously noted the EITC is an effective anti-poverty program, and Virginia’s income tax is arguably regressive, hitting lower income workers harder than it should. But that is just one element of what needs to be a long conversation that ranges over the whole tax code, one that has been stymied for decades because of the various political risks.

Somebody Must Think We’re Stupid

David Poole and his team at VPAP have provided another illustration of how the reporting requirements placed on lobbyists at the state Capitol are intentionally vague and useless.  The chart above deals with the reports on lobbyist compensation.

This is usually the figure at the heart of the occasional stories about the amount spent by an individual company, or the gross amount spent on lobbying by all who file these forms.  But in practice almost nobody reports in full what they are paid, and they of course do things other than lobbying with their time.  So they pro-rate their fee and salary and report only a portion of it.

Who draws the line?  Who picks the formula for pro-rating the time? The lobbyist or the principal do so for themselves and are never asked to report their rationale.  That’s why comparisons are impossible – some report 5 percent and some 100.  Partly there is the natural reluctance everybody has to reveal their income, but there is also a reluctance to stand out as a big spender on charts like those produced by VPAP or in a news story.

A Peek Inside the Process

Years ago, one of the best lobbyists I ever worked with, a fine lawyer, instructed me that only the time I spent talking or writing to a legislative or executive branch official about a specific bill or vote was lobbying.  The time I spent researching the issue, drafting legislation or talking points, driving to the meeting, sitting in the anteroom – none of those hours, the bulk of the time, constituted lobbying.  The ten or fifteen minutes in the room, that was the only actual lobbying.

This all flows back to the very narrow definition of lobbying in Virginia law, which does not get into indirect lobbying or grassroots lobbying or lobbying preparation, all things that come up when companies are deciding what is and isn’t lobbying for federal tax compliance purposes.  This situation is too ridiculous to be accident or oversight, and extremely convenient for both the lobbyists and the lobbied.

Compensation is not that relevant.  What matters far more, the real glaring gap in the reports, are the details about what specific subject matters, bills, budget amendments, gubernatorial appointments or procurement decisions are being influenced.   The shameful gaps in the reports include loopholes that allow expensive dinners, gifts or entertainment to be given with no recipients named, or money to shuffle between various entities under the guise of some unregistered coalition.

Also, the full extent of grassroots or indirect efforts needs to be revealed.  More and more issues now spark television, direct mail, phone bank and other campaign style communications efforts, and every dime spent on those should be just as transparent as if they were being spent on a candidate.

One area where compensation should be reported in full is when the client is the government.  Beyond that, we need to focus on those other more important failings in the current non-disclosure disclosure regime, although this contribution by VPAP is useful in demonstrating that somebody out there thinks we’re stupid.

Goodbye and Good Riddance to Goodlatte

Carpetbagger. Bob Goodlatte is the 13-term congressman from Virginia’s 6th Congressional District who has blessedly chosen to retire this year. In my opinion he represents just about everything that is wrong with the GOP. Born in Holyoke, Massachusetts and educated at Bates College in Maine, Goodlatte somehow avoids the “carpetbagger” moniker so quickly put on Terry McAuliffe by Virginia’s Republicans. He won his congressional seat at age 39 and has spent the last 26 years in Congress. Yet he goes uncriticized as a “politician for life” by the conservative Newt Gingrich types who claim to eschew such long running elected officials. He is a polluter’s best friend with apparently no concern for the property rights of those negatively affected by the pollution he justifies and defends. However, he’ll be gone soon and you’d think we’re past the damage done by this phony conservative. Oh no.  Even in his final days in office Goodlatte is actively denying people protection of their property rights despite “property rights” supposedly being a core tenet of conservative Republican dogma. What a farce.

Blowing up the blueprint. The Chesapeake Bay represents not only a national treasure but a working laboratory for the protection of property rights. Certainly right thinking conservatives must believe that allowing a small minority of people and corporations to pollute a public waterway unfairly takes away the property rights of non-polluters. In the case of a waterway that borders multiple states, one would think that sensible and honest conservatives would insist that the federal government protect the property rights of all the states.  Isn’t this both a core tenet of conservatism and a reasonable construct of property rights?  Not according to Bob Goodlatte.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed states have claimed to be working together to clean up the Bay for the past forty years. For 31 of those years the effort failed as various states simply ignored their clean up commitments. Then, in 2009, the EPA was authorized to provide scientific leadership and oversight for a new clean-up plan — the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint. Progress has been substantial since that time. Despite Virginia being a major beneficiary of the blueprint, one of our own Congressmen has put forth an amendment to curtail the EPA’s role in this effort.  You guessed it, ole Bob Goodlatte sponsored an amendment to H.R. 6147 forbidding the EPA from spending money to provide firm, science-based accountability over the blueprint. As a press release from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation puts it, “Congressman Goodlatte’s amendment would keep EPA from using any funds to provide this “firm accountability” if a state fails to meet its pollution-reduction goals set under the Blueprint.” So much for preservation of property rights from this so-called conservative.

Hall of shame. Bob Goodlatte’s amendment for the protection of raw sewage in public waters passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 213 to 202.  Seven of Virginia’s Representatives (Wittman, Taylor, Scott, McEachin, Beyer, Comstock and Connolly) repudiated Sideshow Bob and his amendment by voting against it. However, four of our so-called representatives (Garrett, Goodlatte, Brat and Griffith) couldn’t find the mental acuity to understand how a clean Chesapeake Bay might help the Commonwealth of Virginia. While it’s no excuse for their buffoonery Garrett, Goodlatte and Griffith have districts far from the Bay. Brat, by comparison, has a district bordering the city of Richmond. What are the voters in the 7th district thinking? Will “Kepone Dave” get re-elected? Here’s a good article about the cleanliness of the James River in Richmond (warning: true but disgusting content)

Going forward. The congressional seat being vacated by Bob Goodlatte’s retirement will be contested by Ben Cline (R) and Jennifer Lewis (D). Cline is a member of the General Assembly and long time Goodlatte toady. Lewis is a bleeding heart liberal with minimal political experience. So far, Lewis has raised $72,000 to Cline’s $787,000. The Cook Partisan Voter Index for the district is R+13. Sadly, Cline will almost certainly win and continue the anti-conservative, anti-Virginia activities of his predecessor.

— Don Rippert 

Lobbyist Forms Not Mentioned At Council Meeting

A Peek Inside the Process

The state’s Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council met Tuesday making no mention of  my column published in July 21’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, pressing for specific bill numbers, budget item numbers and other details on the state’s lobbyist disclosure forms.  I had been told in advance the issue wouldn’t be added to the agenda.

In fact the council’s meeting lasted less than 30 minutes, had no business items, and the only vote was on previous meeting minutes.  Those minutes reveal that the June meeting’s big decision was to approve a staff suggestion to add student loan balances among debts disclosed by public officials.

I don’t want anybody to think I’m making up the complaint that the forms disclose nothing at all, despite a direction to be as specific as possible, so I pulled a few examples at random.  Who owns up to working on which of the 3,722 individual pieces of legislation at the 2018 session?   

As previously noted on July 9 most of the filings lack specifics and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Advisory Council has sent signals this is acceptable with its published examples.

Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce: “Business Issues.”  Well, that narrows it down to 600 or so bills.

Virginia Chamber of Commerce: “Executive and Legislative Actions and Procurement Transactions.”  I looked at this a few times before I realized it simply repeated back the phrase from the question.    

Mecklenburg County: “Matters involving issues affecting local government.”

Fairfax County Water Authority: “Matters of interest to the Fairfax County Water Authority, including but not limited to, issues arising under the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act.”  But not limited to. 

Norfolk Southern Corporation: “All matters affecting Norfolk Southern Corporation.”

City of Norfolk: “Local government.”

Virginia League of Conservation Voters: “Matters related to land conservation, land use, energy issues, and transportation financing.” Continue reading

Updates: Money, Power and Politics (Oh, My)

The following are updates on earlier Bacon’s Rebellion stories of mine.

Clean Virginia Files First Report

Clean Virginia Fund, the political action committee that is trying to buy legislators’ loyalty away from regulated utilities, has filed its first report with the State Board of Elections.  Charlottesville financier and hedge fund magnate Michael D. Bills is the only donor, putting in $50,000.  Two senators and nine delegates, all Democrats, accepted a total of $32,500.  Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power donated a combined $175,000 during the same period so if this is really a bidding war, Clean Virginia has some catching up to do.

Hunton Andrews Kurth, the Richmond law and lobbying firm, is off to a slow start, giving only $23,000 on this report.  The firm drew notice for saying it would not support legislators who refused donations from its utility client.  Its largest check was to the Democratic Commonwealth Victory Fund, which supports both House and Senate candidates in that party.  (Dominion Energy gave to that, too.)

Somehow I don’t think any of the legislators who are refusing corporate or utility dollars will refuse help from that party committee. The check was probably to attend the Democrat’s annual event at the Homestead, where I’m sure all had a nice chin wag over the bar or on the golf course.

Dominion Energy Doubles Down on T1 Rider Taxes

Responding to an adverse recommendation from a State Corporation Commission hearing examiner, Dominion Energy has filed comments asking the full commission to ignore her opinion and make the customers pay too much.

Its first and most important argument is that the commission doesn’t have the authority to exercise discretion over the future transmission charges under rate adjustment clause T1.  It points to language in the 2007 statute that created this RAC and the whole system of RACs.  In the case of transmission costs under T1 the language says that any bill from regional transmission entity PJM is presumed to be reasonable and prudent.

This isn’t about the taxes, it’s about that language.  That “reasonable and prudent” presumption is even more frequent in the statute now, thanks to the 2018 legislation.  This is once again proof that Dominion inserts that phrase (and it writes these bills, no legislator does) to override the judgement of the SCC.  Those of us who worked on that 2007 statute never contemplated that Dominion would take advantage of that presumption to self-calculate its charge based on false information – in this case an erroneous tax rate.

If the SCC stands with its hearing examiner, expect the utility to take the battle back to the Virginia Supreme Court or back to its friendly legislators.  Once again, as it has been for more than a decade, the only real issue is will the legislature listen to the SCC or let the utility make it own laws and rules.

The AG Giveth, the AG Taketh Away

Attorney General Mark Herring has notably been a bit less predictable than many previous AG’s on the question of who his client is, if the state law or regulatory position he would normally defend was highly unpopular with various interest groups.

He earned praise in many circles recently for deciding to have his staff defend certain abortion-related regulations, but now has decided to not let his staff join in the appeal of a recent decision on legislative districts and the Voting Rights Act.  The Republican legislators seeking a delay on drawing a new map pending that appeal will need to fund their own legal efforts.

Continue reading

Saul Trumpinsky – Donald Trump and Saul Alinsky

Yes Virginia, there is a United States. Most posts published on this blog are dedicated to Virginia-specific issues. This post is an exception. It is an attempt to understand the unexpected popularity of Donald Trump. While all states are impacted by the federal government and national politics, Virginia is perhaps the most affected state. The proximity of Northern Virginia to the nation’s capital as well as the military influence over Hampton Roads’ economy make the federal government particularly important to Virginia. So it behooves us to understand the president and how the heck he got elected.

Saul who? Saul Alinsky was a Chicago-born community organizer and writer. He was best known for his book Rules for Radicals published in 1971. Even before his famous (or infamous) book Alinsky was on the political radar. In 1966 William F. Buckley wrote an article in his “On the Right” column calling Alinsky an iconoclast and “close to being an organizational genius.” However, as would be the case with many critics on the left and right, Buckley ultimately found Alinsky’s approach ineffective. Famously, Hillary Clinton’s undergraduate thesis was a 92-page critique of Mr. Alinsky and his methods. Back in 1969, 22-year-old Clinton was sympathetic to Alinsky’s concerns but ultimately found his approach ineffective. Even Hoover’s FBI kept a close eye on Alinsky during the late 1960s. But the 1960s came and went and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was written and discussed, and then faded from view. There were momentary flare-ups around Hillary Clinton becoming First Lady and Barack Obama becoming president. However, Alinsky was largely relegated to those creaky crevices of the cultural cranium as a curious cartoon-like character. Or … was he?

Donald Trump and the resurrection of Saul Alinsky. As far back as early 2016 the right wing-media outlet Newsmax began to see parallels between Donald Trump’s approach as a candidate and Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. After being elected some of President Trump’s conservative critics continued to associate Trump’s actions with the Alinsky brand. Could it be? Could this odd collection of #neverTrumpers have unraveled the secret to Donald Trump’s inexplicable election success? Is he simply following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? Repeated searches of Trumpian philosophy found no fond commentary by The Donald for The Saul. However, there are many points of commonality between Trump and Alinsky.

A baker’s dozen.  Alinsky outlines 13 specific rules in his book. Donald Trump is following 12 of them. To wit (along with the Trump translation or Trumplation):

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” (Trumplation: constant exaggeration.)
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” (Trumplation: Make America Great Again. A simple, understandable motto.)
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.” (Trumplation: Canada’s 243% tariff on U.S. dairy products … who knew?)
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” (Trumplation: Slam Hillary Clinton for taking millions for giving speeches to banks.)
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” (Trumplation: Crooked Hillary, Corrupt Kaine.)
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” (Trumplation: campaign speeches that look like revival meetings, “deplorables” as a badge of honor.”)
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Trumplation: (Whatever happened to the NFL kneeling “controversy”?)
  8. “Keep the pressure on.” (Trumplation: From North Korea to the EU to London to Helsinki backed by an unending chorus of tweets.)
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”  (Trumplation: Nominate me or I’ll go third party.)
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”  (Trumplation: One Donald Trump tweeting, many Democrats attempting to rebut.)
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside” (Trumplation: Forget my business deals, look at Crooked Hillary, Crooked Hillary, Crooked Hillary …)
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”  (Trumplation: The only rule he seems to have missed although GDP growth through corporate tax cuts might be an example.)
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  (Trumplation: target individuals not institutions – Carmen Yulin Cruz, Stephen Colbert, Megyn Kelly.)

Advise to President Trump. Read Hillary’s thesis. She did get an “A”. Alinsky’s tactics work well at first but fail to create a lasting unity among their adherents. They generate notoriety at a rapid rate but the momentum doesn’t last. Charles “the Hammer” Martel may have defeated the Moors at Tours but it was his grandson King Charles (aka Charlemagne or “Charles the Great”) who forged an empire. Hammers are forgotten while greatness is not. Hammer time is over. What’s next Mr. President? You’ve taken the rules for radicals as far as they will go. It’s time to start writing “lessons for leaders.”

— Don Rippert