Investigative Journalism: Still Alive and Aimed at Dominion

By Dick Hall-Sizemore

Well, investigative journalism is still alive. The Richmond Times-Dispatch has teamed up with the national journalist investigative organization, ProPublica, to report on the political influence of Dominion Energy in Virginia.

The first result of this effort is a major, long article in today’s edition of the RTD.  By long, I mean a big front-page display and three full pages on the inside, plus another full page on utility influence in other states. For those BR readers who are stopped by the newspaper’s paywall, I would recommend that you try to read it.

The main gist of the article is painfully familiar to long-time Bacon’s Rebellion readers. However, the article does contain some fascinating details about the negotiations over the Clean Economy Act during the 2020 session. The RTD and ProPublica staff used the Freedom of Information Act to get emails and phone records from the administration. They interviewed the sponsors of the legislation, Dominion representatives, and the negotiators from the environmental groups. They contacted independent utility regulation experts.

Here are some takeaways:

The original bill (Clean Economy Act) passed by the House required utilities to meet tougher energy efficiency standards and accept more solar and other renewable energy generated by producers other than Dominion. It did not include language mandating that Dominion own the offshore wind component of the package. Once it got to the Senate, Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (no surprise) “told environmental groups that to get any climate bill through the Senate, they’d need agreement from Dominion.”

Representatives of Dominion and environmentalists engaged in marathon negotiating sessions over five weeks. No legislators were involved.

The talks dragged on. Dominion would agree to some proposals, only later to back away from its former position. The representative from the National Resources Defense Council got so disgusted she quit the talks.

The sponsors of the House and Senate bills, Del. Rip Sullivan of Fairfax and Sen. Jennifer McClellan of Richmond, said they largely left the details to Dominion and the environmental groups. “Other than just generally focusing on ‘What can we do to expand wind,’ I was not involved in the weeds of the language negotiations,” said McClellan.

That left the environmental negotiators at the mercy of Bill Murray, an amiable, smart negotiator who has been around the legislative process for 29 years and is well-liked and respected by legislators. He also has access to a deep bench and deep pockets.

On the day before the bill was to come to a final vote in the legislature, Angela Navarro, the deputy secretary of commerce, who was acting as the administration’s mediator in the talks, directed that a small “tweak” be made in the legislation. That “tweak” resulted in a $2.5 billion increase in the acceptable cost of Dominion’s proposed wind farm — an increase that ratepayers would be on the hook for. Navarro says that the language change was negotiated with the group. “I think we discussed it amongst all the stakeholders,” she said. Representatives of the environmental groups deny knowing anything about it. Phone and email records show that Navarro was in contact with Dominion both directly before and after the change was made. Sen. McClellan says that she was unaware of the change until RTD and ProPublica asked her about it months after the bill passed. Del. Sullivan said he was aware of the change but not the “resulting dollar amount.”

Regarding the wind project, the bill contains key language requiring the SCC to find costs “reasonably and prudently incurred.” This language must have appeared from thin air because no one involved seems to know its origin. Sen. McClellan said she was not “involved in the weeds of the language.” Del. Sullivan said it came from “the ongoing collaborative process between lots of stakeholders.” The environmental negotiators said they didn’t write it or help write it. Bill Murray of Dominion said he did not know who wrote it, but he did concede that the company’s legal representatives were “involved in discussions about it.”

Del. Lee Carter, a Democrat from Manassas, summed up perfectly what happened to the Democrats’ Clean Economy Act: “In previous years, [Dominion has] gotten [its] ratepayer money through fossil fuel projects because that is what they could get through a Republican-held General Assembly. Now they have adapted and they’re doing their price gouging on renewable energy projects. They are, in my opinion, taking advantage of this new majority’s desire to do something for the environment and they are using that as a way to gouge the citizens of this commonwealth.” Shades of Steve Haner.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

70 responses to “Investigative Journalism: Still Alive and Aimed at Dominion

  1. Where’s The LAUGH button???
    Not for the subject matter, rather the subject headline!
    There hasn’t been an Investigative Reporter at the richmond rag in the last twenty years.

  2. Ahhhh what government does best…
    Picking Winners an Losers….
    No profit for politicians and their rent seeking friends in letting the free market decide…
    Mayor Stoney and his 1.8 million statue removal was a piker compared to these professionals…

  3. Good summary of the key findings of the RTD article. But, other than the details of the sausage making, none of this is new to Bacon’s Rebellion readers. Steve Haner (with a minor assist from me) reported it all.

    The environmentalists made a deal with the devil to get clean energy. Solar power makes economic sense. Wind power doesn’t. The environmentalists were the ones who had to have wind, though, and Dominion took full advantage. The article implies that maybe the environmentalists were hoodwinked by the high cost. Nonsense.

    It was never any secret that the wind project would be incredibly expensive. Haner and I both inveighed against that investment. The fact is, the environmentalists don’t care what clean energy costs. After all, they’re saving the planet from destruction.

    But count on the RTD to figure a spin that accomplishes two progressive goals: (a) bashes Dominion and (b) absolves the environmentalists.

    • Journalists only dig when they believe there’s progressive gold to be found in them thar hills.

      If the news media had covered the pipeline issues fairly, Virginia would soon have the means to do away with coal and economically satisfy our energy needs for decades to come, all the while improving the environment by reducing acid rain and other environmental hazards.

      I actually read many of the court documents about the pipeline. Climate change whackos threw anything and everything against the wall hoping something would stick. Most of it was nonsense, and they knew it.

    • Patrick did a great job laying out what he could, but really only scratched the surface. Soooo many moving parts. Dick found one of the key paragraphs:

      “Other than just generally focusing on ‘What can we do to expand wind,’ I was not involved in the weeds of the language negotiations,” said McClellan. That would be Governor-wannabe Jennifer McClellan. She is a lawyer. Wait, she is a regulatory lawyer. Even more: She is a utility regulatory lawyer for Verizon. Yet she ignored the details and left this to the various vested interests. That should be a warning to us and an issue for her, both for her nomination and then for the general if she is nominated.

      But I do note: Have you seen any bills requiring that telecom companies must give their customers screwed by the lockdowns a pass on disconnections? No.

      • “Have you seen any bills requiring that telecom companies must give their customers screwed by the lockdowns a pass on disconnections?”

        Is this a documented problem? I’m not saying that to be sarcastic. I haven’t come across articles about it. My dealings with telco providers has been good of late, and I’ve even seen several examples of them ignoring data caps and providing free or discounted Internet because of COVID-19.

        I work primarily with the wireline side of things. Are you referencing wireless plans?

      • I followed this bill pretty closely but was surprised by how badly Angela Navarro got rolled on the off-shore wind project. I’m almost certain she had no idea what she was agreeing to.

    • ” The environmental negotiators said they didn’t write it or help write it. ”

      so where do you and Haner get it?

    • Please allow me to make a correction:

      On-shore wind has been cost effective since the mid-90’s when the Democrats were still enamored with coal, and had not yet woke…

      Jim says…” Solar power makes economic sense. (Insert new word:) -OFFSHORE- Wind power doesn’t. ”

      I’d further say Solar has qualifications, roof top solar may be a good idea but I am not sure how economic it is without state-mandate subsidies (eg; net metering) and penalties for carbon use.

  4. And if they ever get their way Dominion will go the way of PG&E, so hold on to your hats.

  5. Yes, the rtd and pro Publica piece is very good and refreshing. Credit where credit’s due, it was familiar ground thanks to Steve H’s work here and in the WAPO opinions section.

  6. ” On the day before the bill was to come to a final vote in the legislature, Angela Navarro, the deputy secretary of commerce, who was acting as the administration’s mediator in the talks, directed that a small “tweak” be made in the legislation. That “tweak” resulted in a $2.5 billion increase in the acceptable cost of Dominion’s proposed wind farm — an increase that ratepayers would be on the hook for. Navarro says that the language change was negotiated with the group. “I think we discussed it amongst all the stakeholders,” she said.

    Representatives of the environmental groups deny knowing anything about it. ”

    this sounds like either the Environmental groups were clueless rubes and not really a part of the negotiations – they were just window decoration – or someone is not telling the truth or both.

    • No. It has nothing to do with window decoration.

      It has to do with puts and calls. People with those kinds of details make money.

      • Perhaps – did the enviros sell out their souls for wind or were they just clueless? I got the impression from Haner and Bacon that they may have been complicit and truly willing to sell out their souls for uber expensive wind.

        • Well, James and Steve have no reason for you to NOT to have that impression, now do they?

          • could be a difference between blog commentary and RTD “reporting” ?

            I dunno. I just got the impression that the enviros were so hell bent on getting wind that they did not care about the cost or if it came out of ratepayers hides.

            If James and Steve were going to further opine on this – I wonder what they would say now.

    • Angela got played. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if one of those calls she got from Dominion told her they were pulling support for this bill at the 11th hour and 59th minute if she didn’t agree to this one little tweak…..

      • This happened how long ago – and it never got out until now – through “investigative” journalism?

        Was everyone involved so embarassed they got “played” that they just kept quiet – and the Dems and the Enviros took the blame ?

  7. Nancy Naive,

    • Larry, it was a room full of people and groups. I get reminded all the time that “environmentalists” covers a large waterfront. Some were clueless. Some were so in love with their own bill they didn’t pay attention as the sleight of hand was pulled. Some think, still, that they are as smart or smarter than Dominion and will come out on top in the end. One particular good lawyer comes to mind….Some were just blown away to be sitting at the big kid table.

      Dominion took a whole bunch of issues and jammed them into one bill, a classic legislative maneuver to make it hard to vote nay. Don’t forget that PIPP element, the new welfare transfer payments to help poor people with electric bills (and other’s expense). There were other “social justice” elements making it hard for the Black caucus to vote no. Right now, that is the House in whole — with that group you get all the other Dems in line.

      I saw the late change in the bill that added to the allowed profits on the wind turbines. Checked with a friend who confirmed it was significant indeed, added details. He begged me to write it up here….never did. But did AG Herring suddenly call a news conference and condemn the bill? No. I put him the “too in love with the bill” category — willing to sell out the ratepayers to get a flashy national rep for offshore wind.

      In short, they….got….played.

      • re: ” But did AG Herring suddenly call a news conference and condemn the bill? ”

        geeze… we rely on the AG to stop bad legislation?

        I don’t know….. this sounds like a classic backdoor skullduggery deal to me… and the enviro’s were just as clueless as most of the others in the room… How would the AG know this was going on?

  8. Baconator with extra cheese

    No worries. We were all told green energy is much much cheaper than natural gas. So cheap we couldn’t afford not to do.
    It’s definitely much cheaper for those who will get the new energy welfare deal. And if it doesn’t work when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining then I guess it is cheaper… no power no spin of the meter.

    • It’s cheaper when you can burn solar or wind INSTEAD of gas.

      You still have to burn gas at night but if you have enough wind/solar during the day – you will need it a lot less.

      Making it and either / or argument is a fail.

      • Baconator with extra cheese

        So maintaining the gas plants and running about 1/2 the time, building solar and wind, and maintaining solar and wind is cheaper than just running gas plants. Huh… to me it sounds like Dominion is licking their chops at the potential profit margin….
        What’s that Dominion dividend again?

        • running solar/wind, when you can, reduces the amount of gas needed. You still need the gas plants especially when wind/solar are not available and nukes are not enough.

          It is really not that different than when gas became more available and was cheaper and less polluting than coal.

          We are shutting down coal plants as we have build more gas.

          And now, we’re evolving again to use other viable fuels – like wind and solar – when we can.

          The point is – that this actually is a fiscally conservative common sense thing as opposed to some radical concept that is not feasible.

          But the whole thing has become so political than even common sense things have become demonized over the global warming issue.

          • Baconator with extra cheese

            It is purely a systemically racist scheme by the administration to further extract money from BIPOCs and steal indigenous lands to build their solar panels.
            And all you worry about is $$$ and “reliable” electicity to heat and cool your gentrified house on stolen Powhatan lands.

  9. I think of it like Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans said, not really saving the planet. But what Moore missed, nobody cares. Dems only want to get to pick the winners they want to see being justified politically correct winners.

  10. Sending parties off to negotiate without legislators is not new. It is almost a standard solution used regularly. The electric issues have typically been hosted by someone in the Administration or Attorney General’s office. As one who has participated in one of these, they don’t feel like true negotiations. From what I’ve read, it seems that the 2020 was more of a true negotiation, but always, somehow Dominion gets the opportunity to “slide something in” that most are unaware of. Most bill patrons aren’t even warned of what is inserted. But they dare not admit that. “Getting along” with Dominion is valued to a level that allows the company to take advantage of everyone and every system.

    • However, hearing what actually happened contradicts the narrative that the enviros took the deal even though the cost was outrageous. I does not sound like even most of the Dems knew either.

      One presumes, perhaps wrongly, that the people who voted on it saw the bill language and the fiscal impact?

      This is sausage-making at it’s worst or best depending on how one looks at it.

      • “One presumes, perhaps wrongly, that the people who voted on it saw the bill language and the fiscal impact?”

        Any elected legislator who would vote to pass a bill without “[seeing] the bill language and the fiscal impact” is unworthy of our votes no matter their political party. “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it” is not an acceptable philosophy, especially from the patron of the bill in question.

    • Another of the “fourteen people in a room for fourteen days” heard from…Was it really 14 years ago? Yes…..

    • Did the environmental groups have anyone advising them that actually knows public utility law? Screwing ratepayers in the name of saving the world is hardly a good result.

    • And of course, all sides want nothing to do with the SCC whose Staff can be counted on to deliver hard truths to both sides….

  11. Dominion produces two products.

    One is never going to change or be improved for its customers. You will never see an ad for “new and improved Dominion electricty with essential oils for that clean after a rainstorm smell.” They can improve delivery, reliability and reduce accounting overhead, or they can reduce waste and pollution in production. That’s pretty much it; the product never changes. Moreover, any innovations must produce a return on investment, preferably immediate, but a hedge against future costs will do, too. It was hoped solar and wind fit the hedge.

    The second product is less, je ne sais pas, shocking. Income. And the customers are the institutional investors. Those customers want two things or they walk. A consistent dividend with a reliable dividend increase to keep, for one, America’s retirees alive and consuming. This is the product they will defend to the death. This is why they “slip” things into negotiations. Anything to keep that dividend coming and increasing. Any dip, out of sync with the other utilities, is devastating.

    The investment in wind and solar put that dividend at risk, and by God, somebody — but not them — is going to pay to protect it. That’s the life of a utility.

  12. Dominion’s actions were predictable. When it became clear that republicans were likely to lose control on the Legislature, Dominion sought ways to be favored by democrats. Embracing the environment5al agenda through the Clean Energy Act was the way to achieve that.
    No one can explain the logic of law makers picking a date for zero emissions and also picking the preferred source of energy. It would make more sense to require Domonion to develop a 5-10 year plan for reducing emissions and then letting it choose the energy mix to achieve it.
    All of this assumes that the Clean Energy Act will have a positive effect on climate. It won’t because China and developing countries, the major sources of carbon emission, are still large consumers of coal. China has plans to build 200-300 coal fired plants over the next decade or so.
    For anyone who wants to do a deep dive into how Dominion operates, ready Bruce Yandle’s Bootleggers and Baptist, an insightful work on public choice theory.

    • You also have to look at this:

      and acknowledge that the developed countries lead the way on issues like this and others follow eventually.

      You have to start somewhere. If everyone stands around waiting for the other guy – nothing happens.

      We USED to lead on issues. This country was a world leader on reducing pollution, humanitarian rights, health care, and literacy.

      • Who is suggesting that we just stand around? Your chart is misleading in that the numbers are not adjusted for population density and transportation systems. According to EIA our carbon or CO2 emissions have been declining since that late 90s and have declined in 8 out of the last 12 years. Last year, they were down 2.8% and more importantly carbon intensity declined 2%.
        We can debate the rate at which they should decline but history has demonstrated that government is a very poor picker of winners. Why not let market forces and technology dictate the rate of decline. The expansion of natural gas over the past decade has been the kiss of death for coal and recent developments have shown significant progress in small modular nuclear reactors.
        Those who have mandated a rush to wind and solar have paid a steep economic prices. Do you want Virginia to be like California and Germany?

        • No my chart. It’s a chart of actual data and it includes all energy use.

          One big point is that we use far more energy per capita even though our carbon has been reducing, we still use far more energy per person than all other countries and about 3-4 times as much as people in China.

          Making this an extreme all or nothing argument is not useful.

          We CAN reduce our energy use AND maintain our reliability.

          For decades, Conservatives have argued environment and conservation versus economic wellbeing and it’s just a bogus argument. We have cleaned up our rivers and or air quality by putting emission standards on cars, pollution restrictions on rivers, and energy efficiency standards on things like furances, hvac and lights and closing coal plants.

          And we still have reliable energy.

          California and Germany got out in front of their skies… they pushed the envelope too far – and they know it and are learning from it.

          Anyone who thinks we can replace fossil fuels with all wind/solar is living in LA LA Land but on the other hand, those that think wind/solar have no place in our energy grid are also living in LA LA Land. Somewhere in the middle of this is some common sense and true “conservatism”.

          • To do a real comparison between countries you need to adjust for demographics and population density. I think you will find out that the real reason for our higher use is density. A comparison with China is meaningless since most Chinese live in rural areas, don’t have cars, and don’t have central power in villages.
            I agree however that it should be possible to find common ground. A good place to start is to remove subsidies designed to create incentives to adopt a particular technology and to make sure that there is a level playing field.

          • in terms of density in China – you might want to look at a list of their cities – that most Americans are just ignorant about (including me):


            re: ” I agree however that it should be possible to find common ground. A good place to start is to remove subsidies designed to create incentives to adopt a particular technology and to make sure that there is a level playing field.”

            You are aware of nuclear power subsidies, right?

            To date, the least expensive fuels have been the ones that pollute most. coal would still be the least expensive if we did not have stricter air emission standards, and did not require clean up of coal ash – much less, not even counting the mountain tops that have been blasted away and the resultilng acid runoff into streams.

            I am not anti-gas even though it is said to have higher methane emissions because until/unless we find a way to store wind/solar cost-effectively, we’ll need gas to power the night (unless we build a lot more nukes).

            To me, middle ground is NOT opposing solar/wind for no real reason other than partisan opposition to it. Very few on the left oppose wind/solar – almost all of the opposition to it comes from the right.

          • In China 40% of he population lives in rural areas. By comparison, in the US only 20% do. That is why population density and demographics have to be taken into account in making energy use comparisons.

            I oppose all subsidies but a case can be made for limited time subsidies to jump start a new technology. The problem is that those on the receiving end always lobby to have them extended. Government should set tough but realistic standards and then let the market determine how best to cost-effectively meet them taking into account total system costs.

      • Energy use = wealth = sufficient prosperity to afford luxuries like conservation, protected forests, solar panels, Teslas. That chart Larry just shows us as the wealthiest economy on Earth. This is a bad thing?? Larry, meet Mr. Malthus…

        • other “wealthy” countries, including those who actually do provide health care for ALL of their citizens – and who, as a result, live longer than US folks – use 1/2 the energy we do.

          In other words they use less energy and get better health care and live longer?


          In Haners world – more wealth = waste money on energy, pollute more and live shorter lives.

          since when did “Conserve” mean the opposite when you add –atism”to the that word?

          • Doesn’t set a real good example when the GSA’s solution for cooling their HQ in DC is a bunch of window units.

          • Your comment shows that it is possible to string several facts together and make it appear that there is a cause and effect relationship. I think that the countries that you are referring to have a far greater population density than the US. To do a real comparison you need to compare them with cities that have comparable densities.

          • You’d have to explain why density has anything to do with energy use.

            What relevance does that have?

          • It’s quite simple. Cities have a higher population density than rural areas. As a result, people drive less and use energy differently. In rural areas, people have to drive longer distances which mean that they use more energy.

            As for countries that provide universal health care like Sweden and Switzerland, they mandate minimum coverages but permit citizens to buy private insurance. There is a lot that could be done here to make health insurance better and less costly but politics has been too big a hurdle to overcome.

          • We have a much denser population on the whole than China yet we use more energy that more rural China?

            Shouldn’t we be using LESS per capita?

            FWIW, I don’t think rural china has much electricity to start with and what they do have is used on about a 1/5 basis of US per capita use.

            the problem is China has a lot more population and it’s the total amount of energy used/pollution generated not individual use.

          • “We have a much denser population on the whole than China..”

            No we don’t.

            U.S. Population Density = 36 persons per square-kilometer
            China Population Density = 153 persons per square-kilometer

        • Energy use = wealth – waste – polution = less sufficient prosperity to afford luxuries like conservation, protected forests, solar panels, Teslas.

      • Do you have a chart showing carbon emissions per capita? I’ll bet the U.S. is not the highest by that metric.

    • “It would make more sense to require Dominion to develop a 5-10 year plan for reducing emissions and then letting it choose the energy mix to achieve it.”

      You are 100% correct, but that would not guarantee a profit for Dominion, would it?

      • It’s all about making money while service to rate payers is secondary and a means to an end.

        • Bill, you are mostly right. They do provide very good, if not excellent, service, they just do it at excessive cost to customers, fully aided and abetted by both sides of the aisle in the General Assembly.

          When the Rs controlled, Dominion built fossil units (including one completely outside its service area to assuage the mountain legislators) and, as you noted, when the Ds came into power, Dominion pivots to building even more expensive off shore wind, as well as solar for which they need roughly 4 MW to get 1 MW credit in the capacity market of PJM. In other words, to achieve 1,000 MW of capacity coverage (required by PJM rules) they have to build or buy 4,000 MW of solar generation. That 1,000 MW gas plant that they will be obligated to retire early? It provided nearly the entire 1,000 MW of capacity credit.

  13. Democrats love Dominion, gimme a break.
    It is state-run monopoly that the elected officials can utilize to mandate their politically-correct energy choices. No freedom of choice, No attempt to keep rates lower. I also fought this is NJ where coal-power was the Dem-advocated flavor of the month. Nothing has changed (except the flavor).

    • P.S.- Kind of comical, but when we lived in New Jersey, around 1990, the Dems passed a state policy mandate that ALL future power plants in NJ would be coal-fired. The state and utilities were really upset about 3rd party natural gas plants taking up the power needs, thereby displacing the politically-favored utility-coal fired model. Dems just gotta have mandates and they like make those mandates last forever.

      • It’s almost like their feigned concern about the environment is really about power and control.

        I just saw that they’re pushing a bill that, among other things, would prevent the police from pulling someone over for a loud exhaust.

        Guess they don’t care about noise pollution.

    • OK, first, not all Ds love Dominion, but enough of them do to ensure that the Company stays in full control of its regulatory fate. Neither side wants to pass the job of regulation back to the SCC. Therefore, I agree that nobody in the legislature, D or R, wants the reduced rates that the SCC has determined customers should be getting.

      But, Dominion is not a “state-run monopoly.” We may be splitting hairs here, but while Dominion (like all other electric utilities in Virginia) has a state-certificated service area, nobody in government runs the company.

      As I noted above, when the Rs were in control, Dominion built fossil units and now that the Ds are in control, they prefer non-carbon emitting generation.

      I don’t know when you were in NJ and fighting coal-fired generation, but you ultimately prevailed–there are no longer ANY coal-fired units operating in the Garden State.

  14. 40% of China’s population lives in rural areas while only 20% of ours does. The figures you cite don’t adequately reflect this fact. Demographics matter.

  15. It’s a little bit counter-intuitive. Let me add more info. Because China has 1.4 billion people – they have more than twice as many people living in Cities than we do. Also – most of rural America is electrified and uses equipment powered by electricity and fossil fuels whereas much of rural China farms like we did 50-100 years ago.

    On a per capita basis – here is the carbon emission data:

    CO2 emissions by country/region name

    USA 16.1
    China 8.0

    In simple terms China is more than 4 times as large as us, yet even though they use less per capita – the increased population make them emit more CO2.

    In order for them to cut back further, they’d have to cut back per capita as well as not gain population…

    In general, the more advanced countries use more energy per capita and have more opportunity to become more efficient whereas less developed countries are already lower on a per capita basis and no real opportunity to reduce emissions unless they change the way they produce electricity.

    As of March 2019, China has 46 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 42.8 GW and 11 under construction with a capacity of 10.8 GW. Additional reactors are planned for an additional 36 GW.

    China has 121 gigawatts of coal plants under construction, which is more than is being built in the rest of the world combined.

    I’d certainly listen to your thoughts on this.

  16. and this: ” China is now the world leader in production, export, and installation of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. It aims to produce 50 percent of its energy from non-fossil sources, including nuclear and renewable, by 2030.”

    China is where we were at 50-100 years ago on electricity – and they are doing their version of rural electrification.

    Even if they do not add a single killowatt on a per capita basis – they will be increasing their total emissions because they are essentially still developinging while we are more mature and now trying to cut back on a per-capita basis.

    They are 1/2 what we are on a per capita basis.

Leave a Reply